When we look at the ancient poles that were once located on Greenland, it should be clear to anyone that such massive catastrophic events do not go unnoticed. Nor do they take place over the course of a few years, because the earth’s crust is too massive to change overnight.
The ancient locations of the geographic poles are mathematically proven by us – 100%. It is also an established fact that the crust deformed on a massive scale and the geographic North pole migrated in several steps to where it is today. Our next task here is to attach a timeframe to our discovery. That is not as easy as it seems, because that demands a thorough scientific study.
Massive cataclysms invariably leave huge traces in geological records.
The main questions that arise are:
- When did that happen? How old are these poles?
- How long did it take for the poles to migrate to another location?
- If the ancient monuments were oriented to these different poles in vast numbers, and if they are proven to belong to the era of these poles, are they then as old as these poles?
The research that we have done to prove the age of the former poles is profound and rather complicated. In this part of our website, we progressively take you through this process and explain to you in detail why and how we know 99.999% for sure how old the poles are, and thus we can confirm that the ancient structures belong to these specific poles.
The Five Nodes or Poles That Are Mathematically Proven
The Youngest Former Pole Must be Older Than the Greek Civilization
Crustal deformations of this magnitude do not go unnoticed. Nor did they take place overnight and they did not occur only a few thousand years ago.
The youngest former pole (Pole II) was located on Greenland at a latitude of 76.1°. This pole has been mathematically proven by us with an uncertainty of only 5.59×10-19. In scientific terms: it is a 100% certainty that its location is factual and true.
It is an understatement to say that these crustal deformation processes were very destructive for most life on Earth. When the crust deforms on this scale it causes prolonged megaquakes, tsunamis of gigantic size, and massive volcanic eruptions. While the crustal deformations take place, these catastrophes continue for many millennia.
In their sagas, the ancient Greeks do not mention anything regarding a global cataclysm that might have happened during that time. We take this to indicate that these huge cataclysms occurred before their time, more than 3,500 years ago. Plato muses about the city of Atlantis that was reputedly swallowed by a raging flood. The Bible speaks in Genesis of a deluge that swept over most of the face of the Earth. Could this pervasive flood narrative be anchored in truth but was almost lost in the mist of time?
All Cultures Speak of Deluges in Their Traditions
In fact, all cultures from Africa to America, from Asia to Europe, and from Finland to Polynesia have their own myths about floods and cataclysms. For instance, the legends of the Hopi Indians speak of multiple worlds before ours – a view that we agree with. Because these sources are separated from each other by vast oceans, talking about the same topic, this should be taken very seriously, and should not be treated by academia as fairy tales only because it does not fit their distorted belief system. That is unfortunately all too often their unscientific approach to this very intriguing topic.
We are speaking of at least four consecutive deformation cycles that moved the geographic North pole from the South of Greenland all the way over the entire area of Greenland to where it is now. We have found that the pole moved over a distance of more than 4,200 km (~2,600 miles), in four distinct steps, which translates into five poles. We have found these five poles in an unambiguous mathematical way, but it has been difficult to find more ancient poles with equal precision. Therefore, we have focused our research on only five poles and four deformation cycles.
These poles are defined by the orientation clusters of ancient structures randomly spread all over the globe, thus suggesting practically worldwide deluges and cataclysms as mentioned in the Bible and by virtually all cultures around the world.
Do Deformation Cycles Look Like This?
The Ice Cores From Antarctica Are Showing First Clues
The ice cores from Antarctica showed us the first clues regarding the suspected age of the ancient poles that we have found. Why the ice cores from Antarctica? Because of these reasons:
- deformation cycles of the crust indicate radical climatic changes that scientists have identified as “ice ages”,
- the sequence between the pole distances, hence the climatic shifts, are logically expected in the same order as those shown in the glaciation graphs; the sequences are expected to be the same otherwise there would be no correlation,
- we have found five stationary positions of the poles (also called nodes), suggesting that climatic changes due to deformation cycles also have their own recuperation cycle, when the crust became stable again. That is what we indeed observe in the glaciation graphs – the graph always goes up after it went down,
- the ice cores extend over a long enough period to determine possible matching patterns. Tree rings, for example, cover too short a period of time to show a record of even one large cataclysm.
