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: Why would all Pyramids be pointed towards the North Pole or to another ancient Pole?

Let us first correct one thing; not all structures were cardinally oriented. Just over 62% of the structures in the database are oriented to one of the nodes. That means that 1/3 of them cannot be associated with a node and were therefore probably not oriented to an ancient pole.
Cardinal alignments appear to be very important. Ask this simple question: why is the White House cardinally oriented? Probably no one knows the answer other than suggestions. Why are most observatories cardinally oriented? Why is Giza cardinally oriented? Imagine a discussion between astronomers about a certain part of the sky and they have to guess where it is, because their building is just randomly dropped down in the direction of the urban plan. One of the most effective ways to orient to sky is to have four walls that are each pointed at a certain wind direction. Similar as the Cartesian coordinate system. Most people are nowadays not oriented to the cardinals or to the sky but to their phone, agenda, television, or to the road signs. It seems increasingly harder for us to imagine what the sky, the movements of the sun and moon meant for ancient peoples. The sky was their agenda and clock.

Question: How would they know where the North Pole is – wouldn’t this imply they knew that the Earth is a rotating sphere – and how would they know that?

Finding North within a few degrees is not so difficult. The ancients did this on a large scale all over the world. It is this habit that made it possible to distinguish orientation clusters that are so large that they cannot be formed coincidentally. When there are no calendars, the moving sun is the only way to understand the cycles of the seasons. By doing so, the peoples who practiced this oriented themselves and their structures automatically to their cardinal directions. This left a massive mathematical imprint on a global scale although most structures are simply lost due to natural decay, coverage by soil, or destruction. This does not tell us anything whether they understood the concept of the Earth is a rotating sphere. They simply studied the repeating patterns to get a better understanding of time.

Question: Wouldn’t the orientation of a building change in time because of plate tectonics? Or would this not change the orientation, but only the (X,Y) coordinates?

Yes the orientation of buildings changes a bit due to plate tectonics. But plate tectonics cannot account for such large changes in orientation. Our theory recognizes two main cause of deformations; plate tectonics and crustal deformations. Plate tectonics change the earth’s surface very slowly during periods of tranquility. Crustal deformations change the Earth’s surface during periods of turmoil. What in the latter case happens is a very complex happening: the Earth grows and the Earth’s crust is deformed during the growth process. The deformation process is amplified by a high eccentric orbit around the Sun.

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 (900+) 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. 
  • 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.
  • For anyone who is seriously interested in our data, it can be purchased here.

Question: Do you have a date in mind for the release of the book?

We have a date in mind. The stuff is so far reaching and requires so much explanation in many occasions that the book will be published in a series. The first publication is expected to be in 2020.


© 2015-2020 by Mario Buildreps et al.

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.

51 Responses

  • Kenneth

    What I am wondering is what’s the argument for the assumption that the spin axis did not change.
    Could you please explain?
    I’d like to be certain that this assumption is correct.

    James Maxlow also assumes this. And it seems very likely.
    Here is what he says about it in his latest book:

    “Because of the limited amount of available
    palaeoclimate data, absolute confirmation of the
    Earth’s ancient tilt is very difficult to determine.
    Modern understanding considers that the Earth’s
    interior is molten to semi-molten, hence the angular
    momentum of the Earth would likely tend to resist any
    changes to its axis of tilt in a similar way to the motion
    of a gyroscope. Because of this, for the purpose of this
    investigation, the Earth’s ancient tilt is here considered
    to be fixed, or near fixed, over time.”

    “For the purpose of this investigation it is assumed that the tilt
    of the Earth’s ancient rotation axis was the same, or
    very similar to what it is now, and hence circles of
    latitude were similar to those on the present-day Earth.”

    “From the distribution of climate-dependent rocks
    and animal species it was also shown that these
    distributions coincide precisely with climatic zones
    anticipated on an increasing radius Earth. It was
    similarly shown that these climatic indicators display a
    distinct latitudinal zonation paralleling the ancient
    equator, suggesting that an inclined Earth rotational
    axis inclined to the pole of the ecliptic was well
    established during at least the Palaeozoic Era and has
    persisted to the present-day.”

