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.
© 2015-2019 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.