Question: Why Did the Crust Shift?
Answer: The earth’s crust appears to have shifted due to its high eccentric orbit around the Sun. Scientists have wondered over the last decades why eccentricity fits so perfectly over the ice age graphs but they were never able to explain this fact. A high eccentric orbit generates an oscillating force which causes the crust to displace in the latitudinal (vertical) direction. The crust moves in a latitudinal direction because the reaction of a rotating body is always perpendicular to the initial force. The initial force is the oscillating pull of the Sun, while the Earth rotates, and this causes the crust to start shifting (displacing) vertically. During high eccentric orbits, the crust shifts much slower than Charles Hapgood suggested: between 15 to 35 meters per year during a period of several tens of thousands of years. Science misinterprets this movement as “glaciation cycles.”

Question: How Are the Ages of the Poles Calculated?
Answer: One of the best questions ever asked.
When it comes to the age of the poles, we have found in our research that there are two corresponding patterns:
1. a pattern of a migrating geographic North pole based on orientations of ancient monuments;
2. a pattern in the temperature changes over the last 450,000 years.
The pattern of distances between the poles and the pattern of the largest temperature changes over the last 450,000 years are matching. The chances for that match to be coincidental is 1 to 256 for proven series of Poles I to V. When we include the sixth yet unproven Pole, Pole VI, the chances for the coincidental match jumps to 1 to 3,125.
But there is more to this complicated pattern than meets the eye. Besides the occurrence of ice ages, are Earth’s temperatures that also swing “naturally” due to variation in Sun activity. Over the decades. we have seen several researches that were done regarding this phenomenon by tree ring experts of the Johannes Gutenberg University and also by oceanographic experts like L.D. Keigwin et al who conclude that a “natural” variation of Earth’s temperature varies 2.8°C (±1.4° around a setpoint). We have included this natural variation into our research, and we have found a one on one correlation with the migrating geographic pole. For these complicated pattern of temperature variations to match one on one coincidentally with these five poles is 1 to 750,000. That is how we know for sure how old these poles are.

Question: Is This Pseudoscience?
Answer: No, our theory is entirely mathematical and is backed by a large amount of objective data. Therefore, it is truly scientific. But the theory goes against the current scientific establishment that labels it “pseudoscience.” However, we have mathematically proven, with high probabilities, that the intersecting nodes resulting from the geodetic extensions of the foundational orientation of hundreds of ancient structures are the location of ancient poles. When a mathematical theory cannot be substantiated by experiments or material findings, or if it goes against established dogmas, it is often written off as pseudoscience. Nevertheless, our empirical findings and their conclusions are solidly supported by established scientific experimental findings, like the lagging of CO2 behind temperature variations, as proven by the paleomagnetic records and the temperature findings in the ice cores. Everything in our theory correlates and can be seamlessly combined in one solid theory, complete with plate tectonics, ice core data, and paleomagnetics.

Question: Is That Why Greenland Has an Icecap?
Answer: Yes, our theory explains well why Greenland (still) has a thick ice sheet. It formed on successive North poles, over many tens of thousands of years, but at its current location, the massive ice cap cannot be maintained for very long. It is melting very slowly because of its present high latitude. The warm gulf stream supplies most of the energy to achieve the melting process, which is part of Earth’s balancing mechanism, i.e. to eventually diminish large bodies of superfluous ice. However, the melting process still takes about 4,000 years.

Question: Did the Crust Shift in a Straight Line?
Answer: No, not perfectly, but almost. The earth’s crust appears to have shifted over the last 350,000 years in four stages along a path that appears to be almost a straight line – the 47.1W longitude that runs vertically over Greenland. The movement between the Pole locations was erratic and took place over tens of thousands of years, but the shifting, crawling movement had a sense of direction – it meandered vertically up the 47.1W line and is now “temporarily” stopped at the current geographical North pole. Note that geology does not confirm these findings. But where geology and this theory are clearly on the same page is the occurrence of glaciation cycles and the paleomagnetic records. We still have much scientific work to do before we can understand why the crust followed this specific path over Greenland and we have reason to suspect that this quasi-vertical movement has probably been happening for millions of years.

Question: How Can Buildings be so Old?
Answer: That is one of the most baffling conclusions of our highly unique research. Many ancient buildings, pyramids, and temples have been renovated on top of even older foundations. But in most cases, the foundations remained oriented in the original position. It certainly seems that buildings are much older than historians and archaeologists always made us believe. From the millions of buildings, constructed over a span of many hundreds of thousands of years, just a few hundred (500+) remain intact enough to measure their orientation. An untold number of buildings were either destroyed, washed away, submerged under ocean silt, or had sunk into deeper soil layers. Remember also, that most ground layers build up much slower than people believe: namely between 1 to 1.5 meters per 100,000 years. Remains of structures dug up a few meters below the surface of the solid terrain can easily be between 100,000 and 200,000 years old. Sadly, the authenticity of our ancient history is false and corrupted, with 100% certainty. Science and historians and priests have compressed true antiquity by a factor of 50 to 100.