Probability That the Same Sequence Occurs Coincidentally
When we carefully examine the data of both the distances between each of the poles and the distances between the high lows in the glaciation graph of Fig. 2, we find indeed a matching sequence. To show this a little clearer, we have labeled the highs and lows as A, B, C, D, and E. The data used to generate the graph in Fig. 2 is directly retrieved from the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology (the NOAA participates in the WDCP), so we were able to analyze the highs and lows with great accuracy. Initially, we used a simple labeling system:
- pole II to pole I (A) = XL,
- pole III to pole II (B) = XS,
- pole IV to pole III (C) = S,
- pole V to pole IV (D) = L,
- pole VI to pole V (E) = M. (note: pole VI is yet unproven)
What we see here is that the sequences of the relative magnitudes are the same, i.e. the relative distances between the poles are in the same order of magnitude as the largest relative temperature jump in the glaciation graph. The probability for this sequence to match coincidentally is 1÷nn = 1÷44 = 1÷256 = 0.00391 or 0.39%. That means that we can be more than 99.6% certain that we are looking at the correct time frames of the deformation cycles. To prove that we are right we have gone even further.
Earth’s Climate Also Varies Without Crustal Deformations
It is crucial to understand that in the graph of Fig 2. there is also a “natural” temperature variation present due to varying Sun activity, slight variations in the Earth’s orbit parameters, changes of ocean currents, and variations in CO2 levels. These natural variations are expected to occur not only when the crust is stable but also when it is unstable, i.e. it is always present – a sort of “background noise”.
The Sun’s activity will vary no matter what, the ocean currents will continue to vary no matter what, the orbit parameters will have their own agenda and even the CO2 levels will periodically change. Reliable data over the last two millennia can be found by using tree ring data and ice sheet data from Greenland.
Tree Ring Data Over the Last 2,000 Years
Greenland Ice Sheet Data Over the Last 10,000 Years
Next Steps to Filter Out the Crustal Deformations
In Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 we show that the temperatures on Earth vary between a relatively small band of 2.8°C. Larger temperature variations, as they are presented in glaciation graphs, are in fact incorrect presentations because crustal deformations caused massive climatic changes that can be found as proxies in the ice cores of Antarctica.
Now that we have the correct data, filtering out the natural temperature variations is not so difficult anymore. We have to “cut off” the highs and lows with the 2.8°C that we have distilled from the glaciation graphs to find the remaining “fingerprint” of the crustal deformations. And if that results once again in matching data, we have confirmation that our proposed time frame of the poles is correct.
High-Resolution Data Over 800,000 Years From Antarctica
How to Read the Graph
In Fig. 6 we have plotted on the horizontal axis a period of 800,000 years. The data comes directly from the Dome-C ice cores on Antarctica. They are called proxies. The data values were checked and verified. The grid is divided into 20,000 years. On the vertical axis, we have plotted the temperatures.
You see that over the last 440,000 years the global temperatures looked like a rollercoaster, jumping up and down between 8 to 14°C. That’s very extreme because we have shown above that there is no evidence over the last 10,000 years that the temperatures varied more than 2.8°C. So, what made the temperatures jump up and down so much?
It is important to note that the temperature variations are related to the eccentric orbit of the Earth around the Sun as we show in Fig. 2. Tilt and precession do not play any role in the onset of ice ages, that’s one of the most commonly made mistakes. Changing eccentricity causes no annual changes in solar radiation (less than 1%) received by the Earth. When the Earth’s orbit is most elliptical, the amount of solar energy received at the perihelion would be about 30 percent more than at aphelion. But compared to a cylindrical orbit, perihelion receives 15% more energy and at aphelion, it is 15% less energy. The point is that the overall solar energy budget remains equal over one year and that eccentricity does not influence the received solar energy over long periods. And yet there is a one on one relationship between ice ages and eccentricity.
