From: NatCenter@aol.com Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 13:02:45 -0600
From: Sam Emerson <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Hapgood's Theory
The more I consider Hapgood's theory and the huge body of evidence presented by the individual disciplines of Geology, Archaeology and Anthropology, albeit those disciplines do not easily surrender the pieces that do not seem to fit their particular theories for an objective scrutiny, the farther I go thinking that perhaps Hapgood as the "outsider" may very well have come upon a Unifying Theory much like what Physics is searching for. A very plausible explanation for what are considered to be anomalies. A truly objective board of inquiry would probably agree.
Thank You, Sam Emerson
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:46:34 EDT
Subject: fact, hypothesis, theory
I just wanted to comment on your page discussing fact vs. theory. This is a topic near and dear to my heart, a topic I spend much time in working with teachers. I support the general educational premise of constructivist theory, one in which we construct an understanding of our world by the accumulation of information in ways that make sense to us. It is very personal and unique in that way I guess.
In talking to teachers about this, we define facts, vs hypotheses vs theories. We discuss whether or not facts can change, and how hypotheses andtheories are based on the accummulation of facts, to form patterns of understanding. If we don't provide people with the facts necessary to form their own patterns to construct their own understanding,then when teachers present concepts based on those facts, the learner has two choices, to memorize the information in the hope that at some time the data will come around to which the concept can be tied, or the information is assumed to be fact (although that usually results in a certain confusion in the learner without their understanding why). Dr. Mary Budd Rowe of the University of Florida once did research on science education in which she took a typical high school science text book and took out all the new information... vocabulary, facts, theories, concepts, whatever. She determined that if a teacher were to teach all the information in the textbook over a school year, he/she would need to present a new piece of information every 2-3 minutes. Worse, the student would need to be able to absorb and assimilate that information in the same amount of time. And one wonders why kids hate science? Maybe it's because at that rate, most of the information has to be memorized to be remembered... fact, theory, etc. all jumbled together. Over the school year it amounts to about 3,000 pieces of information, compated to say less than 1,500 words in a typcial foreign language class.
Most teachers are surprized when they look closely at their textbook and realize that more than 95% of the information in their textbook isn't fact,but hypothesis, theory and concepts.... subject to change as new information is uncovered. Nice to see others out there trying to communicate this to the public.
From: "Jim Bowles" <email@example.com> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 14:40:35 -0400 in response to Jeff Abelin
On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 Jeff Abelin wrote [& I'm paraphrasing]: I'm intrigued by the idea that Hapgood elegantly explains the sudden onset and retreat of ice ages through a theory of crustal displacements. However, there are problems in the theory. The evidence presented in Graham Hancock's book Fingerprints of the Gods suggests [p 345] that the Sphinx is vastly older than current archeological theories allow. So if the sphinx dates [say] to the end of the last ice age how is it that we find the sphinx to be perfectly aligned in an easterly direction today? Crustal displacement of the magnitude suggested by Hapgood would have offset the alignment of the sphinx considerably.
JimB: Just about everyone would agree on the antiquity of the Sphinx, but its true age is hidden by the mis-belief that it is aligned ["perfectly"]eastward. It is not! In short Hapgood's theories of crustal displacement actually help date the Sphinx at about 30,000 BC. This, as shown by the facts that I'll present here, puts Giza on the equator when the Sphinx was cut from the equatorial bed rock!
The spine of the Sphinx is actually aligned 4 degrees north of east, and a perpendicular [accurately] drawn northward from its spine aligns [not with the pole in the Arctic] but with Hapgood's ancient pole in Alaska. Only the reconstructed face of the Sphinx is looking eastward. To start the proof, let me ask you to get a world globe, then stretch a string [taughtly] between Giza and the pan handle of Alaska @ [60 N. lat; 140 W long,] andnote that the string misses the modern pole in the Arctic by about four degrees. To see this in the Sphinx, go to www.artbell.com, go to the [search engine] and type in Caroline Davies, open the first entry [Egypt Pyramids and The Sphinx] and look at the face of the Sphinx. It is mis-aligned by this same 4 degrees.
Now if you'll measure between the pole position in Alaska, @ [60 N; 140 W] and Giza @ [about 30 N; 31 E] you'll see that it is exactly 90 degrees, or the equivalent of one meridian length, [pole to the equator] hence when Alaska was on the equator Giza, and the Sphinx were on the equator. The crust has shifted [at least] twice following the Alaskan Era, moving from [60 N. lat; 140 W long] to the eastern shores of Hudson Bay @ [about 60 deg. N lat; 80 deg. W long] and from there to the Arctic. We can only assign the apparent [modern] alignment of the Sphinx eastward to coincidence. In my article [published in "Atlantis Rising," [issue 18] titled, "Hapgood Revisited," see URL below] I suggest that the movement of the crust does not go linearly from pole position to pole position, but rather it bobs back and forth [from the Arctic to Alaska and back] then [from the Arctic to Hudson Bay and back] and now its in the Arctic again! Let's just hope that Richard W. Noone's date of 5/5/2000 for the next shift is incorrect!! [re., 5/5/2000, Ice: The Ultimate Disaster}
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 20:40:07 +0200
From: Andy Brauer <AndyB@megaweb.co.za>
Subject: Theroy on Pole Shift
To the pole shift followers. Consider the atom and relate it to our solar system. Take an orange and mark it with an arrow pointing left to right.Mark the top North and the bottom South. rotate the orange in the direction of the arrow. It turns as the earth does. Now slowly keep turning the orange but start tilting the orange. follow the tilt into a figure 8 but keep the direction constant. at the centre of the figure 8 North is now at the bottom and south is at the top. What happens half way? polar shift Kimberley in South Africa was once a polar region.
Andy Brauer Kempton Park South Africa
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 01:06:06 -0500
From: John Mangarella <firstname.lastname@example.org>
A FEW THOUGHTS ABOUT RADICAL POLE SHIFT.