Question: What About Antarctica?
Answer: One of the most incredible insights into our research has shown that Antarctica hardly moved. The geographic South pole remained in an almost stable position during the last million years, while the geographic North pole changed drastically. Our book that is currently in the making explains in detail what happened with the Earth’s crust, and why it deformed so radically. The Atlantic part compressed while the Pacific part stretched. That is why the Pacific is without land, while the Atlantic part has land (continents) on both sides with a massive crack in the middle, called the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR). When we look at the gap between Australia and Antarctica, it is not difficult to see that they were once connected. The newly discovered continent Zealandia became submerged due to this stretching crustal movement.

Question: Is the Earth Flat?
Answer: No, the Earth is not flat, it is an oblate spheroid. But when it comes to the dynamic behavior of the crust, the Earth seems to behave like a flat plain. Antarctica remains surprisingly stable at its current position while the geographic North pole is (geologically speaking) catapulted over the spin axis. Modeling this dynamic behavior is best and easiest done by using the flat Earth model of the Flat Earth Society.  Our final model will be presented at a later stage of our work.

Question: When is the Next Cataclysm?
Answer: A recently published paper, called “Climate-Driven Polar Motion: 2003-2015”, written by two scientists, has stated that the geographic pole is moving due to climate change. Their conclusion that the pole is moving is correct, but in this paper, they make the same mistake as climate science has made with the CO2-driven climate change. In fact, these two scientists indirectly claim that the poles are moving due to CO2. Of course, that is not true. CO2 has always been an indicator, not a driver. It is indeed a fact that the geographical North pole is changing due to deformations of the crust, accompanied by heavy earthquakes. It is the current eccentric orbit of the earth around the sun that is the root cause of deep earthquakes that shake loose the crustal plates. Our theory predicts that the crust will again start to heavily deform within a few millennia. The North pole will then start to move towards Eastern Siberia while the South pole will remain at its current position. What will we see from this in our lifetimes? Nothing but perhaps an increase in seismic and volcanic activity over the next few decades.

Question: But Stonehenge is Rebuilt
Answer: It is often believed that Stonehenge was completely rebuilt and that therefore the stones are not in their original position. Our conclusion is that the renovations were done with superb expertise. Moreover, Stonehenge was not rebuilt, it was renovated – that makes a large difference. The renovations which were done are based on ancient maps and drawings, and of course the traces of stones found on the site itself. Our claim that Stonehenge is between 240,000 and 270,000 years old is not based on vague ideas or impulsive statements. They are based on rock solid mathematical conclusions of the current stone arrangement, in combination with its current orientation, its current latitude, and its original latitude. For these combinations to coincidentally form a consistently working stone device is 1 to 6.7 million. That leaves not much doubt as to which claims are true and which ones are false.


Question: Why Don’t You Share the Data?
Answer: People are curious to the data underlying our method and that is understandable. There are two main reasons for us not to share the data to the public.

  • We share our results after having invested many thousands of hours in our project. All data is our intellectual property. The data is highly abstract and there is nothing to find in it for untrained professionals, because it requires excellent mathematical insight. Most people simply don’t have that. Universities that are interested in reviewing our work can purchase the data.
  • We share our conclusions in all sorts of ways on this website. To produce this information in an easy to understand form for most people requires a lot of work. This information is for free.



© 2016-2018 by Mario Buildreps

Editing and Proofreading: J.B.


NB: If you cannot find your question(s) in this FAQ, feel free to post your question(s) in a comment below.


  • Thomas White

    I’ve been following you for a while, and have seen all your videos on UTube. Absolutely Fascinating New Science. Do you take donations? Also what pole does the Giza Pyramids correspond to ???? 1-5???? How Old???

    • Mario Buildreps

      Thank you for your comment, Thomas. Giza is related to Pole I, and is therefor not older than 26,000 years. In fact, nothing that is precisely oriented to our current cardinals is older than 26,000 years. We think that the alternative estimations of Giza of some 12,500 years are closer to the truth than the mainstream ones. Yes, we take donations. You can find the donation link here.

  • Jan M. Hansen

    Great background work, but how can you be sure that the pole has shifted regularly over +100.000 years. Could the earth have been hit by a major comet around 12.000 BC, to end the last ice age by shifting the pole and the ice location.
    I totally agree that the academia has the major timeline wrong, ancient structures proves former civilisations, also described in Sumerian tablets.