We have discovered that very elliptical orbits caused very large gravitational oscillations on the Earth’s crust. It is relatively easy to understand that these oscillations caused crustal deformations, and yet scientists haven’t figured this out for themselves. We have done all the work that the large institutions should have done. Believing in a steady sturdy planet makes it much easier for them to produce papers and to exploit a career. The truth, however, is far different.
When the last “ice age” ended (on the right side in Fig. 6) between 10,000 to 15,000 years ago, you see the blue curve jumping back up and start to stabilize. In fact, you see every time after the temperatures dove down, they jumped back up again as if the Earth has a sort of “set point”. This set point is, of course, a stable crust, the upward flanks in the graph are the recuperation phases of the biosphere after a rough cataclysmic period, and the downward flanks are the crustal deformation phases. The variations in the setpoint are caused by a not completely recuperated biosphere before the next crustal deformation started again. A good example of this is around 210,000 years ago, where we see two short recuperation cycles after yet another occurring deformation. This happens only when eccentricity is very high (see Fig. 2).
Once you grasp this, it becomes easy to understand. Providing bulletproof evidence is harder, but we have done that too.
Cropping the Peaks and Valleys Reveal the Crustal Deformations
|Period||Deformation effect (°C)|
How Did We Prove That Glaciation Cycles Were Crustal Deformations?
We have proven that the geographic North pole moved in the latitudinal direction which clearly indicates climatic changes. Imagine your town shifting from the latitude of New York to the latitude of Miami. That would have serious consequences for the climate you are living in. Something similar happened multiple times in the past over very long periods of time.
Our concept is simple and can be readily understood: it is cold at the poles and warm at the equator, the latitudes in between are of intermediate temperatures.
For every little step that we take from one of the poles towards the equator, it gets warmer. When we step over the equator towards the other pole it starts to become colder again. However, when we travel towards the equator, the area that is involved in the temperature change (ΔT) becomes larger (ΔAr). That means that zones closer to the equator have a larger impact on the global climate. To understand the full picture, we need to cast this principle into mathematics:
- the area at the poles is small. When we travel from the North pole (90°) to a latitude of let’s say 80° just north of Greenland we have traveled over a latitudinal angle of 10°. Imagine it like a small “cap” sitting on the of the world. The surface area of this cap is quite small,
- the temperature change for the area that we have crossed is relatively large,
- the same angular surface area around the equator is large. When we travel over the same distance from just above the equator (5°) to just below the equator (-5°) we have crossed the same latitudinal angle of 10° but the climatic zone which can be imagined as a band around the equator is many times larger (11.5 times),
- the temperature change that we have crossed is relatively small.
How Latitude Influences Temperature
How Latitude and Surface Areas Are Related
Analyzing From Pole to Pole
The next step is to “walk” from pole to pole in very small steps and to multiply the changes that we find between every latitude in both graphs of Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 with the help of calculus, the powerful mathematics used for this process. When we make a step on the X-axis, for example from 90 to 89 and then follow the graph, we note the differences that the graph makes on the Y-axis.
|ΔX1 (Fig 8)|||ΔT| (Fig 8)||ΔX2 (Fig 9)||ΔArel (Fig 9)||∑ |ΔT|·ΔArel|
|1° (90°→89°)||0.2°C||1° (90°→89°)||0.007615%||1.523×10-5 °C|
|1° (1°→0°)||0.3°C||1° (1°→0°)||0.87262%||8.7262×10-1 °C|
Our behind-the-scenes data processing is an immense undertaking that is only comprehensible for mathematicians. It would be intimidating and demanding to share it online. It is important to understand what the method is about. We now have found Earth’s fingerprint when the crust deforms in the latitudinal direction, i.e. what kind of information you would find if you were to take ice core samples and why they would show such large jumps.
We made ΔX1 and ΔX2 the increments smaller which increases the calculus accuracy. This is what we found:
- Cdef = ∑ |ΔT|·ΔArel = 0.576°C.
We called this the crustal deformation constant, Cdef. This number should be a holy number for every geologist. Note that ΔT (written as |ΔT|) is an absolute value; otherwise, we would end up with a value close to zero because of the nature of the temperature from pole to pole.
When the crust deforms in the latitudinal direction – which is the only logical effect because the crust behaves like a spinning top that is affected by an external force – we will find patterns or fingerprints of this movement in very old ice cores. 10 degrees of a crustal deformation in the latitudinal direction leaves a fingerprint of 5.76°C (10 * 0.576 = 5.76) in the ice sheet of Antarctica. Wild guesses circulate in the academic circles about the age of the Greenland ice sheet but they are unscientific. We have 100% proof that Greenland’s ice sheet is not older than 300,000 years.
The ice sheet on Antarctica, on the other hand, is in fact incredibly old. This knowledge is fairly reliably obtained by dating the so-called blue ice. Indeed, there is good evidence that Antarctica’s ice sheet might be older than 3 million years. This evidence lacks completely for Greenland and knowing this has profound consequences; the South pole was stable while the North pole was unstable. Antarctica did not move at all over the last 340,000 years, while Greenland was catapulted over the North pole and most of the crust was heavily deformed. That is the reason why the Antarctic ice sheet holds a precious key to our ancient history.
|Event||From||To||Angle of Shift of North Pole (Snp)||Cdef (°C)||Pseudo Glacial Effect
Snp × Cdef (°C)
|Sub Glacial From Ice Core (red area Fig. 7 (°C))||Error||Status|
Why is This 100% Proof?
We have here two (seemingly) independent patterns that fit one on one onto each other. It is possible to calculate the probability for these two patterns to fit coincidentally onto each other.
- The simple patterns of Fig. 2 fit onto each other, which gives us a probability of 1 to 256 that this is coincidental, hence 99.6% that it is indeed related. It is in our view not spectacular but good enough for a deeper investigation, which we did.
- The complicated patterns of Fig. 7 matches one on one onto each other, where we considered the natural temperature variation σ95 over the last 10,000 years, and the exactly matching polar movements which we multiplied with our other discovery, namely the crustal deformation constant, Cdef. The patterns match with an accuracy of less than 1%, not one time, but four times in a row. The probability for this to occur coincidentally with well-founded scientific data is 1 to 750,000, hence we have a 99.999867% certainty that our discovery is true.
We are therefore 100% certain that our time frame for the ancient poles is correct, and this has profound consequences for the age of the foundations of ancient structures. We now understand how old they really are, what happened to these ancient civilizations, why there are so many mysterious ancient sites around the world allegedly built within a few thousand years but in reality are hundreds of thousands of years old. With our method, we are able to explain one of the biggest questions of science.
A Box Full of Keys
To help you understand that the time frame that we propose for the ancient poles is something very realistic, and underscore the true antiquity of man-made structures around the world, we suggest that you imagine the following situation:
- You’re holding a box with 31 keys and you are standing in front of four doors that you need to open,
- all keys are unlabeled and all look similar, but they are all unique and you really have no idea which key will open the first door,
- you just pick the first key from the box, and voila it fits! You opened the door successfully,
- you have now had 30 keys left in the box,
- you pick the second key, it fits again! You opened the door successfully. You cannot believe how much luck you have,
- you now pick the third key from the box, and unbelievable as it may sound it fits again as if you’re doing a magic trick,
- you pick the fourth key from the box, and yes it fits also. You also opened the last door successfully while you picked only four times a random key.
The probability that a situation like this occurs coincidentally is 1 to 31×30×29×28 = 1 to 755,160. Anyone who encounters such a situation knows it is not coincidental, and that there must be something artificial underlying these results, something that demands further investigation.
Some people propose that, because occasionally a person does indeed win the lottery, coincidences happen sometimes. The answer to that is not so! That someone wins the lottery is no coincidence. Because millions of people take part and the odds are also in the millions, there’s always a winner in most draws. But of course, there is still magic in this world – there are people who won the lottery twice…
If you are still unconvinced, look at the multitude of ancient structures that we have examined by using our method. Because we have shown the true age of ancient sites like Stonehenge, Nuraghes, and Chichen Itza by applying our method, our hypothesis is suddenly not so theoretical anymore. The truth is even stranger than fiction.
© 2015 – 2018 by Mario Buildreps
Proofreading and editing: J.B.