    • Mario Buildreps

      First argument is the immense weight, the closer to the core the denser. That means that the closer we come to the core, the more unlikely that we see radical variations of the spin axis. Earth’s spin axis wobbles according to the Milankovitch cycles. However, there might be more axial wobbles than only the currently known obliquity and precession, such as longer ranged cycles, supposedly a 400ky cycle, and probably many more long range cycles. I won’t say it is impossible to identify them, but it is highly unlikely that anyone will find them anytime soon.

      James Maxlow depends on paleomagnetic and paleoclimatic data for his growing earth model. To make his growing earth model to work with so many possible variables he needs to fix some major variables, and one of them is the spin axis. That is a major assumption, that makes his work less likely and also less attractive. So that is what he did, and that is why he came to the conclusion that the spin axis hardly changed, and also that Antarctica and Greenland hardly changed in position. But since there is abundant (sub)tropical vegetation and animal life found on both landmasses it should be clear to anyone that these landmasses were not always on the poles. But we are only talking about the crust itself, not about the heavier inner core(s).

      What we have done is using a whole other source of data, orientation of ancient foundations. The time frame might be limited, not more than 500ky, but it proves that the crust has been much more volatile than is assumed all this time, not only by geologists in general, but also by Maxlow. This discovery does certainly not simplify geological research. But it shows how the crust has radically changed over such a relative short period of time.

      • Kenneth

        Thank you for your explanation.

        Wouldn’t it be possible to rule out the possibility of a longer ranged cycle as the cause for the moving geographic north pole?
        Your research shows that the geographic north pole moved, based on mainly ancient foundations on the northern hemisphere.
        If this movement was caused by a yet unknown longer ranged cycle, shouldn’t you have found diametrically opposed intersection nodes for the geographic south pole? The fact that you did not find these, seems to disprove my idea .
        And it would prove that the movement of true north was not caused by a longer ranged cycle, but by earth crust deformations.

        Do you have any illustrations of former geographic south poles that you found?
        And are there many ancient structures that are orientated to any former geographic south poles? I only know of Puma Punku as a possible candidate to point to former geographic south pole III.

  • Karl

    Dear Mario
    Thank you for your amazing insights. I am really fascinated with your highly sophisticated analytical work.
    Can you please shed some light on the construction of the Kailasha Temple in Ellora caves in India.
    As I came to learn, it was excavated during 700-800 AD but as was in other cases, archeologists put the period of excavations as the period of construction.
    I need some clarity on this topic as I have been trying to figure out the probable timing of another highly sophisticated civilization of RAVANA that existed in India during the period that was described in the Ramayana, the great Indian epic.

    • Mario Buildreps

      Thank you for your comment, Karl. The Kailasa temple is a magnificent example of high tech construction work. This temple is claimed to be built by some idiotic ruler, a claim that historians leave uncorrected. The temple was already there many millenniums before it was claimed by some king. The temple is cardinally oriented. That indicates we have a time frame between today and 26,000 years ago. The temple is most probably created in the most recent, ultra high Yuga cycle, Satya Yuga (ref: Yukteswar), between 6,700 BC and 16,300 BC. Currently, we cannot narrow down this time frame any further. During this period people have godlike abilities. Raw matter is nothing more than just a form of energy that can be shaped, transformed, and transported. How Homo sapiens has created magnificent, long lasting, structures is currently beyond our understanding. If current humanity survives the coming millenniums without large catastrophes it will again enter this Satya Yuga era within 6,000 years from now, and this period will last for about 10,000 years. But even in this period of highness are humans depending on a tranquil home planet.

  • Kenneth

    Can you please help me to understand the rebound effect better? I will just write how I understood it so far.
    The temperature fluctuations in the ice core data shows 2 effects: variation in solar activity and crustal deformations.
    During a crustal deformation especially the movement of the northern ice cap causes the global ocean temperature to lower, because a cold part moves into a warm part that also has a larger effect on the planet since this part is closer to the equator. When the crustal deformation stops, ocean currents and events happening in the atmosphere restore the balance and cause the global temperature to rise again. Is it known why and how this happens (recuperation of the biosphere)?

    • Kenneth

      I think I found the answer.
      With an expanding earth, the rate at which atmospheric gases are added is lower than the rate at which crustal material is added. This would cause atmospheric decompression and thus lower temperatures. Only when the expansion stops the atm. pressure would increase again. This is the recuperation of the atmosphere.
      Newly added material at the mid ocean ridge spreading zones consists only of 15 – 20% water and atm. gases.

  • Patrick

    Super interesting theory!
    Could you please help me understand if the north pole is actually changing locations or is it the landmasses, like Greenland, that move (in that case) further south and thus “leave” the pole?

    Question 2: Could you also elaborate on the phases of turmoil? If i understood your research correctly you are saying that the crust displacements happen over a larger period of time without severe impacts while shifting. Earthquakes here and there = similar to our time at the moment.
    Other researchers and tales of ancient cultures tell us that there were cataclysmic events (floods, lava,… ) that must have happened in a very short period of time (Rendall Carlson e.g.).
    How can these differences be explained or did i misunderstand the effects of crust displacement.

    Thank you and keep up the work!!

    • Mario Buildreps

      During the periods of turmoil, the crust rewraps around the inner parts of the earth. The crust’s weight is less than 1% of the total weight of the earth. The spin axis of the majority of the mass keeps unchanged, but because the crust deforms around the inner cores of the earth it seems from the perspective of the crust that the spin axis has changed. The consequence is that the position and orientation of ancient structures has changed. That is what we have measured with or method. Greenland was pushed over the spin axis, and that is the reason it still has an ice sheet.

      Question 2: We dismiss the popular theories of the Hancocks and the Carlsons that a comet ended some civilizations around 12,800 years ago. They are not based on real science, although it looks very scientific from the perspective of laymen. You have misunderstood the part of the turmoil. There was massive turmoil during the crustal deformations (take Lake Tonga as an example) but these periods of massive turmoil lasted (depending of the period) between 15ky and 100ky. So they were very long and were very violent. That were the cataclysms that wiped the majority of ancient civilizations away.

      • Patrick
      • While I can’t pretend to be an expert, I think you are wrong to dismiss the Younger Dryas. (There are many scientific papers published),
        In particular there is stunning evidence relating to some strange patterns of lakes in Mexico and somewhere further West, which can only be understood as caused by a huge comet landing thousands of miles further north at an exact location. Also you MUST tie your great work in with the people on youtube channels such as UnchartedX and Brien Foerster. Cheers, Robin

      • Mario Buildreps

        Thanks for dropping by, Robin. We do not directly dismiss the Younger Dryas event. However, if you look at the temperature patterns of Greenland over the last 80ky, something that most researchers have never done, you must admit there are countless of similar or even greater temperature drops. This makes the Younger Dryas not unique as most researchers tend to believe, but just one of the many events. To which of the temperature events shall we connect meteor impacts? Or were there much more comet impacts over the last 100ky? We try to approach these questions scientifically and try not to speculate. Cheers! Mario

  • Greetings & Salutations Mario! In order to physically represent the, or ‘our’, collective consciousness regarding the procession of the Geographic poles it may be advantageous & fortuitous to attempt the following:

    1. Design & Build nanoteflon coated steel like structures, anchored to the bedrock, which are orientated to each of the previous known former Geographic Poles through their inherent design.

    2. Yes, leaving out the current Geo Pole purposely.

    3. Building these structures all over the world obviously.

    4. Utilizing the interior & exterior design of the structures to produce vertical farms which produce human sustenance, as well as make them physically accessible to all peoples regardless of their unique soul orientation, hence: tourism.

    5. In a human family, usually the ultimate decision maker is either the father or the mother or a combination of both, such as is a council. This approach is represented through action in the animal kingdom whether conscious or not.

    6. We know that a substance or compound, like thermite, can cut through ordinary steel like a hot knife going through butter.

    7. ‘We’ have the technical knowledge to complete this project.

    Best Regards, Andrew Hunter Borst (andy🙊)

  • Tristan Bradford

    First off, I am very impressed with the work. My first question, have you attempted to align the ancient structures with other points or lay lines, such as the equator?

    Second, does the earth crust deformation work with plate tectonics and/or continental drift models? What I’m getting at, is it appears there is evidence of crowding of some continents, but if Greenland is indeed tracking the direction it is, then I would expect clear geological evidence of crowding of the North American, Eurasian, Caribbean, African plates, etc.

    • Mario Buildreps

      Thank you for your comment, Tristan. Yes, we had previously questions about the Becker-Hagens UVG grid system. You can find a discussion on that topic in the comment section in our main article on the website. Plate tectonics is part of a much greater model. Pangaea for example, which is part of the tectonic model only works on an expanding planet. Plate tectonics are the main forces when the Earth is in its rest mode, when eccentricity is relatively low.

  • hanna

    hi mario! love your work! really really fascinating! and so exciting! i came across this video from 1982. maybe you are already famillier with it?An illustrated presentation by Professor SW Carey, of his long held theory that the earth’s expansion provides an explanation of continental drift and other geological phenomena https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Othb0xsvZb4 . groetjes hanna vanuit noorwegen!

    • Mario Buildreps

      Hi Hanna, thank you for posting your comment and the link. An interesting video!

  • Kenneth

    Does the movement of the North pole also explain the largest changes in sea level?
    I imagine that at the North pole V and IV the ice was mainly on water and when the ice sheet on Greenland formed it was mainly on land, which caused the sea level to drop. And while moving from pole III to II and I, the ice sheet was moved to sea again, which caused the sea level to rise again, because floating ice causes the sea level to rise while ice on land does almost not?
    Could it be as simple as this?

    • Mario Buildreps

      You describe this process well, Kenneth. It is quite simple once you understand the big picture.

      When the spin axis hits land so to speak, ice cumulation is easier. As soon as it hits water, ocean circulations can carry away the cold. The process follows the second law of thermodynamics. Indeed, when the spin axis went over Greenland, in a few stages, ice began to grow on the Northern hemisphere, and sea levels started to drop more than 120 meters. Because this process goes so slowly cultures start to build their cities gradually along the new, lower situated shores. But when the pole migrated from pole II to pole I between 120 and 26 ky ago the sea levels started to rise again, because the ice sheet on the Northern hemisphere was no longer “maintainable”. That is why we find so many sunken cities all over the world. It is also easy to understand that these cities are much older than 12 ky.

      As long as Antarctica remains stable on the spin axis the icecap won’t leave the continent, not in a million years. Ice sheets creep very slowly outwards while new ice is constantly formed around the spin axis. The ice sheet around the Antarctic peninsula (close to Argentina) might be not very stable, and sometimes large parts might break off, but that is a fully natural phenomenon of all times. This peninsula is narrow, pretty far away from the spin axis, and because it is close to a warm Gulfstream that completely encircles Antartica ice sheets are much more volatile there.

      It is relatively easy to understand that Greenland melts, and why it melts.

  • Kenneth

    I am trying to understand the part of the theory that explains what happened in the glaciation cycles.
    The correlation between the distances of the different poles and the temperature high lows I can understand.
    What I am missing for my understanding is the basic physics. Is the following correct?

    The ice from the north pole moves to a wamer area of the planet because of crust deformations.
    Because of this the ice starts to melt. Because of this and by water streams the global earth temperature drops. Comparable to putting an ice cube in a glass of water. At a certain moment the melting of the ice stops because there is less contact between the ice and the water currents. And the global temperature increases again.
    But does this match with sea level rise? Possibly sea level rise has something to do with a shrinking earth?

    • Mario Buildreps

      Thank you for your question, Kenneth. With the migration of the North pole, the ice masses around the spin axis migrate as well. But at the same time are areas of moderate temperatures moved to around the area of the spin axis and are cooled down, new ice masses will be formed on these areas. This results in a complicated process of melting and freezing at a massive scale. Sea levels might fall and sea levels might rise during this event. If we look at Greenland today how and why its large ice mass melts and try to understand how slowly this process proceeds. The ice mass is situated on elevated land, although the land mass is somewhat pushed down, the gulf stream that tries to restore a balance but has a hard time to reach the ice mass. The full melting process takes many millenniums to complete.
      Because the spin axis is now located in the sea the freezing cold is transported through the gulf stream over larger areas. It can get away so to speak. That is why there is currently no permanent ice sheet formed around the North pole.
      During deformations of the crust is there roughly speaking a balance between icy areas that are moved to more moderate areas, and moderate areas that are moved to icy climate. We might see some imbalances between the two that cause ripples in the global temperatures but they are in the margin of error.