    We have in Denmark several ancient stone circles or ringborgs: Aggersborg, Fyrkat, Bøgehaven, Eskeholm and Trelleborg, dated to Viking age around 900 AC.
    They are placed at the edge of the former ice age crust on a straight line with a deviation of 1 km on a distance of 220 km
    This line are also pointing to your pole shift IV or Hudson bay, which could date them far older maybe +12.000 years. But +100.000 I doubt, the land mass has shifted too much.

    Best regards

    • Mario Buildreps

      Thank you for your interesting comment, Jan. We encourage everyone to be critical to something as important as this. It is the best way to dig up pieces of truth to the surface, to keep everyone as sharp as possible.

      We have found a match between patterns. When seemingly unrelated patterns fit over one another (nodes of ancient structures, glaciations, greenland’s ice sheet, eccentricity, etc) it is possible to calculate the chances for these patterns to match up with each other. The higher the coincidences, the higher the probability they are in fact related. That is how we know that the nodal positions are related to crustal deformations. And of all possible places are the nodes running over Greenland. This explains directly why Greenland’s ice sheet was formed and why it was located at the center of the Laurentide ice sheet, the Innuition ice sheet, and the Scandinavian ice sheet. It also explains why it now melts, because its ice sheet was originally formed on the pole. It also explains why the Gulf stream runs close by the coasts of Greenland – it restores an energetic imbalance after a series of crustal deformations over the last half million years.

      The Viking Stone circles are interesting. I personally doubt they could be older than 12,000 years because the ice sheets would have crushed and shattered them. What do you think? Studying their possible purpose is very interesting. If you have the time to find reliable maps of them it would be very helpful.

      The comet hypothesis lacks deeper insight into the topic. Of course there could have been a comet hit on the Northerly ice sheets that could have stimulated disintegration. The Earth was a series of ice ages over the last million years, as far as we know. The Earth has probably been subjected over its entire lifetime to these kinds of fluctuations. If the comet hypothesis would be true could it have ended the other ice ages as well? And if so did all the comets landed on the Northerly situated ice sheets, shattering them apart? How could that work in detail?

      People’s believe system about our ancient history prevents them from understanding our real past. In our opinion is it mathematics first and after that picture is completed we can fill in our believe system. In our culture this has been swapped and that has deeply deformed our understanding of our ancient past.

  • Juna


    As a layman, most of the information is lost on me but not the essence, I hope.
    I subscribe wholly to the probability that academia has the timeline wrong regarding a civilized human presence on Earth. Although my biases are rooted in Religion (I won’t divulge which) they are nonetheless at odds with the “accepted’ time frame of mainstream institutions.

    Please pardon my ignorance should it become glaringly obvious regarding the following question.

    Have you had a look at dating the Ancient Sites found in South Africa, namely Adams Calendar in particular? The reason I ask is, it would seem that Michael Tellinger was not as “bat shit” Crazy when he suggested it may be in excess of 100k years old! (he did his detractors a huge favour when he suggested the Earth to be flat however). If the South Pole is usually stable compared to the North as you have stated, then the geographical location of Adams Calendar should be closer to its “original” place of construction with it being closer to the south?!

    You’re doing fantastic work.
    Thank you!

    • Mario Buildreps

      Thank you for your comment, Juna. It seems you have well understood the essence. Michael Tellinger is closer to the age of the Adam’s Calender than the mainstream Academia. Indeed is the geographic South pole much more stable than the geographic North pole. Dating the Adam’s Calender is tricky business. Tellinger believes the calender is some 3.3 degrees counterclockwise oriented relative to the cardinals. It is not clear for us on which basis he makes the claim, since the stone circle has no distinct orientation. But if his claim would be correct the stone circle would be far older than just 100ky – it would even be far over 500ky if the supposed orientation is correct, and it would then most likely not have been built by Homo sapiens but by its predecessor Homo erectus.

      • Juna

        Over 500k years? Insane!! Talk about tossing a spanner in the works! Surely Homo Erectus were not supposed to possess the intelligence to build anything close to the alleged cardinally aligned “calendar” were they?
        I admit i’m a victim of a deeply flawed education system based on whole lies and half truths.

      • Mario Buildreps

        Why do you think so? Have you ever seen how ingenious bees make their hives? Why would Homo erectus be incapable of doing anything advanced and suddenly Homo sapiens capable of building rockets and satellites? Take this recent article for example: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/20/homo-erectus-may-have-been-a-sailor-and-able-to-speak

        What would prevent them from collecting a few stones and arrange them in a logical way to learn more about time and seasons?

      • Juna

        “Everybody talks about Homo erectus as a stupid ape-like creature, which of course describes us just as well…….”
        That was a fantastic article with very interesting insights on what what Homo Erectus may have possibly achieved.
        The paradigm shift in what was believed to be fact is truly astonishing!

        Thank you for your efforts in bringing these ideas forward.
        I cannot wait for your book to be released and the ensuing debates around it!
        Exciting times Indeed!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *