Scientific Paper: Orientation of Latin-American Pyramids and Temples


The amount of non-cardinal orientated temples and pyramids in Latin-America, from Mexico down to Peru, is often attributed as the result of a possible orientation to the magnetic pole. It is argued in several researches (Fuson 1969, Carlson 1975, Klokočník, 2010) that structures could have been oriented by means of a lodestone compass or a similar instrument.

However, by gathering and analyzing 157 separate sites in Latin-America, from Mexico down to Peru, it appears there is, in contrast to former researches, no distinct relation to be found between orientation and the location of the wandering magnetic pole (McElhinny and McFadden, 2000).

Over 90% of the ancient sites in Latin-America are oriented East of True North (clockwise oriented), which cannot be caused by coincidence or topography. That made researchers believe magnetic compasses could have been used to orient the structures. Because the magnetic pole wanders around the geographic pole, when using a compass this could be the cause of such a deviant orientation.

A square or rectangle building can be uniquely oriented within a range of 90°. We cannot know other than as an assumption which side of a pyramid or temple is the main side. It is assumptive to argue that an alleged main side of a temple was for example oriented to the East of the rising Sun. These kind of assumptions pollutes many of the researches done in this field making most conclusion useless. Therefore is this research solely focused on the orientation of the Latin-American pyramids and temples as a square or rectangle in regard to the cardinals, without making assumptions towards the conclusions.

There is no correlation found between orientation of the Latin-American pyramids and temples and the wandering magnetic pole. This research concludes that the Latin-American pyramids and temples were oriented to an astronomical or geological phenomenon other than the wandering magnetic pole.

You can download the full paper here: Orientation of Latin-American Pyramids and Temples


© 2017 by Mario Buildreps


Lost Civilizations – The Mystery of Nuraghes on Sardinia

Nuraghes belong to one of the most mysterious ancient buildings in the world. An unknown civilization, called the Nuragic civilization, built over 7,000 stone structures on Sardinia, an island of the size of Sicily. The Nuragic civilization appears to be way older than previously believed, way beyond our imagination. 

Fig. 1: The Nuraghe Santa Sabina is an example of a simple Nuraghe. There are thousands of these on Sardinia that are approximately similar to this one. Most of them are in a worse condition.

What is a Nuraghe?

A Nuraghe is a tower-shaped, prehistoric stone structure only to be found in Sardinia. It is said they date from the second millennium B.C. to the Roman conquest.

Most people believe that Nuraghes are astronomical aligned structures. But to say which kind of astronomical purpose they exactly served is completely unknown. Researches[1] to the orientation of the openings show they peak at an azimuth of 148°. There’s no match to make with one of the cardinals, the Equinox, nor with one of the Solstices. The current Summer and Winter solstices in Sardinia occur respectively around 58.5° and 121.5.

Nuraghes show also peaks in declination between 40° and 44° which has led to speculations they might have been oriented to Alpha Centauri. Why an alleged primitive culture would point their towers to one of the many stars light years away remains of course unanswered.

Most researchers split Nuraghes into two parts: simple Nuraghes and complex Nuraghes. This article will deal only with the simple Nuraghes.

Fig. 2: Typical floor plan of a simple Nuraghe.

What Was the Function of a Nuraghe?

Wikipedia about Nuraghes: “There is no consensus on the function of the nuraghes: they could have been rulers’ residences, military strongholds, meeting halls, religious temples, ordinary dwellings or a combination of the former. Some of the nuraghes are, however, located in strategic places – such as hills– from which important passages could be easily controlled. They might have been something between a “status symbol” and a “passive defence” building, meant to be a deterrent for possible enemies.

This explanation does not deviate from the typical average explanations as to how ancient cultures lived, built, and practiced their religious and scientific lives. This approach is of course unable to solve questions like:

  • why so many Nuraghes?
  • why are they all so similar but weirdly oriented?
  • what was their purpose?

By applying the new mathematical theory, The Holistic Orientation Based Dating Method, is the function of the Nuraghes explained as well as the periods they were built. Our conventional history appears to be built on a swamp of misinterpretations, fixed ideas, lies, and most of all the common practice of unscience by the academia.

How the Shifting Crust Relates to Ancient Structures and Ice Ages

Fig. 3: More than 500 ancient structures, like pyramids and temples are used to prove how and when the Earth’s crust shifted on the rhythm of the Milankovitch cycles, or better, Earth’s eccentric orbit around the Sun. While Nuraghes are no part of the dataset they also appear to follow the 47.1 W reference line with a surgical precision. The odds for the Nuraghes to be also coincidentally part of that same track is 1 to 893,000 | © 2017 by Buildreps.

Nuraghes Are No Exception

It is generally believed there’s no relation between the Nuraghes and the countless other ancient structures around the world. But that appears to be one of the biggest mistakes science has made over the last centuries. Nuraghes appear to belong to the same global civilization which spanned the entire planet, one of the countless Lost Civilizations.

The whole idea, that ancient cultures are stretching out over hundreds of thousands of years, is awesomely hard to grasp for most people. And that has a reason. We are all relentlessly conditioned at school with the same ideas of ancient history, which is ultimately completely false.

Fig. 4: Many of the simple Nuraghes are oriented between 140 and 160 degrees.

Most archaeologists won’t even ponder a split second on the idea that ancient structures might be hundreds of thousands of years old. Even when remnants of Homo sapiens are found in Marocco that appear to be over 300,000 years old – the penny still doesn’t drop. That’s because the ruling paradigm is much too tough to break through. Only mathematics has the power to smash tough paradigms to smithereens. It’s then up to yourself to transform your believe system to a higher level.

Ask yourself questions like: why would a 300,000 year old Homo sapiens be less smart than we are today? Because they didn’t went to the same schools as we did? There are insufficient reasons to assume they would be either smarter or dumber than we are. Because if they would be one of both they would be, by definition, another species.

The Results of the Measurements

Fig. 5 : The orientation of the openings of simple Nuraghes peaks at 148°. The current solstices of Sardinia are far away from the spikes in the data. | © 2017 by Buildreps.

Why the Crust Moved

Geologists say there is no evidence for crustal displacements. But they haven’t looked well enough to their own data. Paleomagnetic records appear to contain tons of data that are pointing not only to magnetic movements but also to movements of the crust. And because one measurement thus contains two variables it cannot be solved without introducing a second completely different measurement.

During the crustal movements the paleomagnetic data show an increased hysteresis. In other words, the paleomagnetic records show a larger spread during periods of crustal unrest, which is of course logical during periods of crustal displacement. Geologists have never found a credible explanation for the varying hysteresis, other than just unexplained “noise” without further examination. It never even dawned on them there is second variable in the game: crustal movements caused by very heavy earthquakes which on their turn are caused by a high eccentric orbit of Earth around the Sun.

Because the Earth, Earth’s inner and also the outer crust are rotating bodies, they will react perpendicularly to the direction of rotation when a force is acted upon them. Exactly like a spinning top does. Because the crust has the highest velocity and is at the same time the lightest part of the Earth, it will react the most fiercely of all the components. That’s why the crust crawled in the latitudinal (vertical) direction.

How the Latitude of Sardinia Changed Over Time

Fig. 6: This animation shows how the latitudes of Sardinia have changed during the “glaciation cycles”. Glaciation cycles were in fact crustal displacements. The Nuragic civilization appeared to have a firm tradition to orient the openings of the stone structures to the South and continued to do this consistently over a period of about 200,000 years, even during the periods of crustal unrest. | © 2017 by Buildreps.

Finding the First Clues on Nuraghes

The theory or method says there were four former geographic poles, called Pole II to Pole V (fig. 3). Our current geographic pole is Pole I. This is not just a hint or an idea, no, it is mathematically proven. The geographic pole is the spin axis of the Earth. Many people appear to mix this with the magnetic pole.

If the Nuraghes were built during one of these periods, the orientation of the Nuraghes could well relate to one or more of these poles. Our first clues are here to be found, and if there are clusters in orientation that correlates far above average with one or more of the ancient poles, we have found serious proof of their true age.

And that would mean that the Nuragic culture stretched out over a time span of hundreds of thousands of years, and that this civilization survived not only the periods of stability but also the periods of crustal unrest. And indeed, their Nuraghes appear not only to point massively to the former poles but appear also to follow the path of the pole.

The data which was used from the paper[1] measures of course all orientations with Pole I as the one and only possible reference. These data has to be reprocessed to the Pole II to V to look for correlations.

Fig. 7: The largest spikes in the data correlate with Pole IV, with a probability of more than 99.99%. These Nuraghes are between 240,000 and 270,000 years old.

The True Age of Chichen Itza and Stonehenge Are Already Proven

As already mathematically proven with Chichen Itza as well as with Stonehenge, were these ancient cultures able to track the ancient cardinal directions as well as the solstices with surgical precision.

A number of the Nuraghes are oriented in between the pole positions. It appears the civilization tracked the shifting crust over the many millenniums. That explains in the simplest way why we find so many Nuraghes spread across the island of Sardinia.

So the first thing we did is to look for clues here. It’s not difficult to see there’s NO relation in the data[1] between the Equinox and the Summer Solstice, but the peaks in the data correspond extremely high with Pole III and Pole IV. It literally jumps though the roof.

Correlations between Orientation of Nuraghes and the Ancient Poles

Table 1: This table presents the conclusions of the data processing. The simple Nuraghes peaked during Pole IV, which is between 240,000 and 270,000 years ago. The “angle X” is the weighed average of the whole group which correlates with the specific pole.

The Probabilities That Peaks Correlate to Ancient Poles

When we look at the graph presented in fig. 5 we see a clear non-random distribution. The peak at 148° (n=15) is extraordinary high when we regard the amount of involved measurements (N=259). If we would be looking at a random distribution, a peak of this size would only occur once in every 76.5 million times. This is why it is clearly not a random distribution, that’s why it is done on purpose. It is this peak that correlates with Pole IV.

If we take away the largest peak, there’s still a very strong correlation with Pole III left. So the proof hangs on more than just one thread. The Nuragic civilization spanned over a period of hundreds of thousands of years.

Selection of Some Nuraghes

Table 2:  Short list of Nuraghes and their poles
POLE Nuraghe name (Town) Age (×1000 years)
Pole I  Sa Pria (Perfugas), Ruiu (Macomer), Murcu (Cardedu) 0 – 26 ky
Pole II  Luche (Illorai), Sambinzu (Bonorva), Rampinu (Orosei), Serresi (Sindia), S Orighes (Orani) 130 – 180 ky
Pole III Tuttusoni (Aglientu), Figone (Bulzi), Tribides (Perfugas), Pazza (Ploaghe), Ruggiu (Pozzomaggiore), Orosai (Birori), Ponte (Dualchi)  220 – 230 ky
Pole IV Sant Alena (San Vito), Truxiu (Nuragus), Jana (Zerfaliu), Perda de Caddos (Bonarcado), Ludriscas (Orani), Nela (Sindia), Santa Luxia 1 (Orosei), Nunnale (Orune), Tintinnos (Bonorva)  240 – 270 ky
Pole V Nurassolu (Sadali), Izzi (Abbasanta), Succhiaiu (Aidomaggiore), Caddaris (Dualchi), Tossilo (Macomer), Spadularzu (Bonorva)  335 – 360 ky


One of my readers asked for help to look into the Nuraghes. I heard about Nuraghes before but had never included them in the data set, because the data set contains only square or rectangle buildings, or large arrays like the Donegal alignment or Carnac which comply with the theory. It appears that the Nuraghes are no exception in the always returning relation between ancient structures and the Poles I to V, wherever we are on Earth.

The Nuraghes are showing the exact same reorientation patterns as the Mayan buildings like for example Chichen Itza. That is one of the reasons why this island is littered with Nuraghes. Every time the crust displaced a bit, a new Nuraghe was built to comply with the new cardinal system. That habit appears to contain a gold mine of data. It also reinforces the theory, because every time when we apply the theory to Chichen Itza, Stonehenge, or in this case the Nuraghes it again appears to correlate up to a surprising high level.

The peak at an azimuth of 148° is closely related to Pole IV. The large spike in the data proves mathematically that the Nuragic civilization oriented their Nuraghes to the South during Pole III and Pole IV. It means that this civilization is at least 250,000 years old. It also means that this civilization survived the shift from Pole IV to Pole III, and continued their habit to built Nuraghes and to orient their openings to the South. We are talking here of a highly developed civilization with strong traditions, and probably a deep spiritual understanding of nature.

The studies which are done on the complex Nuraghes appear to reveal astonishing details. Every time, when the theory is applied on ancient structures, the theory appears to be correct and also to explain the (astronomical) use of the astounding ancient buildings.

I leave it up to my readers to conclude what that means for the mainstream ideas of disciplines like archaeology, geology, paleontology, climatology, and history in general. Maybe it is time to rewrite our indoctrinations radically.

Sardinia Became Connected to the Mainland Between Pole III and Pole II

Fig. 8: This animation shows how Sardinia became connected to Corsica and how Corsica became connected to North-West Italy. During the migration of the crust from Pole III to Pole II the vast ice sheets started to develop to such an extend that the sea level dropped more than 100 meters. The Nuragic civilization became vulnerable for invasions, that’s the most probable reason for it to vanish mysteriously.


© 2017 by Mario Buildreps



[1]: “On the orientations of Sardinian Nuraghes” by M. Zedda and J.A. Belmonte (2004).


Pyramids of Giza – Orientation to Geo Pole

The pyramids of Giza are all three very precisely oriented to the cardinals, and therefore ultimately to the geographic North pole. Egyptologists have oversimplified methods to explain how the builders must have done this. But while doing so they overlooked a few crucial topics which makes their work more amateurish and unscientific than it appears at first hand.


How Did They Do It?

It might look simple, but to orient such a large structure within 0.06 degrees to the geographic pole is quite difficult, even for the standards of today.

There are in the mainstream circles two competing ideas as to how the builders of the pyramids of Giza might have aligned their tall structures so accurately, within 0.06° to True North.

The proposed methods are:

  • Indian Circle Method,
  • Pole Star Method.

The question of the precise orientation of the pyramids to the cardinals seems to be solved already long time ago. On top of that it is said that orienting that accurate is not such a big thing. So what’s the point of this article? The point is that the widely accepted theories are based on false assumptions and wrong ideas, and therefore must be labeled as the work of amateurs. It is this work of amateurs that has become the standard – a believe system.

The proposed methods by archaeologists are based on what the “Egyptians” were supposed to know about devices, instruments, methods, and mathematics. They lived in the Bronze age and there were no devices found, so archaeologists started to speculate wildly within their constrained paradigm. Many experiments are performed to “simulate” the Egyptians’ method with simple tools.

Achieving such high accuracies with large structures cannot be done with the simple proposed tools. This article will disprove the presented methods with facts.

Both methods will be discussed in this article. But we will first tackle the two most important starting positions which are wrong in the ruling theories.

The Indian Circle Method in Short

What is Wrong in the Ruling Theories?

There are basically two important issues neglected in the currently ruling theories, which are:

  • the original orientation of the pyramids at the time they were supposed to be built. The Nubian plate (African plate) on which the pyramids are built moves a little bit. It moves counterclockwise and the pyramids are slightly counterclockwise oriented. So, there’s clearly a point of correction. The question is only how much? Valuing these tiny movements is important because they add a significant portion to the current deviation of the pyramids.
  • archaeologists measure the specs of the pyramids as built but only after 4,500 years, and base their theories upon it without giving it a second thought. Any measuring device must be more accurate than the process requirements, at least by a factor of two. The general accepted international standard is a ratio of 4 to 1[1], meaning that the equipment must be 4 times as accurate as the manufacturing process requirements itself, in order to prevent out of spec errors in the end products. For gauges even counts a ratio of 10 to 1. We can easily see that archaeologists have insufficient knowledge of this subject while constructing their theories.

These are the two most important issues which are neglected when archaeologists reconstruct the builders’ surveying and building methods. We will examine how these two very important issues must have impacted the builders’ processes.

Nubian Plate Movements

We can estimate the amount of rotation the Nubian (African) plate has made since the time the pyramids were built. The results differ depending on which plate tectonics model we use. Note that the different models generate different results (!). After studying on this issue we’ve chosen to use HS2-NUVEL1 as the reference[2]. This model generates for the Nubian plate the following data:

  • Location of Interest: 29.979°, 31.134°
  • Location Euler Pole: -5.50°, 3.60°
  • Angular velocity: -13.0″/kyears
  • Direction = -48.9 degree

To understand how the African plate has moved relative to the geographic pole, and so the pyramids as well, you need absolute data. It is the best data we can get for this purpose[3].

The conclusion is that the Nubian plate rotated 59″ counterclockwise since the time the pyramids were built. The pyramids are nowadays aligned at -205″ relative to True North, the geographic pole. So, based on the calculated tectonic plate movement we can conclude that the pyramids were aligned within a range of error of: -205 + 59 = -146″ (or 0.041° West of North).

Like already mentioned before was their surveying instrument at least 2 to 4 times as accurate as the errors we observe in the building’s orientation. That means that the builders used an instrument able to detect True North within 0.01 to 0.02° (or 36″ to 72″), which is just beyond the angular resolution of the human eye. Compare it with a sniper hitting a basketball at a distance of 1 kilometer. Show us one ancient instrument able to do that. Not only that, you must reproduce that also three times.

How Plate Movements Affected the Current Orientation

This is how the Nubian plate is believed to have moved. The counterclockwise rotation adds a significant portion to the deviation of the pyramids of Giza.
This is how the Nubian plate is believed to have rotated. The counterclockwise rotation of the plate adds a significant portion to the contemporary deviation of the pyramids of Giza. | © 2017 Buildreps.

Theoretical Age of Pyramids at Breakeven Point

The pyramids of Giza were never reliably dated, so the first grandiose assumption was already made by pinpointing them at about 4560 years old. Because radiocarbon datings are pointing to an older age, it forced archaeologists to construct difficult theories how that could have happened, because it contradicts the time the alleged builder of the great pyramid, pharaoh Khufu (Cheops), reigned over Egypt.

What would you trust more, scripture or mathematics? Graffiti or Numbers?

By using the movement of the Nubian plate, we can calculate a theoretical breakeven point date at: 205 ÷ 13 ≈ 15,800 years. The age of the pyramids could be well around 15,800 years.

There is a good reason why we should take this date seriously, which is the following: if you are able to built something that withstood “4,500 years” of environmental influences like earthquakes and floods, and still stand that tall and accurately like it obviously still does, then what might have prevented them to built with almost 0 tolerance?

In a future article we will show the mathematical likelihood for this date to be accurate and true based on a set of converging data.

Indian Circle Method

The bar, to detect True North, is set at 0.02° or 72″. Without making too much fuzz about the Indian Circle Method, we can say this method is good for finding North during bush camping. When we use this method we accumulate in about 8 steps so much errors that we are able to find North within ±2°.  A well trained professional might be able to achieve outliers within ±1°. When we repeat this method 3 times we have to count with errors that lie between ±2-3°. It is simply impossible to orient within an accuracy of less than 0.02° with this primitive method.

It’s a troubling idea that archaeologists who regard themselves as objective scientists are not able to understand these basic principles.

This method is accurate enough to align just a building close to the cardinals or for finding your way in the wild. But to explain the orientation of the pyramids with this method is amateurish.

We accumulate at least 8 errors in the following procedures:

  1. levelness of surface,
  2. verticality of pole,
  3. registering 1st point,
  4. registering 2nd point,
  5. drawing line between two points,
  6. finding midst on line,
  7. drawing line between mid pole and mid line,
  8. copying the direction of that line to the actual building process.
The Indian Circle Method accumulates many errors which makes it inappropriate to build within ±2°. This method fails with a factor of 100! | © 2017 Buildreps.

Pole Star Method

The Pole Star Method is in principle the same as the Indian Circle Method only with the differences that it is performed at night and it is more accurate because it more directly aims at the virtual spin axis of the Earth, the geographic pole. Because the Pole Star is never exactly on top of the spin axis so to speak, are we also relying on a division step similar as with the Indian Circle Method (step #6).

The Pole Star Represents the Spin Axis

This method is about 2 times more accurate as the Indian Circle Method, because it cuts the first four steps. A well trained professional could be able to find North somewhere between ±0.25° to ±0.5°. But the difficulty is to displace that direction to the actual construction.

Let’s assume this last step takes place with 0 error, which in fact will never happen, we are still left in the best case with a method that’s even unable to measure the current orientation of the pyramids with a factor of 5 to 10, let alone to be able to serve as a master measuring device. According to the international standards the device must be able to measure within ±0.02°. Even if we don’t correct the Nubian plate movements, we will still end up close to the aforementioned ±0.02°. That is not something you can do with just sticks, stones, and some ropes. For that you will need something far more advanced.

On top of that, when archaeologists construct their theories they are accompanied with advanced theodolites which the “Egyptians” weren’t suppose to have to confirm their surveying.

Which device they might have used? That question is still open to any speculation. I know the answer to that. Do you?


© 2017 by Mario Buildreps


[1]: The standard for the uncertainty of measurements is defined as the root of the sum of the squares, for example √(a2+b2+c2+d2+e2). The sum as a whole determines the accuracy of the measuring process.This is the international standard as accepted by the BIPM.

For example, we want to measure the diameter of a aluminum disk which has the specifications ∅498±0.02 mm. We measure the disk with a micrometer which has the following specifications and influences: a. uncertainty micrometer 5μm; b. uncertainty calibration 6μm; c. temperature variations 10μm; d. placement errors 5μm; e. reading error 2μm. Sum = 190 ⇒ √190 = 13.8μm. Process = 13.8÷5 = 2.76 times less accurate as the instrument itself

This simple example shows why we are not dealing solely with the instrument itself but with the measuring process as a whole. The final result, which is the final orientation of the pyramids as built must be back-engineered by using this method.

[2]: The mentioned data are converted from relative data to absolute data. The alleged absolute methods like NNR-NUVEL-1, NNR-NUVEL-1A, HS3-NIVEL-1A, and NNR-MORVEL are absolute in relation to the so called hotspot frames, which are active volcanic areas, like Hawaii and Iceland. The reason why we don’t use these methods is because they make the assumption that these hotspot don’t move.

[3]: The location of Giza is close to a vault zone with the Arabian plate, which makes this part of the African plate less stable. The Egyptian Mountain Ranges are a result from the push of the vault zone between the African plate and Arabian plate.

Pyramids of Giza – Latitude at Speed of Light?

It is said, by some, that the location coordinates of the Great Pyramid of Giza matches the exact number sequence for the speed of light. Metabunk “debunks” it without making any proper analysis. Who is right and who is wrong?

Latitude of Khufu = Speed of Light?


This article explained in a scientific way why it is impossible to level the pyramids of Giza as accurately as it is done with only primitive tools like sticks, stones, ropes, water trenches, and so on.

Represents the latitude of Khufu the speed of light?