      • Kenneth

        Thank you for your reply.
        Can you maybe explain why the global temperature drops during a crustal displacement? I thought this was mainly caused by the movement of the north pole ice?
        And can you explain what causes the temperature to go up again when the crust gets stable again?
        I am still trying to figure this out based on the articles on your website.

        From your answer I understand that both melting of old ice and freezing of new ice cause temperatures to drop.

      • Mario Buildreps

        You’re welcome, Kenneth. We are pleased to get good questions because it encourages us to think through our ideas over and over again. There is no indication for global temperature drop or rise larger than around 2.8°C. Of course, is a gradual global temperature drop of nearly 3°C catastrophic. It is huge. The global community is already in a panic over 0.5°C of global temperature rise.
        It is not easy for many people to grasp the full theory. It is not a shame that it takes a while. In our book, we explain this part extensively. I will try to explain it here shortly.

        Because Antarctica remained at a fairly stable position it gathers in its ice sheet the relative movements of its counterpart, the North pole. If you go to this article and look at figure 5 you might understand why Antarctica has no mechanism for large positional changes. And if you look at the animation above figure 5 you will see how the Pacific expanded and how this knocks the North pole from it spin axis. We now think that the deformation process of the crust is amplified by a combination of expansion and eccentricity. This explains the almost vertical path of the pole along the 47W line that runs over Greenland. The same movements of the North pole are registered by the orientation clusters of ancient structures. The patterns match within an acceptable margin of error. It is relatively easy for many people to understand that the odds that two completely different patterns to match is very small. Like in DNA samples taken on a crime scenes and that of a suspect. If these two match they have found the criminal. Because we have found a deeply entwined connection we can work out a more complete model, and this is what we have done over the last years with great success.

        Both poles are very sensitive to changes due to their relatively small area. The station of Vostok is close the spin axis on Antarctica and so the perfect place where the movements of the North pole are registered. The deformation process of the crust is an immensely complicated process that will have our attention in the future. The equator had only small changes, but every small displacement around the equator is amplified at the poles since the poles are so sensitive to temperature changes or to positional changes.

        I hope this helps to answer your question a bit. It’s good you ask and keep asking.

      • Kenneth

        Thank you! I am almost there.
        What I still find hard to understand is why this is so: “Because Antarctica remained at a fairly stable position it gathers in its ice sheet the relative movements of its counterpart, the North pole”.

        Maybe this is a lack of basic knowledge about ice core data. I just would like to understand how this works.
        I read that the temperatures (thickness of the ice rings?) and CO2 levels in the ice cores can tell how the temperature at the location of the ice core sample has changed in time. This I understand.

        The poles are very sensitive to changes and so the stable Antarctica ice sheet did register the movement of the North pole.
        This seems logical to me too. I imagine that the melting ice of the southward moving North pole caused cooling around the planet thanks to the Gulf stream? And that the temperature at Antarctica has been influenced by this?

        But how can it be that the changes in temperature at Antarctica have a 1:1 relation to the temperature changes caused by the southward moving North pole? I guess I need to read the explanation on Cdef again.

      • Mario Buildreps

        The spin axis and the 99% mass does not seem to change significantly. It is the crust, the 1%, that rewraps itself very slowly over the 99%, but it does not do this equally. It deforms unequally.

        The deformation constant, the number 0.576, expresses the amount of change on the poles when the crust deforms in the latitudinal direction.

        Imagine what happens when the crust deforms a little according to our discovery, the North pole migrates and the South pole not. One side of the planet, at the Atlantic the distance between the (old) North pole and the steady South pole decreases, and on the other side at the Pacific the distance between the (old) pole increases.