I appreciate your Pole Shift web site and hope that it generates new concepts in the field. As for my own views, I've always thought PoleShifting to be a violent and catastrophic event that could effectively accomplish a supplanting of the poles with the equater in a space of about=four hours. I've read some of the other commentary here, especially Mr. Ellenberger's critiques.
First, and probably toughest, I think we have to discard the idea of an "Ice Age" as it is presently viewed. What we may perceive as an "Ice Age"might very well be the gradual melting and receeding of the ice following a pole shift. It seems to me that we never really see the "Ice Age" glaciers move to cover land masses, they are always in recession. Because we see them in recession, we assume they moved forward in the same way. It may not be the case. Second, plate tectonics probably doesn't have much to do with the actual pole shift. I think there's more there in earthquake study than in pole shift study. Yet, plate tectonics is a mechanism that is held quite highly if you feel that pole shifting consists of the slippage of the earth's crust. It's a way of partially explaining a possible trigger mechanism. And, maybe it is.
I ask this, suppose the dynamics of pole shifting really means that the entire planet capsizes? Such an event would explain how the Antarctic landmass might travel to the Equator in approximately four hours. Four hours would be time enough to flash freeze a mastodon solid enough to preserve the meat. Meat that could be cooked and eaten thousands of years later. Another point, even though we all have to do the math on the possiblities of pole shifting, (a point I will leave to the math experts, one of which I am not) I think there is other evidence scattered about the planet and questions that should be asked. Such as, The Sudan Basin, a spot where theAncient Egyptians claimed housed a fresh water sea that spread across the Sahara--could such a basin have been made by the massive, oppressive weight of a former ice cap? If that's probable, then maybe the watermarks on the Sphinx might well be from receeding ice that has melted and refroze on a daily basis? Is it possible? Who knows? Is it worth a look? Certainly. Can you see how troubling such a thought might be to leading Egyptologists? If the watermarks on the Sphinx were caused by ice then that indicates the Sphinx was locked in an ice cap. If it was locked in such a cap then it may well have been situated at the top of the planet when the Sudan Basin was located there. If that follows, then the Sphinx belongs to a civilization say, two pole shifts ago, a civilization that may have flourished and then perished when the Sudan Basin was driven to the North Polar position. Is it possible? It's worth a look.
If the Sahara was formerly an ice cap then it was at the top of the planet at one time. That sets Antarctica on the Equator. When the Sahara moves toit's present position, the South Polar Ice Cap moves to the bottom of the planet. Maybe we have to search the globe for previous basins caused by ice and THEN apply the math. If we can find these places then we're not dealing with the mathmatics of pole shift anymore. We're dealing with the mathmatics of movement of various land masses to the spots they may have previously occuppied.
At this point, I don't want to delve into the Bible but there is a section prior to Noah's story that might be worth a peek. It's a short paragraphtitled The Coming of The Nephilim. It mentions the Sons of Gods mating with the Daughters of Man. I'm not going to get into that argument but I want to point out something that may relate to the pole shift. This small paragraph separates Genesis effectively into two very different maps of the world. The map of Adam that existed up to the time of Noah. Then the map that Noah's children lived by after The Flood. The key here is to glance at human longevity described in those few Bible pages. Prior to the Flood, (and the Nephilim) man allegedly lives for hundreds of years. After Noah, man's longevity is cut to 120 years. As though the catastrophe of the the planet (a pole shift) would not support extended longevity. For whatever reason, Mankind altered to adapt. Even though this is a very small, silent clue it still shouts loudly that the Adam's world map was totally different than Noah's. Maybe we should be looking for these maps.
Again, good look and much success with your web site.
John A. Mangarella
From: "Pole Shift" <email@example.com>
Subject: Answers to P.S. questions on web page
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:48:11 PST
In answer to your questions at
http://www.poleshift.org/KEY_QUESTIONS.html: Is massive over accumulation of polar ice possible? If possible, under what conditions is it probable? If so, how much ice is needed to shift the earth's rotational axis?
Polar ice weight is not the cause of pole shifts. It is the magnetic pus from the passage of Nibiru that is. Do you think the amount of polar icehas much influence on the Earth's rotation? No. Look into magnetic influences for such.
Did any ancients speak of radical repositioning of the star field? They did indeed! This is the reason that the great pyramid formation ofOrion in Egypt no longer points to its target constellation in the sky any more.
>How slowly or suddenly could this shift happen?
Very swift -- 90 degree shift in about one hour. This explains why some fossilized animals have been discovered as if they were instantly 'frozen',as Velikovsky points out in his book, "The Ivory Islands" on pages 4-6. These animals practically WERE instantly frozen. The same will occur to the life in India in 2003 when that region becomes the new south pole.
>What amount of axis shift, if any, could cause massive crusal displacement?
Such examples can be found in mountain cliffs that rise sheer by thousands of feet. Such represents tearing of solid rock. Any thought in what amount of force would be required to produce such? The answer is major prior pole shifts.
>If so, have one or more world-wide shifts already occured?
Yes. There is much evidence. Here is a couple examples: "Beneath the sea in the Bahamas lies evidence of civilizations that went under the waves - highways and highway markers, clearly manmade. These areas have been explored by many fortune hunters, recorded by camera, and published in full color repeatedly. Likewise ancient Incan cities stand so high in altitude that the cities could not have been built, much less lived in. Yet the scientific community continues to claim that Earth change happen gently, inch by inch, at the pace experienced during the memory of their current civilization. Antarctica bears witness to her past as a steamy swamp, and likewise the North Seas, where oil is extracted. Likewise the temperate regions are scared by what is termed the Ice Ages, where these regions were as snow and ice packed as the poles. A clue to these changes lies in the magnetism frozen in hardened lava, which demonstrates that Magnetic North and South changed now and then. Has any adequate explanation been proffered by the scientific community? None has, as all the explanations have the Earth's thin crust remaining in place, as the thought that they are standing on a raft that can move on the sea of magma beneath them is too frightening to contemplate."
(above quoted from http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p62.htm)
>If so, are such shifts predictable?
Yes. There is much evidence that they occur approx. every 3600 years, such as indicated at: http://www.zetatalk.com/info/tinfo272.htm. I recommend familiarizing yourself and your group with such evidence.
>If so, could polar ice accumulation be limited ?
>If so, intentionally or accidentally?
As I said, we are heading down the wrong path to find pole shift answers to be caused by polar ice accumulations. Such are the results of pole shifts, not the cause. The magnetic push on the Earth from the passage of Nibiru causes pole shifts, such as described rather eloquently at:
"Hapgood and others have suggested answers to some of these questions. But that does not, and should not, close the debate. We invite our guests at Pole Shift Forum to revise these or suggest new core questions that must be answered on the way to or from answering these. All will be posted here, for further revision and additions, as you make them necessary."
I hope you keep your promise!
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:14:07 -0600
From: kevin Wiggins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: pivot points?
I was perusing your website and wondered if you have any information on a specific area about the shift or know where I couldfind this answer. In studying different aspects of the shift it has come to my attention that if and when a shift occurs that the shift must occur around an axis and when it does there should be what have been termed "pivot points" around which the shift takes place. I am trying to find out how someone could calculate where these pivot points would be and even if this idea is correct. If you have any idea what I am talking about please email me and let me know of any suggestions as to this topic. Thank you.
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:59:55 -0800
From: Beth James <email@example.com>
Subject: comments re; Hapgood's theory
Hi M. Robbins,
Sorry to find your site is mostly just in the under construction state. However, I think it'll be a good one. Now I'm no scientist but I got interested in Hapgood's idea of poleshift after reading Finger Prints of the Gods by G. Hancock......But I was disappointed to learn that Hapgood revised his theory to slow-time (5000 years) from fast-time (hours).....Because it doesn't/can't account for the huge numbers of frozen animal carcasses with undigested food still in their stomaches. Nor the valleys full of twisted and torn apart bodies of same Nor the discovery of a 90 foot fruit tree with fruit still on the branches. Nor the universality of similar Flood Myths and stories all around the planet.
In short, in my opinion he should stick with the fast version. Perhaps his mathematical calculations didn't include enough astronomical data. I have also been thinking that in the normal course of things overburdened icecaps COULD be enough to tip the scales, given other atronomical phenomenon, but not in these decades with the polar caps melting as they are and at the rate they are...(apparently are, anyway) That's all. I'd be interested in any replies this might stimulate.
Yours Beth James
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 11:55:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Ryan Giorgis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
My name is Ryan Giorgis.
I have spent many an hour on the enternet trying to track down information on an earth pole shift. After crunching some information about this subject through prophets, science, and personall feelings, I would like to hear what you think of my theory? On May 5,2000, I believe that the planets are going to align with the Earth on one side of the sun and all the other planets on the other. I believe that this has scientific backing but I'm not sure. It is so hard to find anything about it. If this is the case, has this happened before, and could the gravity of all the planets and the sun pulling on the Earth be enough to shift our axis. As I said, I don't know if this is way off base or not, but I would love to hear back from you with your thoughts and maybe some research because I can't seem to find anything on my own. I'm not the smartest apple in the bunch and don't have a whole lot of experience in real world, hard scientific research. I would love a little help. Your thoughts please.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:56:32 EST
Subject: THE EARTHE EARTH AS A MECHANICAL MOTOR /GENERATOR .
BREIFLY MY THEORY GOES LIKE THIS: THE EARTH AS A MOTOR FUNCTIONS TO KEEP MAGNETIC FIELDS AND MOMENTUM OF ROTATION IN BALANCE TO KEEP THE AXIS 'S STABLE. IT'S FUEL SCOURCE IS SOLAR RADIATION .ITS METERING DEVICES ARE THE WHOLES IN THE OZONE ABOVE OUR PRESENT POLES,THEY OPEN AND CLOSE TO METER THE AMOUNT OF SOLAR ENERGY OBTAINED FROM THE SUN, THIS AMOUNT OF ENERGY MUST BE METERED TO MAINTAIN THE MOMENTUM OF SPECIFIC ROTATION AS WELL AS THE MAGNETIC FORCES THAT KEEP US ON OUR PRESENT AXIS'S TO MUCH ENERGY WE TIP ON OUR AXIS TO LITTLE ENERGY WE TIP ON OUR AXIS.CAUSE AND EFFECT: EVERY 20,000 OUR PLANETS COME INTO ALIGNMENT ONE TO MANY TIMES .THE EARTH IS FOR A PERIOD LEADING UP TO THE 20,000 YEAR MARK TEETERING SLIGHTLY AT EACH ALIGNMENT.THERE ARE REPORTS OF THESE EVENTS.THE REASON IT HAPPENS IS THAT FOR THOSE YEARS THAT SURROUND THE 20,000 MARK THE EARTH IS FIGHTING FOR THE SOLAR FUEL IT NEEDS.PICTURE ALL HE PLANETS LIKE SPOKES ON A RIM SPREAD AROUND THE EQUATOR OF THE SUN EACH GETTING IT'S NEEDED SHARE OF POWER FOR THE MOTOR, AT THESE TIMES THE WHOLES ON ALL PLANETS ARE CLOSED DOWN TO A DEGREE. WHEN PLANETS ARE ALL IN A LINE THEY ARE ALL FIGHTING FOR THE SAME SOLAR POWER LINE,AT THESE TIMES LIKE THESE THE WHOLES ARE WIDE...OPEN ,AS HAVE BEEN THE REPORTS ABOUT THE OZONE WHOLES .MAN-MADE WHOLES BY CONTANIMENTS? NO.THE OCEANS ARE HEATING UP BECAUSE AS EARTH LOOSES ITS POWER IT TENDS TO SLOW DOWN ( DOES TIME SLOW ALSO?) WHEN THIS HAPPENS THE MOLTAN CORE DOES STAY COOLED BY THE OCEANS ,AND BEGINS TO HEAT FROM BELOW, AS EVIDENT FROM THE HIGH WATER TEMPERATURES.WHEN THE EARTH SLOWS DOWN TO ACERTAIN 20,000 YEAR POINT IT CHANGES POLARITY AND SHIFTS AXIS' BETWEEN TRUE NORTH AND SOUTH TO THAT OF MAGNETIC NORTH AND SOUTH.A CORE SAMPLE OF QUARTZ I SAW IN NATIONAL GEOGRAPHICS 10-13 YEARS AGO ,SHOWED WITH OUT A DOUBT THAT EVERY 20,000 YEARS THE POLARITY OF THE QUARTZ GRAIN HAS CHANGED .IT HAPPENS INSTANTANIOUSLY WITHOUT WARNING AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT A GREAT TIME KEEPER AND ELECTRICALY SENSITIVE THE QUARTZ CRYSTAL IS. RESEARCH THE ARTICLE. I HAVE ALSO SEEN TWO TRAVEL SPECIALS THAT UNKNOWINGLY ENDED UP TELLING OF MAJOR FLOODS THAT IN ONE,MADE ISLANDS OUT OF MOUNTAINS IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC, AND THE OTHER SHOWED PEOPLE TRAPPED AND DIED IN CAVES 600 FT UNDER WATER AT THE FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH IN FLORIDA.EDGAR CAYCE TALKED OF MAMOTHS THAT WERE KILLED SO FAST THEY HAD NEITHER TIME TO LAY DOWN OR DIE BEFORE THEY WERE FROZEN IN ICE/FLOOD CONTINENTAL DEPOSITIONING WHICH OCCURED BECAUSE OF POLARITY SHIFTS APPROXIMATLEY 20,000 YEARS AGO. REMINDS ME OF A DESCOVERY CHANNEL SPECIAL OF THESE MAMOUTHS IN SIBERIA THAT WERE JUST DESCOVERED PERFECTLY FROZEN/PRESERVED . I READ CAYCE'S PREDICTION @ 10:30 PM EST 03-28 00 .I SAW THE SPECIAL ONLY A WEEK BEFORE.DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.I BELIEVE THAT THE NUCLEAR TESTING AND DETONATIONS MAY BE OF HELP IN THAT THE EARTH WILL TAKE THE ENORMAS SOLAR LIKE ENERGY AND GROUND IT TO THE MOTOR IN A WAY THAT MAY HELP MAINTAIN THE NEEDED ENERGY FOR THE ENGINE TO KEEP UP ITS MOMENTUM.THERE ARE TO MANY COINCEDENCES TO IGNORE.
PLEASE RESPOND TO GERRY THANK YOU.
From: "Peter Sulman" <email@example.com>
Subject: new evidence of real formation of land under the ice
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:55:48 +0200
I would like to send you a graphic sketch taken from a German scientific magazine. It shows the most recent results of radar-supported detection of the solid ground below the antarctic ice. As you can see the white line denotes the visible form of the continent as we are used to have it on our maps, ice and all. The brownish parts are the parts of actual solid land covered by ice, the blue parts are what would be water if the ice weren't where it is. (The red region is;Queen Maud Land where peaks of a vast mountain region have been finally measured. These go up to 3000 meterds above sea level). If these new methods of measuring by radar are reliable I wonder what this would mean for your really interesting and - in a way mindshaking thought about presumed very ancient maps being much in advance of the scientific possibilities of the times during which these very ancient maps (or copies of these maps - or copies of copies of copies...) seem to have been used as models for those maps designed around the year 1500 which figure in your excellent Web site. Seen in the light of the graphic sketch I send you it seems that a technically much advanced population (before the times which we are used to think of as enlightened by growing scientific possibilities, like navigating the seas and making detailed plans of the world, particularly from a region still not covered completely by ice) should have been able to draw a more detailed picture of that continent, including the quite different shape of it altogether
Even though I would for some reason wish it would not be true, I rather tend to believe now that either those maps, in particular the Oronteus-Finaeus of the Antarctica, are based on experience dating from slightly prior to the time they were designed (and that the details aren't little more than "arabesques" of the designer which have become obsolete in the light of the new research or;they are ...... a hoax In this respect I always wondered why such "explosive" material should have rested "unharmed" in one of the world's most renowned libraries until Prof. Hapgood found out about it. Where did these maps come from? Were they from a collection in Europe bought buy the library? When the material had been earlier somewhere in Europe, why was nothing know about its "sensational" content? Has ever been made some kind of a test with thepaper and the ink etc Should this whole idea -- to come to the close -- vanish the way the infamous "Marsian face" has vanished after the new and much more detailed photographies of the region in question revealed it as being nothing more than a fantastic "sculpture" of natural forces, not in the least more impressive than any of those wonderful natural monuments in various states of the USA yours sincerely, David Meyerholt (hoping to be proven wrong with all the collected doubts)
From: "Peter Sulman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: new evidence of real formation of land under the ice
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 15:29:49 +0200
Q: Could you tell me the name and date of the German scientific magazine?
A: Of course! It is No. 5/2000 of Bild der
Wissenschaft ("Image of Science"), featuring an article about polar
research, titles "Berge im Eisgrab"("mountains in ice's tomb"), pages
16 - 20. This research is part of an international project of EPICA
(European project for ice coring inAntarctica). If you can't acces
the magazine I could send you photocopies of the article.
>From: "Teresa Holden" <email@example.com> Subject: Pole Shift...
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 07:12:34 -0500
I heard all the 5/5/2000 pole shift theories and did not buy into the gravitational pullof the "close 5 However, this morning, I swear to God, the sun is at the 11am position>in the sky and coming in my northernly exposed windows. The sun is always coming in the southernly exposed windows I live in a mobile home with the length running along the east west axis in Kansas. Never before has the sun come in the front windows! and it is so high in the sky at 6:30 am Is this a crust shift indicator Why wasn't it on the morning news Is this part of a normal "wobble" effect If anyone knows the answers I would like to hear from them
>Teresa Holden --firstname.lastname@example.org
This response is meant for web publication. i respect your approach and perspective. too often - both the "lay person" and the scientist - we have an axe to grind or pet theory to push. and those change over time - depending on how we feel or our needs at that time in our life .. if we have a need for consistency - our theories about life and the universe will lean consistent .. if we have a need for revolution - our theories about life and the universe will tend catastrophic .. many of us feel a need for earthly cleansing - and this translates into strong beliefs of armageddon - or end of the world scenarios .. i preface in this way because it is always important to consider the source when we hear or read something - and their motivations. i can't emphasize this enough - let me relate my story .. once my mother called me "my little charlatan" and a "friend" labelled me pseudoscientist - both of course hurt me as a human being - but both motivated me to be a better scientist .. at the core - i am a sensitive optimist - but this is tempered by experience to cynicism and distrust .. unfortunately - the very people i should see as allies - i see as burdened by the need for some kind of cosmic karmic scenario - paying back the earth for our sins - and being our "angels of light" because they feel lack of power in their own lives .. it saddens and isolates me . sometimes the simplest explanations are the correct explanation. for instance - current efforts at unification in physics have pushed multidimensions "to make things work out" - but these all originate from the probabilistic perspective - pushing an outmoded paradigm - long sorely needing a complete overhaul (see my personal web pages thru links below) .. similarly - why noone has considered the following as a simple explanation of polar shift - is beyond me .
A very simplistic but accurate model of the earth follows: we live on the relatively firm shell or outer crust. then there is a layer quite thick that is basically plastic magma - this is what the shell floats on .. inteterior to that is the solid nickel-iron core. this generates our magnetic field and therefore - our magnetic field is probably a good indicator of the relative orientation of the core - w/ respect to the shellso - in to out - we have the core - to magma shell - to outer firm shell - or plate level .. all moving in curious ways .. most likely - the magma moves in convection patterns driven by the differential between core and outer plate - in other words - just like boiling water convects - or the surface of the sun "boils" - or deeper in the sun - there are layers cycling - moving in loops - w/ respect to the surface and core - so the earth's magma layer convects (notice i also propose a core for the sun - providing a heat "balun" or ballast or heatsink - just like our polar caps on greenland and antarctica provide stabilization for earth's global temperature cycles
What is neglected in theories of the earth and sun are the cores. What if the earth's core was off center? what if it's rotation was misaligned w/ the shell? what forces would act on both as is so beautifully illustrated by some physics courses - earth is a gyro - but so is it's core. and if we propose a differential between core and shell - you have the simple explanation of polar shift. forget about ice - the relative contribution of mass from ice is negligible - consider the core position and rate spin and orientation w/ respect to the shell - and you have your answer to polar shift even wild movements in the shell can be easily explained by shell-core differential - by simply misaligning the core - as is evident by our moving poles .. even scarier is to consider - an offset core - if it were perfectly centered - the magnetic poles should shoot perfectly 180 degrees from each other thru the shell - but they don't so it must be off center - which is a scary thot a few computer simulations should be sufficient to test these ideas - but why we have heard Nothing from this perspective makes me suspicious .. as a final note - the sun's output has long been known to be much less in predicted neutrino flux - again i feel a complete "miss of the point" in fundamentals - add a nonreactive (iron is the most stable nuclear structure) core to the model of the sun and ^^ "miraculously" we have our explanation of neutrino flux "deficit" - it could be a neutrino absorber - and also heat stabilizer - again - as our polar caps stabilize temp on the earth .
*please visit my non-profit org page at* http://www.irth.org
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:39:41 -0700
I am attempting to correlate the Polar Shift cycles with the Mayan end date said to be (~December 21, 2012).I understand this is considered the end of the "Platonic Year" of 25,692 solar years. On that date our solar system is scheduled to cross the Galactic Equator again as it does once every 25,692 years. It could also be interpreted to predict that the poles will shift and that ocean currents, wind currents and subterranean lava flows will change direction.... predictions are based upon the fact that the flows of water down a drain switch direction upon crossing our own equator.....So to my question: Is there any correlation of known polar shift data to a~ 25,000 year cycle?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:15:39 -0400
I visited www.poleshift.org recently and decided to reply to your email regarding "hot spots". I say that crustal slippage and hot spots arecompatible with each other. Let a hot spot be represented by a hole in the surface of a hollow sphere (magma represents the hollow part). If one rotates the hollow sphere (say 30 degrees), the hole in the surface will still be in the same place relative to surface features. The hole wouldhowever be over a new magma location. The old magma location would be under a very solid tectonic plate. In essence, after a crustal shift, new magma would continue to rise thru the hot spot. No conflict in theories. Crustal slippage and continental drift are also compatible. As the tectonic plate slowly moves over a hot spot thru geological time, we get the Hawaiian Islands. The surface features do change slowly relative to each other via continental drift. A crustal slippage is a sudden event in my opinion (on the order of days or weeks). No conflict in theories. I believe the evidence discovered to date supports a crustal shift (geological, agricultural, historical, mathematical, etc). It is the mechanism that is in question. A build of ice at the poles, unbalancing the earth. An asteroid impact knocking the earth off kilter. These are the best possible causes of a crustal shift to date. As far as mechanism, stay tuned. New things are learned every day.
Regards, John L Stiff (Vienna, Va)
From: "Roland Hanke" <email@example.com> Subject: crustal slippage Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:27:45 -0800
I don't believe that rapid crustal slippage has
happened(at least not in the last several million years). Volcanic
islands are built up when a particular area of the crust sits over a
hot-spot in the mantle for an extended period of time. The long chain
of the present and past Hawiian Islands were created as the Pacific
Plate slid slowly over such a hot-spot under the Pacific Ocean. If
the crust slid around as some are contending these islands would be
scattered all over the Pacific Basin, or more likely, would not exist
at all. These islands were simply the first case to occur to me, and
because of them being strung out in a NW SE line are obvious counter
evidence. You can post this where ever you think appropriate.
