Tue, 6 Apr 1999 From: "Lazenby, Derek" <Derek.Lazenby@AniteSystems.com>

Regardless of the variant of polar shifting one may wish to consider,
(Hapgood, Peterson or any body else), can some one explain why it should
necessarily be incompatible with tectonics? I ask because it seems to me
that the existence slow and rapid crust movements are not mutually
exclusive. If, (the operative word!) one can assume that a polar shift is
simply a rotation of an outer layer of the onion, then surely all the plates
would rotate by similar amounts. The slow creep would be hardly be affected
as the relative positions of the plates would be virtually unchanged, hence
both mechanisms could operate with little interaction.
 
It seems a shame to me that there should be a tectonics only view, given
that one of the major problems initially identified by Hapgood was a
mechanism for the movement of the crust,  and that tectonics effectively
removes it as a problem, thereby enabling the shifting theory to be given
new life! So one might think that just "adding a bit extra" to known theory,
without in any way invalidating any part of existing theory, would not be
unwelcome, especially as there seem to be a number of issues that could be a
least partially resolved by accepting polar shifting.
 
Regards
Derek Lazenby
 
PS. Any chance of a notification by e-mail of any replies as it may be some
time before I visit the site again otherwise. Or even better any chance of
replies being forwarded to me?