        It is relatively easy to understand that these changes have a certain climatic impact on the steady Antarctic ice sheet. But these changes are temporary (temporary = between 20 and 100ky). As you can witness in the temperature graphs of Vostok and Dome-C bounces the temperatures always back to a certain “setpoint”. After the deformation process has come to a standstill the temperatures on earth return back to normal. We call this bouncing back effect the recuperation phase of the biosphere after a crustal deformation cycle.

        The relative movements between the two extremes, the North pole and the South pole, are what the proxies in the ice sheet of Antarctica represent. If the crust would have been swapped in its totality and equally we would see a completely different signature in Antarctica’s ice sheet. After all, the ice sheet of Antarctica itself would have moved to another climatic zone, and we would see this as an interference in the proxy patterns.

        The only thing that remains after this fairly complicated process of compensation are the movements of the North pole relative to that of the South pole. And this is the mark that is left behind in the ice sheet.

        Ask yourself another question is this regard. If the climate has changed on a global scale over the last 100ky we would expect to see similar proxies in Greenland’s ice sheet as in Antarctica’s ice sheet. That is not the case. These two ice sheets contain completely different proxies. Why? The best answer to this question is that the Greenland ice sheet has been moved to another climatic zone, while the Antarctic ice sheet was not. It’s an interesting topic to research.

      • Kenneth

        I think I do understand it now. Antarctica did not move, but it is all about the relative movement between the North pole and Antarctica. So even if Antarctica did not move, its position relative to the North pole changed and caused a temperature difference that can be found through Cdef.
        Cdef is the weighted average that shows the average temperature difference for a movement of 1 degree from pole to pole.

        Some minor questions left on the article ‘How old are the poles’:
        1. In fig. 6 the title of the graph is Global Temperature Variations. But aren’t these the temperatures of the ice core from Antarctica and not global temperatures? The global temperature apparently did not change that much?
        2. In the calculations under ‘Analyzing from pole to pole’ there seems to be a minor writing error. No multiplication?:
        1° (1°→0°) 0.3°C 1° (1°→0°) 0.87262% 8.7262×10-1 °C

      • Mario Buildreps

        Ad 1) Indeed is this the temperature response of the Antarctic proxy. Science assumes that these are the global temperatures and that is a correct assumption with a completely rigid crust. There is no indication that the global temperature variations were much greater than 2.8°C, which is still immense.
        Ad 2) Indeed that is an error. We will correct this. Good observation. 🙂

  • Fredrick W.

    Brilliant work! A quick question. I was wondering if you have considered adding Star Fort orientation to your research. These constructs are amazing and an Irish gentleman named Colm Gibney is one of a growing number of people interested enough to be combing Google Earth to find their locations. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nFrj-P1b1Y . Colm… and many others in that loop, have already identified at least 1000 of these unique constructions around the world. There may be 10’s of thousands in reality. Many may be fairly “new” (from a Caral perspective) but, then again – who really knows. Even the Vatican is built-in top of a Star Fort! It might just take someone with your lateral perspective and portfolio learnings to find a link. Who knows…maybe everything you have researched has a Star Fort foundation. Best wishes and I’m quite forward to your book Mario.

    • Mario Buildreps

      Thank you for your comment, Fredrick. The first things we will research after the first book has been finished are the Greek and Roman settlements, sites, cities, and temples. There are clear patterns to be found here as well. The thing with star forts and fortifications in general is that their primarily purpose is to defend and not to study or to worship the sky. Most fortifications are embedded in their geographical environment in order to optimize their purpose.
      Thank you again for your input.
      Best wishes, Mario

  • Kenneth

    Wow! This is very interesting. I did a lot of reading on this website, but I still do not completely understand the theory.
    Possibly because I am not enough familiar with certain other related theories.

    Here is my question:
    Wouldn’t the orientation of a building change in time because of plate tectonics? Or would this not change the orientation, but only the (X,Y) coordinates?

    • Mario Buildreps

      Yes the orientation of buildings changes a bit due to plate tectonics. But plate tectonics cannot account for such large changes in orientation. Our theory recognizes two main cause of deformations; plate tectonics and crustal deformations. Plate tectonics change the earth’s surface very slowly during periods of tranquility. Crustal deformations change the Earth’s surface during periods of turmoil. What in the latter case happens is a very complex happening: the Earth grows and the Earth’s crust is deformed during the growth process. The deformation process is amplified by a high eccentric orbit around the Sun.