From: MedievalLove@aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 04:34:16 EDT
I have recently become intrigued with this theory of polar shift, and though I am not degreed in this subject it makes such perfect sence. Ask yourself this, "how long has modern man existed?", some 100,000 years or more. Where is our history??? We can not continue to beleive that what we have as evidence pertaining to our history is all there is. Certainly not, for there are thousands upon thousands of years of history "missing" Are we (the last 6000-9000yrs of mankind) so special that we are the only homo sapians out of 90,000+ years to advance enough to leave a mark on this world? Personally, I think there is more to it then that. Look at how far we have advanced, whose to say that another era hasn't existed and sence gone by the wayside, leaving in its path mysterious footprints. For example; the stone faces at Easter Island. Recently geologists and such learned persons expect that the statues aren't only heads but that the bodies of these ancient relects extend some 50 feet below the surface. Now these learned persons have to face the question of how fast did the soil build up around statues. Thousands and thousands of years, way before man was "supposed" to be able do such things. I have a theory that coincides with Mr. Hapgoods theory of polar shifts. Taking into consideration that its silt and siola nd not lava flow that buried the statues. These statues would have accumulated silt, dirt, sand, etc, much faster if they had been underwater. Polar shifts could (I think they have) caused land masses to extend into the ocean, while bringing buried depths up to the surface. It would certainly answer many questions pertaining to our earths mysterious history.
Martha Burks, Geology student.
From: "Staf PBDL/ABI" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:30:28 +0200
I'm not a specialist, only an interested bystander. Excuse for abusing the English language. I'll try my best to give you my thought on the issue ofthe pole shift. Look at the massive ice cover at Antarctica. Can it be responsible for generating a centrifugal force big enough to rotate the earth lithosphere over the Astenosphere. Think of the physics of ice. At the surface, the temperature will be way under freezing and the ice is solid. However, going down, the temperature in the ice will rise due to insulation and due to the earth core temperature. Moreover pressure will be rising. Both factors cause that the ice at the root of the ice layer will be slushy and will melt. This is the cause of the relatively fast flowing of the ice in glaciers and at Antarctica as well. It appears also to be the cause of the existence of Lake Vostok(?) deep under the ice of Greater Antarctica. Hence, The ice is not tied the earth but is more or less floating loosely on the earth crust. If a force was exerted on the ice, the ice would be unable to transfer this force to the earth. Hence the crust would not move, the ice would move over the earth crust instead. Therefore, polar ice as a mechanism to induce a polar shift is not possible. Absolutely not
Does this mean that polar shifts cannot happen? I think not, I found a web page of Flavio Barbieri, arguing and calculating that a medium sizedmeteorite impacting at the right speed, angle and position could cause theEarth rotation axis to tilt. The problem with this theory is to trace back these meteorites. Since we were able to trace back the meteorite allegedly responsible for the dinosaurs 63 million years ago, then were is the meteorite that caused the earth tilt only 11600 years ago? Still searching. The discovery of young marine diatoms under the ice of Antarctica is key evidence of very strange things that have happened in the recent past. In Holland a relation of the structure of tree leaves has been linked to the contents of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (the project is known as +IBg-Big Betty+IBk-, the name of the tree that revealed this discovery). Research of the remains of ancient peat leaves revealed a totally different behavior of carbon dioxide levels of the atmosphere than the polar ice core samples suggested. In the past 15000 years carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere started relatively low. Then all of a sudden it jumped to about present day levels. You never guess when this happened. Exactly, 11.300 years ago+ACE- Leaving the scientists totally puzzled+ACE- Not us, however, the earth crust shift adepts.
I think there is still another spectacular mechanism possible for a catastrophic earth axis rotation, but I+IBk-m not ready yet to disclose this yet, Much more research to be done, especially on sea levels and the effect of the bulge of the earth on the equator. I may even consider writing a book on this. If you like to reply on this please do not use my orginal adress (office) but my personal adress: bijkerk+AEA-talkline.nl
Regards, Andre Bijkerk, The Netherlands
Stars like the Sun, but likely not the Sun itself, may generatemassive "superflares" that could threaten life on orbiting planets, astronomers reported Wednesday, January Astronomers form Yale University, Indiana University, and the Space Telescope Science Institute reported evidence that nine Sun-like stars have generated massive solar flares 100 to10 million times more powerful than a typical solar flare.=Such a flare would be powerful enough to burn out all orbiting satellites and generate aurorae visible all the way to the Earth's equator, according to Yale astrophysicist Bradley Schaefer. "But the primary damage would come from energy radiation, which would react in the Earth's upper atmosphere to destroy the protective ozone layer for several years thereby exposing the Earth's surface to harmful ultraviolet radiation with subsequent collapse of the food chain. Such superflares occur about one a century on some Sun-like stars, according to evidence collected by Schaefer and colleagues. However, the Sun is not thought to be among those stars that generate superflares. That may be due to the method by which superflares are thought to be generated, according to Yale's Eric Rubenstein. He believes the interaction between the magnetic fields of star and a closely-orbiting Jovian planet could generate the powerful superflares. "A similar process would be a physical system composed of,;say, rubber bands twisted together," Rubenstein said. "When the elastic bands are released, they suddenly snap and fly off. The energy is released and channeled into propelling the rubber bands instead of producing light.
In our solar system, Jupiter orbits too far from the Sunto interact in such a way, and the magnetic fields of the inner planets are far too weak to generate superflares.While none of the stars observed to generate superflares have close planetary or stellar companions, Jupiter-sized planets have been discovered in very close orbits around other Sun-like worlds. Such stars would be likely candidates for superflare activity, Rubenstein and Schaefer believe. Superflares would burn out orbiting satellites, create aurorae ;visible at the equator, and destroy the ozone layer for years.My note Perhaps much greater effects are possible.
Peter John Hall
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:34:47 +0100
I was initially interested in Crustal Shift mechanism as a way to explain paleo-environment changes in the Geologic Record, and existence of ancient maps of the Antarctic coastline. I thought that Hot Spots would be a good way to identify changes in position of continents. This is because they all have very distinctive chemical compositions and are relative static in relation to the crust. However I soon realised that they in fact disprove crustal slip theory, this is because the Hawaiian islands for example show a continuous movement over a hot spot during the last 30 Million years. See http://www.oceansonline.com/hotspots.htm
There are other mechanisms as noted on your site, such as the effects of Mechanics of Centrifugal forces that when combined with the movementof plates and meteor impacts may I believe provide a better explanation.
Regards Chris Cox ( For the record I have a
degree in Geology/Geophysics )
From: "Barbarian" <email@example.com> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:33:58 -0400
My theory on this subject is fairly simple. Proof
is harder. The ice sheets at the poles aren't circular, therefor
unstable. Put a spiderwebon a ping pong ball. Place that ball in
water with the web on top. Now spin it. Very quickly the web will
wobble and shift to the water level (equator). This is my basic
theory. The ice sheets get off balance and pull the poles to the
equator. The new poles then begin to build up ice and starts all over
again. The magnetic poles remain constant, our reference to them
changes. I'm open to ideas.
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:28:17 +0100
;I recently heard that Jupiter was reaching a state of critical mass. Being the largest of the terrestrial bodies inhabiting our tiny solar system [ with the exception of the sun !] it has a huge gravitational pull and apparently attracts, or soaks up, much of the cosmic debris. For example fragments of broken asteroid from the Oort cloud. If Jupiter did eventually explode[ or is it implode? I am no scientist!!!] and became a little twinkling star, would this have any effect on the polarity of Earth's axis? Would it, or indeed could it, c ause a polar shift. Is the Earth's axis locked magnetically to the existing physical mass of other planets ?
I am not a scientist but I am both curious and interested in issues such as polar shifts and the implications such a catacylism could cause to our evolutionary process on Earth.If some one could reply to this, I would be very grateful.
Yours Sincerely Justin Bikram Dorset, U.K.
From: "Kirk" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 21:44:03 -0600
I was unable to get complete pages on many of the progressive scanned pages they would interlace scan andstop when final interlace was 3/4 finished. Clicking refresh didn't fix the problem. I use IE 5 . I have a copy of HAB book. Have you read him? Some dismiss himas "he was a engineer" and infer he was out of his expertise. I think he was an excellent researcher. When I was still at TRW I remember seeing in one of thescience journals a report re. the Glomar Challenger doing underwater studies off coast of Antarctica. They commented that the ice was causing up-thrusting and I thought well, given enough time a coastal range and the ice will get really thick as the condition has positive feedback. More ice more upthrust-more upthrust means ice gets thicker as it is behind a dam. I Xeroxed the article. Hopefully I can dig it out and fax you a copy.Frankly, just because we can't explain how it would doesn't mean it doesn't. We are good at analysis but lousy at synthesis.Took quite a while for people studying the flight of a bumblebee to realize the lift was off the swept back of the bee and not just the wings, Analysis is only as good as the analytical concept. Brown pretty well argued it keeps recurring. People that can accommodate transitional fossils have demonstrated they are not qualified to comment about Brown. I appreciate what you are doing with this site.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:58:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Shaolou Shaolou <email@example.com>
With the poles as the shift there 10 degrees and the planet alignment of orbit altered our species brain activities will be altered as well. Our brain functions are EM based. Our climate and all our systems are as well. Our species is becoming more aware of itself, true. But why?I believe that it is because our poles are shifting slightly. It changed the way we think. Not by addressing the shift in itself but because Em wakes were created and effected the way we perceive things. The crust will not break up, there will be no existinction. Slight polar shift will effect manythings:- Migration routes Climate. Volcanic activity. Position of orbit. Electrical systems. The tides. Altered orbit would mean that we maybe open to metoers.
And with a greater shift:- Personality types would be effected in organised cases. Greater variant personality types would walk dominant amongst us and would be more helpfull than anyone else. Tidal waves may occur. Polar icecaps are melting which means potential sea levels rising.
As with who I am. Is not important, we knew this was to happen. It is just our planets natural cycle. If you need references study the sphinx. It bared water marks over 15,000 years ago that were believed to have been monsoon conditions, suggesting the presence of a rain forest. Plausable considering noone would build a civilisation in a desert.
From: "Staf PBDL/ABI" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:55:47 +0100
As ice accumulates at the poles, the pressure on the Earth crust increases. The earth crust reacts with a repositioning of mass probably in the asthenosphere so the crust is depressed (Antarctica would have an elevation of several thousends of feet higher without the ice) and the masses of the ice and crust tend to balance out. This counteracts any tendency of ice being pulled to the equator due to centrifugal forces. Furthermore, due to the elliptical shape of the earth the combined vector of gravitation and centrifugal forces is always exactly perpenducular to the surface of the Earth otherwise the oceans would start to flow. Therefore, there is no measurable force on accumulated ice at the poles to pull it to the equator.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:34:50 -0600 From: Lynda Casden <email@example.com>
I have read his book on possible ways that a pole shift could happen, and i belive he has come close to the right idea on how this could happen except that the Earth alone could not cause this to happen. I am a follower of the ideas of Don Patten you can see his web-site at eskimo.com/~dwpatten . His theory on Mars fly-bys of the Earth is the only logicalexplination of the cause of the pole shifts. I am interested in talking with you about these ideas. His theory on thecause of Noah's flood was caused by the closest fly-by of Mars at 15,000 miles from center of the Earth,This caused the pole to shift over 3000 miles and a relocation of the equator.
Each fly-by of Mars caused the Earth to shift its pole location by as little as 100 miles and to 600 miles depending on how close Mars had come to the Earth. I think you will find that this theory can answer all the questions on pole-shifts.
Sincerely, David Casden
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:41:29 -0600
From: Lynda Casden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Yes you could say that he is a follower of Velikovsky ideas, but only a small part. Don Patten has taken his Theory way past what Velikosky started. Patten has proved that Mars was the only planet to make a fly-by of the Earth not Venus. The main idea is how the Earth has such a strong magnetic field and how it was created. Mars was the generator of Earh's field, the last fly-by was apx. 2700 years ago, since that time the magnetic field has been decreasing by5% per century! Also What is faninating is how all the Earths mountain ranges were created by Mars passing very close tothe Earth, this is easy to prove by looking at the Himalyan range, it is a perfect arc, when Mars made its closest approach it upthrusted the crust of Earth in a long arc, it took apx. 3 hrs. of prime fly-by time to create this range. In every large mountain range such as the Andes there is allways a right bend or angle at the very center or highest part of the range. This is caused by the Earth shifting it polor axis at the very moment Mars was at its closest, causing a pole shift, this happen almost immediately. The cause of mountain building has still been unanswered by geologist until now. Pole shifts is just a reaction of the Earth to Mars Gravity, being almost 10% the size of the Earth it did great damage on a global scale. I would like to hear back from you regarding these ideas.
David Casden 847-520-7962
From: KnightEdwin@aol.com Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:46:49 EST
It is fact that, in the past magnetism of the Earth as recorded in the planets GEOLOGY has not only shifted but completely reversed. The most recent shifts I believe are recorded on the sea bed at points where the planets most newly created surface appears, therefore locking the earths magnetism at this point in time. These places are mid oceanic ridges, so working outwards from this point the magnetism of the earth has been recorded including complete North South reversals of poles in possibly dateable bands repeated in an accurate pattern out to the continents on either side of the ridge. It should therefore be possible to measure the frequency of past changes and predicting the possible time of the next.
These bands seem to always run N/S never E/W, this suggests complete earth crust displacement as never recorded, but more likely the earth core alone shifting. This alone explaining pole reversals, minor shifts or drifts recorded in continentally formed and erupted rocks. In this interpretation there need be no massive or obvious surface signs other than Geological Magnetism, leaving such things as Ice Ages and mass flooding to be explained by natural climate fluctuation or extra terrestrial collision, which we now know to be more frequent than previously thought.If this explanation is not a possibility could you e-mail the reasons why. This is a subject that I am interested in and would appreciate any information. Mr E Knight Amature Earth Historian.
From: Kelly Neiman <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 16:04:10 -0700
I just started getting into anthropology, and picked up a book called "Fingerprints of the Gods" by Graham Hancock. So far he seems to be looking for Atlantis, but irregardless of that, he mentioned the theory of crust displacement in one chapter and I found it very interesting. I am educated, but know geological pro by any means. But the theory,basically, makes perfect sense. Far as I know there are a few layers to the earth, the crust that the continents and oceans sit on, itself sits on some liquid-layer, like a sheet on a ball (can't think of a better example right now - assume that the ball never moves). If you pile a bunch of ice on the top of it, and you don't pile it up evenly so it balances, the ice, or say the continent with the ice on it, may slide around a bit. This doesn't mean necessarily that the pole shifted, just whatever was on the pole moved. The pole's not in a different place because the pole moved, the pole is in adifferent place because the place moved. So that's my "naive" opinion of the theory.
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 21:01:07 -0700 From: flem-ath <firstname.lastname@example.org>
By now I shouldn't be surprised at this type of prejudice. But considering the fact that Charles Hapgood corresponded with my husband for four years and called his research, 'the first truly scientific exploration of my theory' after he had studied it - and that Rand played a large part in getting 'Path of the Pole' reissued I would think that at least a nod towards our book, When the Sky Fell, would be in order. Considering that he's the only one of the many writers who have since hijacked Hapgood who has made the considerable effort to obtain the Einstein correspondence and read Hapgood's considerable (uncatalogued!) archives I would say that suggests a certain seriousness about the topic.However, as Hapgood himself warned us, the word 'Atlantis' will alwaysclose minds. We had already discovered this when Rand's article on the origins of agriculture using the earth crust displacement model was published inthe Canadian Journal of Anthropology - somehow I don't think that would have happened had he mentioned his interest in Atlantis. Just as some reviewers grow blinders as soon as the 'A' word crosses their pristinevision. Just as he won't be mentioned on your website. Best wishes anyway! - the site is needed
From: "Pamplin, Jim (GP)" <email@example.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:52:54 -0700
Some years ago I read a book by Fred Hoyle promoting his theory that the iceage(s) were caused by meteorite impacts. At one point he discussed the paths of hurricanes and pointed out that cylconic storms are negative mass anomalies in the air that should, intuitively, be expected to be pushed to the poles by the centrifugal force of the atmosphere. However, they are not pushed to the poles - at least not out in the ocean. Instead, hurricanes tend to travel at more or less constant latitude, and the cetrifugal effects which should be expected to push them poleward are converted into Corriolis effect, causing them to spin. The notion intrigued me, and I wondered what would happen if a large mass anomaly were deposited on the surface of the Earth, either positive, like perhaps a truly gigantic volcanic mountain, or negative, like a very large impact crater. It seemed to me the same priciple should apply. But because a crater, for example, is not free to spin, being fixed in the surface of the globe, whatever torque it generated would be applied to the planet as rotation about a secondary axis.
I puzzled over a way to experiment with the idea, and my then teenage son came up with an idea. I purchase a 5' dia weather balloon, took it to the nearest Hallmark shop, and had it partially inflated with helium - keeping it just small enough I could squeeze it into my car to take it home. Then, in my living room, I added air by breath until the helium was just balaced by the balloon's weight and my own contribution of exhaled air. At that point I tied off the nozzel, rolled it up, and stuffed it in under the skin of the balloon to serve as a positive mass anomaly. I marked the balloon's surface with chalk, and gave it a spin. Starting with the heavy nozzel at about 45 deg north latitude, the balloon performed exactly as predicted. Instead of flinging to the equator, the nozzel spiraled down slowly as the balloon's spin rate decreased, serving as the pole of a secondary axis of spin. The balloon spun on its primary axis at a much higher rotation rate. But as it did, it also slowly clocked around the secondary axis.
This raised an intriguing idea. Suppose the Earth's surface features are so distributed as to be in normal equilibrium around the equatorial bulge. A sudden large crater below 45 degrees latitude might clock the crust in such a way as to lift the equatorial belt off its bulge and turn it upside down. A truly large crater should have a limited lifetime, tending to fill with magma and sedtiment.
Jim Pamplin Draftsman ConAgra Grocery Products Company Phone: (949) 437-1124 E-Mail:firstname.lastname@example.org