      • Kenneth

        That I can understand. So the intersections do not need to be exact but more like a cluster of near intersections. And small changes in the orientation of a structure can be neglected.

        Did you also look at other relations besides the shared geographic north pole? For instance, structures positioned near the same equator of one of the poles 1 to 5.

      • Kenneth

        I wonder what results you would find when you look at how the ancient monuments are positioned in respect to ley lines.
        It is known that most ancient monuments were placed on a ley line. Did you look into this yet?

        One of the Nasca lines runs over the ley line that has the same length as the equator. This ley line goes through lots of ancient monuments. For instance Easter island, Giza, Angkor Wat.
        All of the Nasca lines intersect exactly ay Angkor Wat.
        Possibly it is quite easy with the data that you have to look for lines that run through the different ancient momuments and see if something can be concluded from this?

      • Mario Buildreps

        We know about the ideas of ley lines in relation to ancient ruins. There is no above average correlation between ancient structures and the network of ley lines. It is a dense network of lines so you will always “hit” something. But how many did you miss? Over which ancient structures do these lines go? Over which ancient structures do these lines NOT go? Why did you miss them? Why are some ancient structures selected over others? And based on which ideas are they selected. What is the scientific basis of ley lines?

        When it comes to the ideas about Angkor Wat and Nazca, Combodia is the antipode of Peru. When you draw a dense network of lines from Peru you will find the same dense node of lines at the antipode. It is even so that the Nazca Lines are not even the exact antipode of Angkow Wat. What is the theory behind this endeavor?

  • Pete Schumacher

    Do you have a date in mind for the release of the book?

    • Mario Buildreps

      Our team has a date in mind. The stuff is so far reaching and requires so much explanation in some occasions that the book will be published in a serie. The first publication is expected to be in 2020.

  • Drew

    One specific question – have you looked into the age / orientation of the Osirian Temple in Abydos? It was something like 50 feet below ground level, which makes me believe it was extremely ancient – or covered at a rapid rate due to Nile flooding. Thanks for any insights you’re able to share.

    • Mario Buildreps

      Thank you for your comments, Drew. Yes, we have researched most of ancient Egypt but we haven’t published the results yet. Ancient Egypt is extremely old. The orientation of the Temple of Osireion/Seti correlates with Pole VI which is between 410 and 440 Kyears old. That could explain why the temple is so deep below ground level.

  • Drew

    I can’t tell you how happy I am to have found your site and YouTube channel. After being convinced about Earth Crust displacement by Hapgood’s and others’ work, I immediately wondered if the reason some ancient sites are oriented to true North and others are skewed is due to the timing of their construction vs crustal shifts. I was considering doing similar research, and am grateful that you have done such tremendous legwork on mine and others’ behalves.

    Also – I’ve been convinced of the growing Earth theory based per Maxlow et al as well as doing my own research with Google maps of sea floor ages. I am amazed that a 1st grader can understand this, but very few adults are open to looking at this evidence and considering this reality. I am VERY much looking forward to seeing what comes of your efforts to marry crustal displacement with Growing Earth theory.

    Finally – I just want to commend you on your science that is based purely on logic and evidence, rather than on pre-defined ideas and dogma. I foresee the growing army of researchers like you toppling the current academic guard and literally freeing the minds of our society. Keep up the good work, and I am so looking forward to keeping abreast of your work. I will absolutely donate to your work.

    • Mario Buildreps

      Thank you Drew for your interesting comment.The growing earth and crustal displacement must be joined together to get a better understanding of Earth’s true history. There is indeed a growing number of scientists who base their ideas on logic, math, and evidence and not on dogmas. Time will tell how fast this will go.

  • James Patten

    I’m trying to turn a few folks that are layman onto your site. Let me know if you approve. (?) My forte is sales.

    • Mario Buildreps

      Hi James, thank you very much for your commitment and dedication. Much appreciated. We are already very thankful to you and what you have done for the continuation of the website and our work. I’m convinced that your effort will be fruitful in whatever way.

  • 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 in 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 *