Egyptologists keep persisting that the builders must have done it with these simple tools, hiding behind empty slogans and fixed ideas. They are entrapped in a preset paradigm. The real scientific facts are different though.

A measuring tool must be at least two times as accurate as the building specifications itself. By definition. It has always been known that measuring equipment must be more accurate than the manufacturing process requirements – this is a basic engineering principle.

It is important to understand that as a production process is evaluated, the variation of the gauge is inherently part of the variation observed in the process. Gauge makers apply as a general rule that a gauge must be 10 times as accurate as the product tolerances. So, we are very mild when we only apply a factor of two.

But that is not the only thing. Egyptologists also explain the building accuracy of the pyramids at the present day. They cannot seem to deal with the fact that the Nubian (African) plate on which the pyramids are located has moved since the time they were built. These tiny plate movements must be corrected in the contemporary data of both the levelness and the orientation to find the correct data at the time the pyramids were built.

After correcting the data in the right way we find astounding accuracies which cannot be explained with the proposed simple tools, not even by a factor of 10. So be critical to what Egyptologists claim. They are wrong in virtually every aspect. They might have a monopoly on their “science” of the pyramids, they have no monopoly on mathematics and logic, and on top of that, they are no engineers.

The question is: how probable is the claim that Khufu is built at a latitude that matches the speed of light?

The Odds For 6 Digits to Match

The straight forward, uncorrected probability that the latitude of Giza actually represents the speed of light is very high. But that figure has to be corrected. | © 2016 Buildreps.

When we perform simple straightforward calculations there’s a probability of a whopping 1 to 900,000[1] that the claim is false. Does that mean that the odds for Khufu’s latitude to represent the speed of light is very high: 99.99989%? The answer is: NO. Why not? Because that is the straightforward chance that two seemingly unrelated things match to each other. The probability calculation needs to be corrected, and I will explain why.

Why This Probability Needs Correction

Probability calculations need often corrections, because we pick just one item of many other possible items. For example:

  1. there are three pyramids,
  2. there are more scientific constants,
  3. the Nubian plate shifted about 20 meters Northward since the pyramids were supposed to be built.

So, we must correct the outcome. In that outcome lie all the answers, the naked mathematical truth, kicking down all sacred cows. No matter if these sacred cows are from new age believers or from scientific materialists. Mathematics has no preferences for one of them, mathematics is neutral, but it has to be used correctly.

Why do we need to involve more scientific constants than only the speed of light? That’s because if the latitude would be equal with π (314159) we would say that the latitude would equal to that, wouldn’t we? So, we would pick that number, and that’s the reason why the probability calculations have to be corrected.

Scientific Constants

There are many more constants in physics and mathematics. Constants are numbers like π, φ, e, i2, speed of light (c), atomic mass (Mu), the gravitational constant (G), electron mass (me), the Planck constant (h), etc.

In physics there are about 400 of these constants. In mathematics there are about 50 constants. If we add them up together we find approximately 450 currently known scientific constants. But there are many trivial constants which are only known to the most adept experts. The list of really important constants is limited to only about 30 constants, from which the speed of light takes a prominent position. We will take only these constants into account.

So, we have an uncorrected coincidence of 1.111×10-6 which has to be downsized with the amount of pyramids (3) and the amount of constants (30). But we have to upgrade that outcome again with the amount of other constants we find in the pyramids, like π, φ, and e (3). Why? Because it reinforces the fact that the builders incorporated constants into their buildings.

Probability that the claim is coincidental = 1.111×10-6 × 3 × 30 ÷ 3 = 3.33×10-51 to 30,000.

The outcome is 1 to 30,000 that Khufu’s latitude is coincidental, hence 99.9967% certainty that the pyramids were meant to be built on a location that represents the speed of light.

Nubian Plate Movement

The Nubian plate moves today about 2 and 5 mm/yr Northward, depending on the plate tectonics model, and is doing that supposedly already for many thousands of years. So, that is over the last 4,500 years between 9 and 22.5 meters Northward. How does that changed the latitude? The most left 5 digits wouldn’t change, only the sixth digit from the left would change.

The correct calculation looks like this: plate movement [m] ÷ circumference Earth [m] × 360 [°] = 9 ÷ 40,075,000 × 360 = 0.000081° or 8.1*10-5°.

That part of the Nubian plate moved Northward, hence was the original latitude more to the South. The top of Khufu is now located at 29.9792°N. That movement in degrees needs to be corrected with -0.000081°, which results in 29.979°N. Many people will write the outcome as 29.979119, but we must neglect to write down the seventh and eighth digits because they’re in the margin of error. The sixth digit must be rounded down to 0, hence it falls away: 29.979119 becomes 29.979.

If the plate moved 22.5 meters North we would find the same value, 29.978997879 becomes 29.979.

Why only five digits? Because geology can only tell us between which boundaries the Nubian plate moved: between 5 and 22.5 meters. That’s why the 5 most left digits are rock solid: 29979. This changes the probability of 1 to 30,000 just mentioned above into 1 to 3,000.

The odds for the claim to be accurate and true is now reduced to 99.9667%. But this probability is as rock solid as it can get. And it is still a very high probability, especially because we’ve now incorporated many reductions like the amount of pyramids, the amount of constants, and the Nubian plate movement. The claim is therefore most likely true and correct.

If this was a stock market, where would you bet your money on: just stories or mathematics? Your choice is the difference between resp. poverty & bondage or richness & liberty. It’s your own free will what you prefer.

Did you spot the red dot in the middle? This is how 1 to 3,000 looks like. The red dot represent the debunker, while the black dots represent the people who say Khufu’s top is located at the speed of light. Who would be right you think? If this was a stock market, whose stocks would you buy?

Did You Know That Teotihuacan Was Giza’s Predecessor?

Teotihuacan and Giza have many similarities. They also have the similarity to be located at the same latitude, but since the crust was deformed is Teotihuacan now oriented to Greenland instead of to the former geographic pole. The pole of Teotihuacan is between 230,000 and 240,000 years old. That is the real age of Teotihuacan. The probability that this claim is correct is: 99.99999999%.

The Consequences

The claim has many consequences. The speed of light is defined in m/s. Location is defined in degrees. The exact way of positioning, up to a few meters, is believed to be just recently possible. Our historians have taught us these were inventions that came much later after the pyramids of Giza.

All these assertions listed below are probably wrong.

  • meter – officially defined in 1790 in Paris, France.
  • second – first coined by the Muslim scholar Al-Biruni in 1000 CE.
  • degree – first coined by the Greeks between 250 and 150 BC.
  • decimal system – probably originated in Iran around 3,500 BC.
  • the circumference of the earth – first known accurate calculations done by Persian Al-Biruni around 1000 CE.
  • speed of light in vacuum – first accurate estimate in 1728 done by James Bradley.
  • global positioning up to a precision of 5 meters – first possible since 1995.

What is more probable: that we are fooled by an elite or the probability calculation that Khufu’s latitude corresponds to the speed of light? The choice is yours to pick, which is Mythos (just stories) versus Logos (mathematics).

The Egyptian measure, the cubit for example, was defined as: π – φ2 = 0.52356 (m). But that also is regarded as coincidence by most scholars, because they were not supposed to know π or φ down to six or more digits, but they had.

Our paradigm is built on falsehood that everything always grows and everything’s getting better. That paradigm is obviously incorrect.

The pyramids of Giza are full with mathematical relations while Egyptologists keep persistently denying that fact.


The probability that Khufu was meant to be built at a latitude which represents the speed of light is very high: 99.9667%. There’s only 1 to 3,000 chance it’s a coincidental match.

To get a sense of proportion how small 1 to 3,000 is, you can perform this experiment for yourself:

  1. take a dice,
  2. pick a number you insist to throw and say it out loud, then throw,
  3. if this was successful, you’re on the level of 1 to 6,
  4. you still have to repeat that same experiment successfully 3 times in a row, so 4 times in total, to get on the level of 1 to 1,296.

The odds for Khufu to stand coincidentally at a latitude that matches five digits of a scientific constant is 1 to 3,000. The message is clear: it is very likely that Khufu’s latitude represents the speed of light, and that it was meant to be so. It’s all there, in the numbers. Whether we like it or not.

Since there are a few other, very important, constants incorporated into the pyramids it is very likely the claim is not only true, but also very accurate. Debunkers are unsuccessful in debunking the claim because they haven’t debunked anything on a scientific basis, which they should to be credible. Instead they just mindlessly repeat what everyone already knew. They have failed to include the queen of sciences, mathematics, into their attempts.

Remember also one other thing as well: the likelihood that the claim is true (you know which claim) grows with every failing, scientifically based, debunking attempt. Think twice when you’re debunker!

It also seems to be clear we can toss many history books into the trash can – they are based on twisted narratives. Everyone should make up their own minds about it, but if you base your believe on stories which are passed on, instead of basing it on mathematics, remember the story carousel and how a story changes while it passes on. Be careful where you base your believe system on, your whole perception is built on that.

The tall constructions are shouting out a crystal clear message that most of us still don’t seem to understand: they were built by a very advanced civilization, far more advanced than ours.

Only when you have understood the real message you can start to decode its code. Let’s get started!


© 2015-2017 by Mario Buildreps

[1]: The digit 9, the most left digit needs perhaps some explanation. The number we can invoke here is between 1 and 9, because when we invoke a 0, it drops away. The other numbers can vary between 0 and 9, and can therefore take 10 positions, hence the five tens. Back to the most left digit, it can flip from positive to negative, which represent respectively the Northern and Southern hemisphere. So, this digit can take in fact 18 positions. But if we look practical, we can built only something where there’s land. From South Africa whole the way up to Sweden, or from South India to Siberia, or from South America to Canada. From this perspective it is fair to keep a 9 there, instead of an 18. Some might argue you can replace it with a 10, 11, or even a higher number with the argument that alleged pyramids are found on Antarctica. That’s their choice, I prefer the more conservative probability calculations.



Pyramids of Giza – Leveling the Foundation

Every construction project begins with site preparation. Leveling a building terrain of the size of the great pyramid of Khufu was no job for amateurs. The foundation is leveled so precise that claiming it is done with primitive tools is unsustainable and even unscientific. The claims are induced by self-appointed experts who have no education nor any experience in construction principles and how errors accumulate in both measuring and construction processes. This series of articles will shed a new light on a long kept mystery.

The Levelness of the Foundation of Khufu

The levelness or horizontalness of the great pyramid of Khufu is so high that even after 4,500 years it still outmatches the highest ambitions of any construction engineer. | © 2017 by Buildreps.

Astounding Accuracy Even After Many Milleniums

We have thanks to Flinders Petrie, for his survey work on the pyramids of Giza around 1880, reliable data of the pyramids to work with. Besides surveying the pyramids had Petrie also ideas as to how the builders might have achieved such astounding high precisions. He suggested that the builders leveled the terrain by cutting a grid of trenches, flooded them with water, using the water surface as a guide for leveling.

This was an assumption based on speculation, since nothing of a kind of grid was found. Moreover, it is an assumption that water leveling could achieve such a precision. After all, archaeologists are no engineers, and since archaeologists are often too conceited to take professional advices from engineers, and since surveying the pyramids is a monopoly of archaeologists, none of the mysteries surrounding the pyramids are ever solved.

Only some hundred years later began Mark Lehner to produce a similar mapping of the pyramids, only with contemporary more precise equipment. Based on this measurements suggested Lehner that the builders only leveled a perimeter casing on the circumference of the pyramid.

Both, Petrie and Lehner, have measured the structure with increasing precision, leaving not a single doubt about the dazzling high accuracy with which the builders crafted their pyramids some 4,500 years ago.

Suggesting primitive means like water leveling, simple wooden tools, and cutting rock with copper chisels don’t seem to clarify the mysteries surrounding the pyramids. These simple explanations make the mystery only more complicated. Because the pyramids are dated some 2,500 BC, and the ruling paradigm insists a Stone age, Copper age, Iron age there seems no way to explain anything, except mindless propositions that fit the ruling paradigm.

Nubian Plate Movements

The plate on which the pyramids of Giza are built is called the Nubian plate. Every movement that this plate made after the pyramids were built in regard to the geographical pole (orientation) or to the center of the Earth (levelness) results in a deviation of the structure.

The precision with which the pyramids were built is baffling. But what everyone seems to forget is that the age of the structure adds a significant portion to its current deviations, while they are still standing with an admirable precision. To find out how precise the pyramids were built, before you can establish any measuring or building methodology at all, you need to be aware of the Nubian plate movements over the last 4,500 years. The original precision has to estimated by the plate movement corrections first.

There is little to no knowledge about the tilt movements of the Nubian plate over the last few thousand years, but the more about the drift and the Eulerian rotation of the plate. The term Eulerian rotation refers to a virtual point on the plate around which it seemingly rotates. We cannot correct the levelness or horizontalness of the pyramids by any accurate means, so we leave the levelness uncorrected. But we can correct the orientation of the pyramids.

Based upon several measurements over the last decades it is quite certain that the Nubian plate moves consistently counterclockwise about 13” (“=arc seconds) per thousand years. Assuming it is true that the pyramids are 4,500 years old we can assert that the Nubian plate has rotated around 59” counterclockwise, which is about 1′ or 0.0167°. If the pyramids are older, the grade of rotation was larger.

Break Even Point

The theoretical breakeven point is an age of 13,816 years BC – an age of 15,833 years. At this age are the pyramids theoretically spoken exactly oriented to the current geographic pole, which did not move anymore at about 26,000 years ago. But if we hold on to the official age of 4,500 years, the correct orientation of the pyramids at the time they were built, was approximately -0.041° or 0.041° West of North. Today it is -0.057°.

If you want to make the best estimate of the age of the pyramids, you must combine the above mentioned oriental breakeven point with the most likely star alignments, and not rely on star alignments alone. In the future we will publish proof for the correct age of the pyramids based on a set of converging data.

All theories based upon uncorrected data will be ipso facto wrong. One thing is for sure – the plate has moved. It has rotated, it has shifted, and it has tilted. The slightest changes have significant impact on the already very precise alignments of the pyramids. We cannot correct the tilt angle of the pyramids but we can correct the rotation angle up to a certain degree. We will pay attention to orientation in the next article.

Common Errors Made by Archaeologists and Historians

Scholars, historians, and scientists who try to reconstruct how the pyramids were built try to do this by reconstructing possible measuring principles with relative simple tools. They have no choice simply because the paradigm doesn’t allow any other more sophisticated methods. By not allowing themselves to think outside the box they make major errors in their approaches and assumptions.

  • Error #1: The pyramids were surveyed by Petrie and Lehner by using high-tech instruments. The produced outcomes are used to reconstruct possible measuring methods the builders could have been used. We are not talking about measuring methods they had used but a factual construction that is produced within this range of error. The measuring equipment the pyramid builders used was therefore more accurate, at least by a factor of two. All engineers agree with the fact that the instrument must be more accurate than the construction specs. The levelness of Khufu is about 0.2″. That is the kind of instrumentation we are dealing with here. In case of leveling the pyramid builders used an instrument capable of measuring with a tolerance of less than ±0.1”. Most modern surveying instruments like theodolites are able to measure within this kind of accuracy, typically less than 5” or even less than 2”. But to measure 0.1” requires the best available theodolite. How can we reproduce such modern instruments with simple means? The bar is set at a very high level.
  • Error #2: None of the official theories accounts for the accuracy of the original construction by correcting for geological movements of the area or the whole plate. They must when they want to be taken seriously.
  • Error #3: Solving questions with improper means, that is to say, the ruling paradigm dictates how questions must be solved instead of how they should be solved, which is scientifically. Leave any possibility open whether they had advanced equipment or whether they knew advanced mathematics. We shall see what is possible and what not. Cutting granite with copper tools is simply impossible while some Egyptologists keep persisting they did it this way. Who is irrational and who is to trust on their expertise? Archaeologists or engineers?

Leveling With Water Trenches

Using water trenches is accurate but far from accurate enough to explain the levelness of Giza’s pyramids.| © 2017 Buildreps.

Possible Techniques to Measure Levelness or Horizontalness

There are several proposed techniques with which the pyramid builders could have leveled the construction site. If that would be true, why do we need such costly equipment and academical trained engineers to do our contemporary surveying?

  • Method #1 – Water Trenches: When it comes to leveling the pyramids of Giza some Egyptologists tend to agree it could have been done by using a water trench close to the casing. The surface of the water in the trench surrounding the casing would serve as the level they had to plane away to get at the same level as the lowest point. Everyone can easily see this must be done in several stages from coarse to fine. The problem is that there is never any evidence found of such a method. Another problem is the accuracy which is not better than ±0.1% of the distance between the two sample points. In the case of Khufu are we dealing with a deviation of just 0.006%. So, that is still more than 16 times more accurate than we possibly can level with water trenches. And that levelness is even uncorrected because we’ve no data about the tilt movements of the Nubian plate. It’s easy to see how impossible this proposed technique is.
    Hydrostatic leveling is good at registering changes between two sample points.


  • Method #2 – Communicating Vessels: Also referred to as hydrostatic leveling is quite an accurate method. This method can be accurate to distinguish fluctuations within ±0.05% of the distance between the two levelers. It can be used as an instrument independent from the site, hence one of the possible reasons why no evidence of hydrostatic leveling is found. Due to the combination of robustness and accuracy is hydrostatic leveling even used in nuclear plants or particle accelerators to guard their stability. But hydrostatic leveling is especially good at registering variations between two positions, and not directly good as a measuring device itself.  If there is one method to level the great pyramids this could be the one, but there are some major problems with it, from which accuracy is the major one. With this method, the levelness of the great pyramid of Khufu would still deviate some ±115 mm, which is still around 8 times off the scale.
    This ridiculous, unscientific idea how the builders must have leveled the pyramids is proposed by Egyptologists. This method comes not even close.


  • Method #3 – Right-angled Isosceles Triangle: It is said by most established scientists that the Egyptians only had the isosceles triangle to their disposal to level the pyramids. If this device would be so accurate why don’t surveyors use it today? It would save a lot of money. In fact is this a laughable and completely unscientific attempt to explain something magnificent. The best achievable accuracy of this instrument is only about ±0.1% of the distance between two sample points. It can be accurate, yes, but not accurate enough. Not even by a factor of 15. The best achievable leveling of the pyramids would be not less than ±230 mm or ±3.6”.  A clear impossibility.
This Leica 500 is capable to level up to 0.05″ accurate. This is the kind of instrument we need to level the great pyramid of Khufu.

None of the three possible methods are accurate enough to explain the current observed level, let alone the level at the time the pyramids were built. That means we have to come up with some other methods that equals the capabilities of a modern Leica theodolite. Science is not about believes or generating mindless assumptions like Egyptologists like to do, it’s about explaining the facts without being bothered by paradigms.


It is said that the pyramid builders had no advanced instruments to their disposal but the fact is there is no way to explain the current found leveling with the methods #1 to #3, let alone if we correct the orientation or levelness with the movements of the Nubian plate over the last 4,500 years. Egyptologists have a problem with the proposed methods, a problem which isn’t even properly defined up to this day.

The used measuring and building methods are still wide open for all possible speculations. Whether alternative options are considered as ridiculous is an unscientific approach. The mystery of the pyramids of Giza are scientifically not solved yet, despite the ridiculous amateurish attempts of archaeologists and egypotologists. It’s time that engineers take their place and solve the questions as it should be done – unbiased and scientifically.


© 2017 by Mario Buildreps

The Movie “Atlantis is Here” PART II: Pyramids, Lost Civilizations, and the Shifting Crust

This series of videos is a precursor of the book “Atlantis is Here”. The video starts with the simple question why Greenland is covered in ice. This simple question has never been sufficiently answered by mainstream science.

New, ground breaking research has found out that Earth Crust Shifts, Ice Ages, and ancient structures like pyramids and temples are closely related. This new theory proves mathematically 4 former geographic poles with certainties from 99.99% and higher.

Greenland was located on the North pole between 200,000 and 110,000 years ago (at location 74.0N, 47.1W). When the crust started to shift 110,000 years ago, which took place over a period of about 60,000 years, the crust shifted with an average speed of about 25 meters per year. This constant slow movement caused massive disruption over an extended period of time.

The certainties of the position of the last two poles are incredible high: 1 to many trillions that the found nodes over Greenland are coincidentally formed. You can toss every other theory in the trash can that presents any other “truth” based on so called “scientific evidence” gathered from the local scene. The fact is that you don’t have to “be there” to find out what is true. That’s a false narrative. Mathematics is the only thing you actually need, together with a sharp pencil and a piece of paper.

Before that we were able to track back three other earth crust displacements. All four movements fit seamlessly on the glaciations cycles as taken from the ice cores on Antarctica. The chance for the fit to be so accurately is 1 to 746,496, which makes the claims certain for 99.99987%.

The crust never shifted so wildly as Hapgood suggested in his theory. The earth had major shifts over the last 340,000 years. Hapgood also suggested that the crust shifted in the longitudinal direction. That also didn’t took place. The crust shifted in the latitudinal direction, which is a direct cause of the fact that earth is a rotating sphere. Every reaction to an external force takes place in the perpendicular direction of the rotational direction.

Most scientific theories are not accompanied with probability calculations as to how large the odds are that the claims are actually true. It is time the public starts to demand this, in order to prevent nonsense to be spread among the public, under the flag of the so called ‘scientific evidence’. For example: how much chance is there that the earth magnetic field actually flips? Just for 50%. Why is that? Because geology ignored and dismissed the possibility of a slow latitudinal crawling crust during high eccentric orbits of the earth around the sun. These crustal movements would also leave traces in the magnetizable sediments. There is no way to recognize from the samples alone what has moved – the core or the crust. Because of the fact that the magnetic core obviously moves, it is therefore not by definition the only variable that left traces.

This video has been brought out as a precursor of the book, because I think it is important to know for the general public. It will still take at least a year for the book to come out.

The Movie “Atlantis is Here” PART I: Greenland, the Geo Pole, and Ice Ages

This is the first video in a series of videos. The series is a precursor of the book “Atlantis is Here”. The video starts with the simple question why Greenland is covered in ice. This simple question has never been sufficiently answered by mainstream science.

New, ground breaking research has found out that Earth Crust Shifts, Ice Ages, and ancient structures like pyramids and temples are closely related. This new theory proves mathematically 4 former geographic poles with certainties from 99.99% and higher.

Greenland was located on the North pole between 200,000 and 110,000 years ago (at location 74.0N, 47.1W). When the crust started to shift 110,000 years ago, which took place over a period of about 60,000 years, the crust shifted with an average speed of about 25 meters per year. This constant slow movement caused massive disruption over an extended period of time.

Before that we were able to track back three other earth crust displacements. All four movements fit seamlessly on the glaciations cycles as taken from the ice cores on Antarctica. The chance for the fit to be so accurate is 1 to 746,496, which makes the claims certain for 99.99987%.

The crust never shifted so wildly as Hapgood suggested in his theory. The earth had major shifts over the last 340,000 years. Hapgood also suggested that the crust shifted in the longitudinal direction. That also didn’t took place. The crust shifted in the latitudinal direction, which is a direct cause of the fact that earth is a rotating sphere. Every reaction to an external force takes place in the perpendicular direction of the rotational direction.

Most scientific theories are not accompanied with probability calculations as to how large the odds are that the claims are actually true. It is time the public starts to demand this, in order to prevent nonsense to be spread among the public, under the flag of the so called ‘scientific evidence’. For example: how much chance is there that the earth magnetic field actually flips? Just for 50%. Why is that? Because geology ignored and dismissed the possibility of a slow latitudinal crawling crust during high eccentric orbits of the earth around the sun. These crustal movements would also leave traces in the magnetizable sediments. There is no way to recognize from the samples alone what has moved – the core or the crust. Because of the fact that the magnetic core obviously moves, it is therefore not by definition the only variable that left traces.

This video has been brought out as a precursor of the book, because I think it is important to know for the general public. It will still take at least a year for the book to come out.


How Old Are Pyramids Around the World?

New research proves that most pyramids and temples around the world were built before fatal earth crust shifts. The orientation of large amounts of pyramids reveal former geographic poles. The proof has been delivered mathematically with a probability of 1 to 57.4 trillion that the findings and correlations are coincidental. Most pyramids are much older than always was assumed, way beyond our imagination.
Pyramids are believed to be not older than a few thousand years. They appear to be in some cases even older than 250,000 years, proven with a new mathematical theory. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Common Used Dating Methods

Determining the age of a pyramid is not as easy as it seems. Stones cannot be dated to determine the age of the structure, because what the researchers will find is the formation date of the rock material itself, and not when the stones were piled on top of each other.

Scientists pretend they have found a reliable way to date stone structures, while they only make associative, assumptive and subjective connections between the organic materials and the stone structures themselves. They claim it is reliable, but there’s no way for anyone to validate that claim. We cannot associate one thing to another with absolute certainty.

And that is directly the toughest problem in dating any stone structure: validation. There is not a single validation possible to back up any of the claims. Archaeology and history is mainly mythos, just stories without any reality value.

The most common way is to Carbon date organic artefacts left by ‘builders’ found inside and around pyramids, or organic materials that slipped between the stones. This method of dating is believed to be fairly accurate. It is often claimed as ‘evidence’ of the age of the structure.

How Are the Pyramids of Giza Dated?

The pyramids of Giza weren’t exclusively dated by dating excavated organic artefacts in and around the pyramids. It is also done by linking the inscriptions inside the pyramids with the era of the rulers and the architect Imhotep. But what if the inscriptions were a kind of graffiti left by kings who claimed the pyramids as their own?

How exciting these carved inscriptions might look, it doesn’t prove how old they really are. Christians claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old, based on the ‘inscriptions’ in the bible. Is this ‘evidence’? For them it is. There are even scientists among them.

And we still have countless unsolved questions around the building methods that were used as well.

What counts for Giza, counts for all pyramids. They are real hard nuts to crack.

What is Evidence?

According to the Oxford dictionaries can evidence be defined as: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The words ‘scientific evidence’ are often misused to emphasize a certain belief or to label a certain theory.

We believe that the sun and the moon are the cause of tides on earth. But how do we know that for sure? The only evidence we have are clear patterns between the moon phases, orbits and the tides. From that we are able to develop a theory which predicts what will happen next. When we can verify it multiple times with our senses, we might become more certain the theory is complete and correct.

Proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement. The foundations of pyramids are hundreds of thousands of years old: mathematically proven.

Classifying Pyramids in Time Frames

If we can relate pyramids around the world somehow, can we then classify them in a certain time frame? Yes, it appears we can. And this is the first step to take before diving into intimidating details. We can do that by analyzing the orientation patterns of pyramids spread around the world.

Analyzing the orientation of more than 500 pyramids and temples around the world, made it possible to classify the foundations – before or after the Great Flood(s). Floods and Ice Ages are one and the same event as you will see further on in this article. And it happened more than once in history.

The Great Flood and Pole Shifts

Is there evidence for a Deluge? Yes, there is in fact overwhelming evidence for a Great Flood. If we just look at the effects the melting water of the great ice sheets had on the coastlines some 12,000 years ago. All coastlines were flooded around the world because of this melting water.

The sea level rose about 120 meters. There are so many sunken cities all around the planet that it’s easy to understand they are older than 12,000 years. If you imagine that today, this would affect more than 60% of the Human population around the world.

Virtually all cultures speak about Great Floods in their sagas. Whatever scholars want to say about sagas, or even ridicule them, they hold a deep hidden truth in them. As I will show in this series of articles, the most probable cause of the floods were Earth Crust Shifts. Every shift marks the beginning of a new ice age.

It appears that because pyramids are square they can be used to find mathematical patterns in their orientation, especially when we examine them worldwide on a large scale. A jaw dropping pattern appears. And that is a breathtaking intensive math job, which is probably the reason no one has ever done it before. The patterns are overwhelming proof for the locations of former geographic poles.

  • Note: with North pole is always meant the geographical North pole. The theory of Earth Crust Shifts is not dealing about the magnetic poles. The geographical pole is the rotation axis of the earth.

Orientation of Giza

Giza is oriented to our current geo North pole and therefore constructed AFTER the Great Flood. They are older than 4,500 years and younger than 110,000 years. The Giza pyramids are with such a stupendous accuracy oriented to the North pole, that deviations beyond 0.06 degrees are not measurable.

Stupendous Accuracy

The statement that the pyramids of Giza are oriented to the current North pole (cardinally oriented) doesn’t knock people off their feet anymore. More important to know is that Giza is oriented to the current (geographic) North pole and therefore built after the Great Flood.

A Great Flood which was caused by an Earth Crust Shift that ushered the beginning of a the last ice age

There’s no doubt about the classification of these pyramids: they were built after the latest crustal shift. Which can be interpreted as after the Great Flood. The time frame we have here to classify Giza is between the current estimations, 4,500 years, and 110,000 years.

It is a contribution to the builders to orient such a big construction with great precision. It’s orientation is within 0.06° precise to our current geo pole, and shows a mathematical knowledge which rivals those of today.

Did you spot the pyramid of Visoko? It’s in the middle of the picture. It’s perfectly oriented to the current North pole, and therefore younger than 110,000 years.

Pyramid at Visoko, Bosnia

Most scientists cannot believe that the pyramid of Visoko is actually a pyramid, but the orientation of these pyramids to the current geographic poles is so precise, that it is hard to believe it’s not a pyramid. Of course, if it is a pyramid it smashes the precious constructed paradigm to pieces. In fact, most people want to protect that.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

The odds are less than 1 to 500,000 for this combination to be coincidental:

  • appearance of a pyramidal structure,
  • orientation to the cardinals,
  • two perpendicular faces which are easily to spot from satellite images.

So, it is unlikely we are looking at a coincidental configuration of nature. Science is about facts, and the coincidences are too small to be just a mountain. So, keep on diggin’ guys!

This pyramid can be classified as after the Great Flood, because they are oriented to the current cardinals – our current geo poles. Osmanagić has profound evidence they are older than 10,000 years.

Finding Our Current Geo Pole: How Triangulation Works

The orientation of the pyramids of Giza and the pyramid of Ping of Han (one of the 12 oriented to current North) intersect at the current North pole. They belong to the same time frame.
This pyramid in China is oriented under an angle of 8 degrees (352 degrees) to Greenland.

Pyramids at Xian, China

This is a collection of serious pyramids which are anxiously protected by the Chinese government.

It are pyramids, that’s for sure. It took scientists many centuries to figure this out.

What are the Chinese afraid of? That we find out that our ancestors were smarter than we think, or they were skimming the earth ?

The pyramids in China are massively oriented in just a few different configurations:

It is not difficult to see that these pyramids were NOT pointed to the current geo North pole, but to Greenland. Were this pyramids built when Greenland was actually located at the North Pole?
  • Oriented to the current North pole;
  • Oriented at an angle of about -8° (to Greenland);
  • Oriented at an angle of about -14 to -15°

Why are they oriented like this? The precision of the ones which are oriented to the current geo pole is so precise that the other ones that were oriented towards to Greenland and further weren’t just coincidental orientations. It was clearly done to serve a specific purpose. Were they oriented to the ancient cardinals, a very long time ago? We will show you that was the case.

The 8 degrees oriented Chinese pyramids cluster on a massive scale to the same area as the pyramids of Latin America, and form a massive mathematical node. The odds for this node to be formed coincidentally are 1 to 20.4 trillion!

Orientation of Chinese Pyramids

These different orientations of the Chinese pyramids imply that this culture might have survived a shifting geographical pole. Crustal displacements moved the geographical North pole on Greenland to its current location. Greenland moved to an area where it would start to melt very slowly.

There are pyramids in China that were built before the Great Flood and after the Great Flood. This cultures somehow survived it, adapted to it, and built another series of pyramids oriented to the new, current geo pole.

This would mean that the ones oriented to the current North pole are of the same time frame as the ones of Giza, younger than 110,000 years. But the other ones oriented under an angle of 8° are therefore older than 110,000 years.

Is this why this culture is so advanced in medicine, religion, philosophy and many other areas, because it’s so old and the traditions survived the Great Flood?

The whole perspective becomes more interesting when we go to Mexico.

Locations of Some Chinese Pyramids

Oriented to Current Pole (0°)
Oriented to Greenland (8°)
34°23’53″N / 108°42’44″E
34°21’48″N / 108°37’51″E
34°23’26″N / 108°44’21″E
34°21’43″N / 108°38’26″E
34°24’03″N / 108°45’53″E
34°20’18″N / 108°34’10″E
The pyramids of the Moon (topleft) and the Sun (bottom) at Teotihuacan. They are oriented to Greenland as well.

Pyramids of Teotihuacan, Mexico

One of the most important aspects of scientific evidence is that it is reproducible and verifiable.

When we draw a line from the pyramids in China (oriented at 8°) and the pyramids of Teotihuacan in Mexico, the lines will intersect each other on Greenland. This is reproducible and verifiable by anyone who has access to Google Earth. The question we could ask ourselves: what could this mean?

Read in this case the article “Why is Greenland Covered in Ice?” again, and the penny might drop that the pyramids of Mexico and these ones of China are both constructed before the Great Flood. These pyramids were built when the North pole was still on Greenland, and that is a very long time ago.

The crust appears to shift like Hapgood suggested but in another way, that is to say only latitudinal.

The cultures that built these pyramids are much older than we ever imagined possible. But that would explain a lot, wouldn’t it?

How Teotihuacan and Pyramid Wu of Han Intersect at Greenland

The orientation of the pyramids in Mexico and China intersect each other exactly on the former North pole on Greenland. This is one of the former geo North poles. By using this method 4 former geo poles are proven.

Verification Data of Intersection Point

China (Wu of Han)
34.338° N / 108.5695° E
352° (360-8)
Mexico (Sun Pyramid)
19.695° N / 98.845° W
Intersection Point
73.546°N, 043.837°W

The More Intersections, the More Proof

Just a few intersections like shown above proves nothing. It could be just luck. To rule out any coincidence, the data of about 500 ancient constructions and sites are examined and extensively processed. The results are staggering. It smashes all believes about the ancient past in relation to the Earth to pieces.

Since there was already a hunch that Greenland was once located on the North pole, we drew a line over Greenland from the current North pole to the current South pole, at a longitude of 45°W, and calculated roughly the amount of intersections with that reference line. Later is the process the exact longitude of this line was calculated to be at a longitude of 47.1°W. The results along this line were much better.

Former geographic poles reveal themselves sharply at a few locations on Greenland. The probability of this event can be calculated by using the binomial formula. With the used data set, and with the amount of found intersections, the probability on mere chance is less than 0.000000001%. The probability that it was done on purpose, and that it was therefore the former geographic North pole is certain for more than 99.999999999%.

In scientific terms: we can be sure this is true, which has a very deep impact. As you will see, a puzzle starts to fall into place. You won’t find a research that can outperform this outcome.

The Earth’s crust has shifted in the past, when the civilizations who built the pyramids were already present. We are not speaking of a few thousand years ago. We are speaking of periods of hundreds of thousands of years. It’s all in the numbers, and cannot be refuted nor debunked by anyone.

The Earth Crust Has Shifted Multiple Times in the Past

We can safely claim that Greenland was on the North pole, without having any geological knowledge or evidence. We don’t even have to go anywhere. We don’t need to walk on pyramids, or on glaciers, or to be a specialist in any of these areas. We even don’t need a shred of ‘evidence’. We can now understand why Greenland is melting, and why we find so many mysterious sites around the world, and why the cultures were vanished.

In the book that is currently in the making under the working title “Atlantis is Here”, the location of this intersection line has been calculated at a precise location of 47.091°W, for the ease of communication 47.1°W. It is in this article too far fetched to explain how this figure is accomplished but the results from the calculations along this line deliver even more amazing insights.

The book won’t expose you, like scientists love to do, to intimidating mathematical equations which forms the basis of this new theory. But if you are interested in it, there will be extensive appendices in the book dedicated to the mathematics behind it together with tons of data.

Reference Line to Measure the Amount of Intersections

When we examine the amount of intersections with the North-South line, we find the former North pole. For the book “Atlantis is Here” the line has been calculated at 47.091 degrees. It delivers 100% proof. Mathematical proof.

© 2015, 2016 by Buildreps


Lost Civilizations and Earth Crust Shifts

Life is fragile, and in the same time indestructible. Huge catastrophes swept away life on Earth many times. Gravity and motion are the main drivers of life on earth, but also the main cause of death and extinction.

The Theory of Earth Crust Displacements

After reading the title, you might ask “do we have earth crust displacements then?” The answer on this question will be given in this very comprehensive, and maybe from time to time tough article.

The theory of earth crust displacements has been dumped into the corners of pseudo science in the early 60s after Wegener’s theory of plate tectonics was confirmed by evidence found on the ocean floors.

Professor Charles Hapgood claimed that the earth’s crust, which is relatively thin and light (part of the lithosphere), could shift over the hot, molten magma layer (astenosphere) on which it is believed to be floating.

It was later said by scientists that there is no force strong enough to make such radical movements of the crust possible, and that only the very slow tectonic plate movements forms the earth’s crust, and thus the climatic events.

Solar heat at high latitudes is reduced in two ways: light travels a longer path through the atmosphere AND the incoming light is spread over a larger surface.

The Ruling Theories Result in Too Many Contradictions

At first hand seems the current ruling scientific view viable for most of the phenomena we witness on earth.

The geological record provides irrefutable evidence that dramatic climate fluctuations have occurred throughout our planet’s history.

But only when we allow ourselves to look deep enough, we see too many contradictions and illogicalities.

When we look deeper we will find phenomena that make radical movements possible, which is a scary idea, but there’s no indication it will happen soon.

Charles Hapgood delivered a lifetime achievement with his book Earth’s Shifting Crust – A Key to Some Basic Problems of Earth Science. His book is interesting to read, written in simple language. Sometimes is his style a bit wordy, but never without tons of data to backup his theory. On the other hand seems his style necessary to lead you out of the ruling paradigm. To show how things really are.

Geological evidence suggests that the climate had very mild periods, virtually from pole to pole. But how is that even possible when the sun is considered to be the only heat source? How can the sun heat the poles? This idea seems to be only possible when the earth would be heated from within, through convection.

Hapgood’s conclusions show enough reasons to do profound research on this issue, to find the truth.

The eccentricity of the last ice age, more than a thousand miles off, is shouting for a rational explanation, while science is having a party about carbon caused global warming. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Radical Changes Require Radical Forces or Vice Versa

While reading Hapgood’s book, you become convinced that earth crust displacements are the only credible explanation for many phenomena like:

  1. the sudden waxing and waning of glaciations,
  2. the eccentricity of recent ice caps in relation to the geo poles,
  3. that Greenland was about 450,000 years ago really green, and covered in rich flora,
  4. the sudden extinction of flora and fauna,
  5. the sudden emergence of new species.

Hapgood’s treatise is much more detailed and profound then just the few actualities shown here. His style of research was original, intelligent, and very controversial. You can also call it out-of-the-mainstream ideas.

Ice depositions grow usually centric around the pole, unless a phenomena like the Warm Gulfstream makes it acentric like you can see on the North pole in March. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Why the Eccentric Ice Age Requires an Explanation

When we look at the North pole in March, we see that the Warm Gulfstream warms the whole region denoted by N3, and partially N2 and N4. The Gulfstream is very powerful.

What would happen when there wasn’t a Warm Gulfstream present?

The ice formation around the pole would then become almost symmetric, and the Greenland Sea and Northern Atlantic would be completely frozen in Winter.

One could try to argue that during the last ice age there must have been a Warm Gulfstream along the coasts of Alaska and Eastern Russia, pushing itself through the Bering Strait, making this ice formation around the pole acentric. But the seaway between Alaska and Russia is far to narrow to pass through a Gulf Stream large enough to cause such a large asymmetry. The Bering Strait had to be at least 8 times wider.

It is crucial to understand that energy always flows from high to low, and not vice versa. The Warm Gulfstream is running in that region because it is a consequence of the second Law of Thermodynamics – restoring an energetic imbalance after a crustal dislocation. This process is still running today – the melting of Greenland.

The Warm Gulfstream will decrease in intensity after the situation at the North pole is returned to normal, and that is after the Greenland ice sheet is almost completely molten, which will still take about 4,000 years.

The amount of incoming solar energy at the poles depends strongly on latitude AND season.

Why Science is Not Always Rational

One of the most serious dilemmas in Palaeontology is that Antarctica once had abundant flora and fauna, already 150 million years after the splitting up of Pangaea.

Science tells us that Antarctica was at its current location at that time. This leads us to the question: where was the solar light coming from to make this abundant lifeforms possible? Mirrors in space maybe?

No, scientists came up with an even more ludicrous theory.

During six months there is hardly any solar light on Antarctica. The Milankovitch cycles are much too weak to explain anything regarding this issue (making the South pole lightly turn to the sun).

Scientists came up with the idea how trees and plants must have adapted to an almost complete lack of sun light. Hm, without photosynthesis? How?

Why don’t we see this adaptation happening today? Why do we still have taigas, tundras, and steppes and no tropical rain forests in Northern Siberia or Alaska? Or why don’t we see any trees growing on top of the Himalayas?

What we see happening here is that if one possibility is moved from the scene – crustal dislocations – they are replaced by the only left possibility – plants growing without solar light. These are irrational, unreliable, and adhoc theories. The tragic is that the general public believes these fantasies as to be true, which are broadcasted by the mainstream media, inflated with beautiful animations, like fairytales for adults.

There is no other way to explain these facts than with crustal dislocations.

Why Two Theories MUST be Combined

Hapgood’s ideas were immediately dismissed after discovering the mechanics of plate tectonics, because it could possibly explain in one blow:

  • the formation of ice caps on India, China and Africa during the Pagaean period,
  • abundant tropical rainforests where now the Sahara desert is,
  • the tempered climate, even sub tropical flora found once on Antarctica,
  • the subtropical flora found once in Siberia,
  • geological evidence of seasonal changes, everywhere, in different layers, which proves the existence of climatic zones through earth’s history.

What geology then tends to forget is that this is only a possible explanation if the Pangaean continent moved over the globe as a whole. How could there otherwise have been ice caps formed on Africa, China and India when Pangaea was still one continent? There is in fact no way to get around the subject of crustal dislocations.

Moreover, the very slow processes of plate tectonics don’t account for the radical phenomena 1 to 5 mentioned in the previous paragraph. There is no other way to explain all phenomena with two theories:

  • Slow plate tectonics
  • Radical crustal dislocations

But saying the words “earth crust shifts” in a geology class is like swearing in a church. It has similarities with saying “revolution for the people” during a meeting of the conservative tea party. This may and cannot exist!

The Pangaea Theory.

More About the Pangaea Theory

The Pangaea theory was devised to explain how species migrated between the different continents.

Alfred Wegener, who was the (official) founder of the idea, saw that continents once could have fitted into eachother, like you can see on the photo on the right. It is believed to be 250 million years ago.

It is thought to be a cyclical event. Meaning, there could have been more “Pangaeas” before this one.

It is a simple, visually based theory that comes at hand, for the palaeontologists, to explain many things, like in this case the migration of species. Geologists later confirmed the theory after finding fault lines on ocean floors, driven apart by forces from within earth.

Why the Pangaea Theory is Incomplete

The theory tells us that Pangaea started to break apart, but not why and how it broke apart. A theory that lacks to explain why or how it happened is incomplete.

The theory can also be used at will. For example, it explains how different species could spread over the continents. But it can also explain why we find similar dolmens or pyramids on every continent, or name any other similar cultural phenomenon. Why is that? Because humans could spread all over the world and built their stone structures when Pangaea was still intact?

But because Pangaea was 250 million years ago, it is then dismissed as impossible. Which is using a theory according to whether it suits the inventors. This shows an inherent falsity at the core of science, which might be caused by the compartmentalization of science. Spreading of species is explained, while spreading of cultural similarities remain unexplained.

When the spreading of dolmens and pyramids all over the world is regarded as coincidence, why can’t we then regard spreading of species around the world as coincidence?

Continental drift is a fact, but Pangaea is an idea that cannot be verified by evidence or by any mathematical model. It is an immature visually based idea.

The Framework for Any Glaciation Theory

Hapgood mentions in his book, William Lee Stokes, a well known geologist and palaeontologist, who provided a framework that every theory has to meet when it wants to explain glaciations. A theory that neglects one or more items on this list can be regarded as unviable or incomplete.

  1. An initiating event or condition.
  2. A mechanism for cyclic repetitions or oscillations within the general period of glaciation.
  3. A terminating condition or event.
  4. It should not rely upon unprovable, unobservable, or unpredictable conditions when well-known or more simple ones will suffice.
  5. It must solve the problem of increased precipitation with colder climate.
  6. The facts call for a mechanism that either increases the precipitation or lowers the temperature very gradually over a period of thousands of years.

Hapgood believed that the theory of ice deposition at the poles could make the crust shift. Maybe it can play part in an increasing imbalance of the crust, but it cannot be the main cause of crustal dislocations. Why not?

Hammer throwing is a good example where eccentric forces are used to move an object from A to B.

Why Ice Deposition at the Poles Cannot Cause Large Crustal Dislocations

Asymmetrical ice depositions around the poles cause theoretically very large tangential pointed forces.

Since earth is a sphere, these eccentric forces can theoretically, when they occur around the poles, and are large enough, shift the crust (lithosphere) over the syrupy magma layer (asthenosphere).

Hapgood believed that the last ice ages at the Northern hemisphere caused the earth crust to shift. This idea was also formed after looking at the growing eccentricity on Antarctica.

But Hapgood’s theory is deeply conflicting in itself, and seems to contain a circular reasoning:

A) If we look at the ice sheet during the last ice age, with the idea that the geo pole was where it currently is, we see a very large eccentricity (see illustration above). This large eccentricity could be, according to Hapgood, responsible for a crustal shift.

B) But how came this pole from Greenland to its current location? Because we cannot seem to solve this large eccentricity other then positing the thesis that the pole was on Greenland a priori, which has been proved by mathematics by now.

C) How could it then cause a crustal shift? Because the eccentric forces were neutralizing eachother when the pole was on Greenland.

D) How can it be that Antarctica was moving to the geo pole? It was then making a counter movement, and proving that the contrary was happening.

Milankovitch Cycles – A More Consistent Clue

Without any doubt was Hapgood right about radical, violent crustal dislocations. But his theory was incomplete, and moreover, it simply ignored many contemporary, clearly proven theories.

Milankovitch, for example, discovered already in the 1920s that the orbital cycles – eccentricity, obliquity, and precession – seemed to be in accordance with glacial cycles.

This lead to a typical ‘short circuit’ theory that the Milankovitch cycles in itself were responsible for the ice ages, although science still very poorly understands why Milankovitch’s cycles influence the climate on earth.

A Large ‘e’ Stands For Large Annual Gravitational Swings

The larger the eccentricity becomes, the larger the gravitational changes become. These fluctuations ‘massage’ the earth, causing heat to accumulate in earth’s interior. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Why Eccentricity is the Main Key to Understand Glaciations

The only factor in the Milankovitch cycles that seems to influence the amount of received solar energy is the changing eccentricity of earth’s orbit.

A sphere, which the earth is, doesn’t receive less energy when it is tilted or when it wobbles in any way. It still receives the same amount of solar energy. Eccentricity seems then to be the only key left to explain glaciations.

And even this phenomenon, when regarded over a period of one year doesn’t show changing incoming solar energy. Why not? Because the average distance to the sun doesn’t change over one year. The Aphelion a(1+e) and the Perihelion a(1-e) always result in 2 × a, meaning that the net result of collected solar energy over one years stays the same. And since glaciations cover periods of tens of thousands of years, there’s no way to explain how the amount of incoming solar energy ever can change.

We can easily see there’s a huge dilemma here, because the curve fittings of the Milankovitch cycles and glaciation cycles show a perfect match, although no one is able to explain them as explained above.

But when we allow ourselves to look deep enough we can see the logic behind this mechanism. But we must leave all the mainstream ideas behind us.

Temperature Proxies (δ18O) and Eccentricity

D18O records found on the ocean floors are a very good proxies for temperature indicators of the past. The similarities between D18O and eccentric orbit is crystal clear. C=cold, W =warm. | © 2016 by Buildreps

What is the Relation Between δ18O and Eccentricity?

The δ18O samples (Foraminifera shells) taken from the ocean floor serve as very good temperature indicators. It is not difficult to overlook the similarity of patterns between the two curves. The curves have to be well superimposed to make the similarities clear.

We see that the highs of the red curve correspond to the lows of the black curve.

δ18O is somewhat tricky. Low values stand for high temperatures and vice versa.

The explanation behind this mechanism can be explained as: If the eccentricity of earth’s orbit around the sun runs above a certain value, the temperature proxies start to drop radically (temperature goes up).

But why? Since the annual solar energy doesn’t change, it remains a mystery.

What Paleontologists measured was not the real temperature, but the proxy of that temperature. When the proxy (the shells) were moved from one region (latitude) to another, this is not visible, and could easily be misinterpreted as a temperature change.

What in fact happened is that the crust shifted as a response to the increasing tidal forces that were an effect of a large eccentric orbit. The proxies reacted on that crustal shift. A change in latitude means a change in temperature.

This possibility has always been ignored by both geologists and paleontologists.

Another Proxy – δD and Eccentricity

The relations between eccentricity in earth’s orbit and glaciations are clear, although there are some pattern breaking events as well that also requires an explanation. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Another Proxy

Another proxy from the ice cores of Dome-C on Antarctica shows the same kind of pattern, although this proxy works different, it also relates to temperature change.

We see that the highs of the red curve correspond to the highs of the blue curve.

It is clear, and not very difficult to verify, that the eccentricity of earth’s orbit triggers an event that is interpreted by scientist as a glaciation, while it was a crustal shift.

It is not unthinkable though that a large eccentric orbit ‘massages’ earth’s interior more strongly, so that the earth starts to warm up from the inside. Convection from the inside might warm the crust a little. It can also make the syrupy astenosphere more fluid, which might cause the crust to ‘moonwalk’ over the magma, under influence of a large tidal oscillation. One thing is sure – science really has to get to work, and stop this silly whining over carbon induced warming.

The smaller temperature changes in between the large peaks can be easily explained by many less impactive events like solar activity, Heinrich events, changes in ocean circulation, etcetera.

Additional Effects – Annual Extreme Weathering

Because the earth axis is tilted a large eccentricity has profound effects on temperature changes. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Why These Extremes Cause Crustal Shifts

When the eccentricity of earth’s orbit increases, it doesn’t influence the annual amount of received solar energy, but it does influence gravitation between the earth and the sun significantly.

  1. The larger the eccentricity becomes, the larger the temperature differences over one year. To understand the effects, look at deserts – hot at daylight, cold at night, resulting in erosive, rock splitting conditions.
  2. Depending of the tilt and precession during an extreme eccentricity, some parts of the globe are subjected to more extremes than other parts. Resulting in local expansion (heating) and local contraction (cooling).
  3. The closer earth gets to the sun, the harder the sun is pulling. This causes extreme tidal effects.
  4. Earth’s rotation varies with the distance to the sun, which in extreme cases, like with our moon, can even result in tidal locking. This effect generates much internal heat, because earth is not one chunk of rock but consists of layers, solid and fluid. This effect is, even today, very poorly understood by modern science.

Ironically seems this latter effect to be the main driver of crustal dislocations. Once the tidal forces are large enough, the lithosphere is able to break loose from its syrupy under layer.

This phenomenon might also trigger dislocations of the outer (liquid metal) core, a phenomenon that we currently witness as a wandering magnetic pole.

How Earth’s Rotation Currently Varies

The annual variation in rotation speed is the result of the current eccentricity of earth’s orbit around the sun. It is 2 milliseconds per year.

Current Fluctuations of Earth’s Rotation

The graph above shows how annually the earth’s rotation varies just a little bit. This variation is induced by the changing distance to the sun, which is also determined by the collective momentum of our entire solar system.

When the earth gets somewhat closer to the sun, the rotation slows down with about 2 milliseconds. When it moves further away, the rotation speed goes up again.

The overall loss in speed, visible in the graph by the overall downward trend, is energy that is transferred to the moon. The result is that the moon is slowly moving away from the earth, while increasing its rotational speed.

This coherent system is mathematically amazing complex, and still very poorly understood by science.

The variation in rotation speed seems very tiny, but it represents an amazing amount of energy: 9.93·1021 Joule [1]. The total global energy consumption in 2015 is estimated to be about 6.5·1020 Joule. This unnoticeable small fraction in Earth’s rotational variations is about 15 times more powerful than the total global energy consumption.

Sometimes you have to see things in their true perspectives.

[1]: Erot = ½·I·(ω12– ω22); I = 8.04×1037kg·m2; ω1 = 7.2934778604×10-5 rad/s; ω2 = 7.2934780297×10-5 rad/s

Earth’s Inner is a Composition of Layers

Earth’s solid inner layers are hydraulic connected by two liquid layers. The solid parts can move separately from each other when the tidal forces become large enough. | © 2016 by Buildreps
The Earth’s layered structure: 1=inner core (solid); 2=outer core (liquid); 3=lower mantle (solid); 4=upper mantle (syrupy); 5=lithosphere (solid); 6=crust (solid, part of the lithosphere)

Rotation Speed of the Earth Varies

Once you understand that the rotation speed of the earth partially depends on the distance to the sun, it is not difficult to see that this influences the force on the different shells of earth’s inner.

Many people regard the earth as one solid object, while it consists of three solid shells that are rotational connected to eachother by two liquid intermediate layers.

All three solid components will react differently to large tidal changes. This happens when the eccentricity of earth’s orbit is large.


Because their densities are very different. The inner core is very heavy, while the crust is very light. This results in different reactions to an eccentric orbit.

Eccentricity and glaciations are clearly one and the same.

The Ultimate Cause of Crustal Shifts

When the tidal forces are large enough, one or more of the solid layers can lose its connections with one of the liquid layers. This happens when one of the liquid layers is not able to transfer the momentum between one of the solid layers.

And this causes the earth crust to shift.

As with a spinning top, when a force is exercised in one direction, it will react perpendicular to that force. This is why we see that the crust has shifted mainly in latitudinal direction, and not in longitudinal direction. This is why Greenland was on the North pole as proved in the former articles.

The most inner core is solid and very heavy, it won’t react as fiercely to tidal fluctuations as the very light and brittle outer shell, the crust. The crust is connected to a tough syrupy asthenosphere that won’t loose grip that easy.

We are a fortunate species. The next peaks in the Milankovitch cycles are still very far away – in about 150,000 years is the next earth crust shift expected.

Science is currently unable to model anything that comes even close to show how this amazing complex process actually works.

More articles will follow on this issue, going deeper into this topic.

© 2016 by Buildreps

First published: March 2, 2016

Why is Greenland Covered in Ice?

Greenland is covered with a massive ice sheet while Alaska, Canada and Russia are not. Why? ‘N’ is where the current North pole is located.

Why is There an Ice Sheet on Greenland?

Greenland is the largest island on earth, situated east of Canada, between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. About 80% of the island is covered by the massive Greenland Ice Sheet with an average thickness of about 1,667 meters. If this ice sheet would melt completely off, the sea level will rise with about 7 meters (23 feet).

Drill samples have shown that the Greenland ice sheet is approximately 110,000 years old. Other estimates claim that the ice sheet is 400,000 years old. How did this ice sheet become so thick, while the surrounding countries with mountain ranges, like Alaska, Canada and Russia, have no ice sheet? Even Iceland isn’t fully covered in ice. Moreover is the exact age of the ice sheet unclear. What do we really know?

This article will explore this issue partially which will be published in a series of articles.

Whiteland or Greenland?

Where the name Greenland comes from, while it’s completely white, is unsure. But it is said to have come from early Norwegian settlers.

According to the Icelandic sagas, Erik the Red named it Greenland in an attempt to lure more settlers in search of land and the promise of a better life. It was maybe also a kind of incantation to make the cold island more livable.

Sages and legends often contain parts of some truth. The current scientific view is that Greenland was actually green some 450,000 years ago. That’s quite some time for a legend to bridge, isn’t it?

What happened to Greenland that it’s now covered with an insane thick icecap?

Why the mountain ranges on Canada, Alaska, Russia, and Scandinavia are not covered with a similar ice sheet as on Greenland has never been sufficiently explained. | © Buildreps 2016-2017

Models Say There Can’t be Ice

Greenland’s ice sheet has puzzled scientists for many decades, which have led to complete ridiculous, even unscientific theories. Geoscientists who are in the search for a logical and consistent explanation are limited by their own set of beliefs and institutions. This limitation leads sometimes to the strangest conclusions.

There have been many reports in the media about the effects of global warming on the Greenland ice sheet, but there is still great uncertainty as to why there is an ice sheet on Greenland at all.

There are mathematical models that cover Greenland with an ice sheet, but they also cover the other continents in ice as well. There’s no model possible that covers only Greenland.

What changed in Earth’s history to make this happen?

Latest Official Version

The reason for that [the ice sheet] is the interaction of three tectonic processes. For one thing, Greenland had to be lifted up, such that the mountain peaks reached into sufficiently cold altitudes of the atmosphere. Secondly, Greenland needed to move sufficiently far northward, which led to reduced solar irradiation in winter. Thirdly, a shift of the Earth axis caused Greenland to move even further northward.

The Fact is: There Are no Conclusive Models Found Yet

There are in fact several competing theories why Greenland is covered in ice, ranging from:

  • changes in ocean circulation,
  • the increasing height of the Rocky Mountains,
  • changes in the Earth’s orbit,
  • natural changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

The University of Bristol, funded by the British Antarctic Survey, claims that none of the posited theories can account for the thick ice sheet of Greenland. Even the Milankovitch cycles are nowhere near strong enough to explain the ice coverage of Greenland.

While the results of the computations suggest that climatic shifts associated with changes in ocean circulation and tectonic uplift did affect the amount of ice cover, and that the ice waxed and waned with changes in the Earth’s orbit, none of these changes were large enough to contribute significantly to the long-term growth of the Greenland ice sheet.

Their conclusion was that the huge ice cap could only grow when Greenland would be “roofed” with a giant bubble of low CO2 levels covering the whole island. Of course, that sounds reasonable. How to transport all the vaporized seawater to Greenland without interfering with the CO2 bubble? How did that bubble came there? Which mechanism kept it in place for over hundreds of thousands of years? Not a very scientific approach.

In other words: none of the current theories appear to be valid.

Try to be honest to yourself. Everyone who has a good intuition sees immediately that it’s strange that on the Northern hemisphere only Greenland is covered with an ice sheet. Not just a bit of ice. A massive ice layer, while there’s nothing on Alaska, Canada and Russia.

Are Temperature Fluctuations Correctly Interpreted?

Earth’s temperatures have never been constant. But when the reference points are dislocated the interpretations are most probably false. Temperature change corresponds to the eccentric orbit of earth around the sun. | © 2016 by Buildreps

No Ice Sheets on Other Mountain Ranges

It isn’t a logical starting point in any case. The ice sheet around the Greenland Summit, that’s about in the middle of the sheet, is about 3,000 meters thick. The altitude is also about 3,000 meters. The mountains must have been pushed down how much? At which point are they trading places, or was it a slow sliding scale?

If that would be the main driver, why are there no fat ice sheets on the Brooks Mountain Range, the Innuitian Mountains, the Mackenzie Mountains, the Ural Mountains, the Central Siberian Plateau, and the Verkhoyansk range? Even the mountains on Svalbard aren’t covered in thick ice sheets.

Scientists will probably think of very difficult explanations for this, but they then tend to forget about Occam’s Razor. The simplest explanation with the least assumptions is the best theory.

Why no Ice Sheets on Alaska, Canada or Russia?

The latest official theory why Greenland is covered in ice, includes the assumption that Greenland was covered with high mountains. These high mountains were formed by tectonic forces pointed towards the location of Greenland. The relative thin crust was easier foldable which made the formation of mountains easier.

The mountain peaks would start to accumulate an ice sheet after Greenland shifted 18° further up North to its current location, according to this new theory. It cannot be stated clear enough that this is completely irrational science.

Why would only Greenland shift Northward? And the rest stays in place? Seriously?

Why this accumulation of ice didn’t happen in similar regions in Alaska, Canada or Russia, where the much colder land climate even more encourages the build-up of an ice sheet, remains completely out of the scope of this theory.

This theory seems to be rather adhoc because it doesn’t cover the complete subject of ice sheet formation around the Arctic.

Are Earth Crust Shifts Possible?

The late Professor Hapgood first coined the idea of Earth Crust Displacements in 1958, and even published complete books and theories around this issue. Hapgood also explained how crustal shifts were powered, namely that the deposition of ice around the poles caused eccentricities. These eccentricities cause a centrifugal force on the crust and could lead to shifts.

This view is though inconsistent, and not completely in line with what we see happening today at Antarctica. The centrifugal forces caused by the ice sheet on Antarctica today is about 2 times larger than the forces during the last ice age. We would be shifting as we speak. So, what could power crustal shifts is unsure, but it could be driven by a combination of inner and outer events.

The fact is that crustal shifts are the only possibility to cover Greenland with an ice sheet, and that we are now looking at the remains of crustal shifts. But to claim how this works is yet too early.

Never exclude anything in advance. Earth Crust Shifts must be part of the vocabulary of any sane geologist to explain events that otherwise become unexplainable. Looking for the cause of the event is yet another thing, which might be even much harder.

The formation of our world is not only done by one big crustal force, but at least by two:

  • Earth Crust Displacements
  • Tectonic Plate Movements

How Ice Forms Around the Poles

Ice has the natural tendency to grow and to melt approximately concentrically around the poles. This tendency is not influenced by any wobble, since this wobble still occurs equally around the geographical pole.

The ice sheet on Greenland shouldn’t be there if the geographical pole always had been were it is today. There is simply no scientific explanation possible without the introduction of a radical shifting mechanism of the Earth’s crust.

Understanding why the ice sheet was formed on Greenland helps us to understand the possible response of the ice sheet to future climate changes, and if the current climate change is completely wrongly interpreted.

Ice Formation is Concentric Around Poles

Ice forms concentric around the poles, unless there is a rational mechanism that makes it slightly acentric . | © 2016 by Buildreps

Why Ice Formation is Concentric

The North pole map at the end of the Winter shows a large amount of sea ice which is almost centrical formed around the geographical pole. In winter time, the sea ice in the Arctic ocean gets trapped between Canada, Russia and Greenland (N1), and forms a dense pack of sea ice. This pack of ice can’t go anywhere, while the ice between Greenland and Norway floats into the Greenland Sea and the Norwegian sea, and finally melts. The Gulf Stream plays a major role in this process.

This is the reason why on the North pole the ice is not as symmetrically accumulated as on the South pole.

When we look at Antarctica, we see that the sea ice around Antarctica can freely float away into the Southern part of the oceans, and is almost symmetrically formed around the geographical South pole.

The slight acentric accumulation of ice on the South pole is caused by the predominant ice mass in the sectors S2 and S3, which is a major chilling factor in the formation of local sea ice.

The former glaciation cycle was centered around Greenland | © 2016 by Buildreps

Was the Former North Pole on Greenland?

The center point of the last ice age was on Greenland. Greenland was located on the North pole due to crustal dislocation. That is the reason why only Greenland is still covered in ice. The reason why the ice sheet on Greenland is melting, is because it has been shifted about 1,500 km South, from its former polar position to its current position.

The ice sheet melts so slowly because Greenland still lies for a great deal within the polar circle. The outer edges of the sheet are melting much faster then the elevated centre near Summit. The overall balance is negative.

The only sure conclusion we can draw is that ice always forms symmetrically around the pole, unless there is a reason, a strong mechanism, that makes it asymmetric.

Which mechanism could have been strong enough to cause such an asymmetry during the last ice age? Now try to keep the explanations as simple as possible, without limiting yourself by your own paradigm.

That the former North Pole was located on Greenland can also be proved by calculations.

Milankovitch Cycles (W/m2 at 65ºN) Are No Cause of Glaciations

There is not a single relation between the Solar Insolation and the start of the last ice age. There is also not a single relation between the glacial maximum and Solar Insolation on the Northern Hemisphere. The fluctuation are much too weak to cause or to end an ice age.

Former Geographical Pole

Greenland was situated at the (geo) North Pole between 110,000 and 200,000 years ago. There’s even hardly any doubt about the location. The region of Greenland is in line with the orientation of about 224 ancient pyramids and temples.

That is no coincidence. There is about 1.34-1869 % chance (practically it’s 0) that an arrangement of this magnitude happens accidentally, which is a sure confirmation of something very significant. You have about trillions times trillions times more chance on winning the Power ball. Imagine that!

Our ancestors oriented their structures to a geo pole that appeared to be at that time at another location: Greenland.

This completely new theory explains in the simplest possible way why there is still a thick ice sheet on Greenland. This also explains why there’s even an ice sheet present, while there’s nothing of the ice sheet left on Russia or Canada.

The ice sheet gets thicker the closer we get to the pole. That is what we see on Antarctica today. The current North pole and the former North pole are shifted under an angle of about 14° in latitudinal direction. But the shift didn’t take place overnight. The shift took place over a period of about 80,000 years, between 110,000 and 30,000 years ago.

How the Melting Rate of the Ice Sheet Proceeds

The current location of Greenland makes the ice sheet melt at a very low rate. 99.9% of the melting energy is provided by the Warm Gulf stream. In about 4,000 years from now the ice sheet will be molten completely. In 2100 the sea level will have risen about 8 cm due to the Greenland melt alone. The estimated melting rates of the IPCC are heavily exaggerated  | © 2015-2017 by Mario Buildreps.

The Ice Sheet Will Wax and Wane

Of course will the ice sheet wax and wane a little bit from year to year, from decade to decade, or even from century to century. That’s because Greenland has moved to a part of the Arctic where the temperature’s yo-yoing around zero. But the overall picture is clear. It melts substantially, when measured over a period of a thousand years.

The melting energy comes for less than 0.1% from the airflow, and for 99.9% from the warm Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is present around Greenland to restore the balance after the balance disturbing crustal shift that took place between 110,000 and 30,000 years ago (the crust shifted average about 18.5 m/yr over a period of 80,000 years in the latitudinal direction). The ice sheet melts therefore from below, and hardly from above.

This melting mechanism has absolutely nothing to do with a greenhouse effect. The melting process is fueled by (the balance restoring) El Niño.

The temperatures of the elevated centre part of Greenland is always far beneath zero, while the lower outer edges of Greenland are nearly half of the time way above zero. To model this process is not so easy, even with the understanding what the origin (North pole) of ice sheet was.

If you would zoom in on the smooth graph above that presents a period of about 20,000 years you’ll find an erratic pattern. Climate sceptics will try to zoom in on parts of the erratic pattern and claim that the sheet is growing. That’s an obvious wrong interpretation of a long slow process.

The mass of the massive ice sheet of Greenland has pushed the land mass of Greenland down, leaving high mountain ranges around it. It created a kind of ‘open shop freezer’. The ice sheet has been trapped inside.

Original Thickness of the Greenland Ice Sheet

The fact that the ice sheet on Greenland is still melting, and the former ice sheets of the last glaciation on Russia, Canada and America are long gone, means that the ice sheet on Greenland must have been very thick.

The core temperature of the Greenland ice sheet was much lower as well, because it was situated at the North pole. The other ice sheets on Canada and Russia weren’t as cold as the one on Greenland. The immense thickness and the very low temperature of the Greenland ice sheet, combined with its current polar location (it’s still cold), makes it melt at a very low rate.

This ice sheet will melt anyway, whatever we do. Zero Carbon emission or much Carbon emission. No scientist has ever proven a that CO2 can cause a global temperature change of between 10 to 15°C. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, sure, but a very weak one, and it has been made responsible for something it is incapable of doing. CO2 is the effect, not the cause. CO2 lags behind because it is released by warming oceans and absorbed by cooling oceans, that’s why it lags behind on global temperatures changes.

Calculations, resulting in the graph above, show that the original ice sheet was 32% thicker when it lied on the North Pole, average around 2,200 meters thick. The thickest part of the ice sheet was centered around the pole, and was between 4,000 and 4,500 meters thick.

Rationality: Why Greenland is Covered in Ice

The Greenland Ice Sheet Will Melt In Any Case

The estimation of the IPCC concerning the current melting speed of the Greenland ice sheet are in line with the calculations based upon a shifting crust which took place between 110,000 and 30,000 years ago. Only with this difference that the origin of the ice sheet of Greenland has been determined, and that makes a world of a difference.

The extrapolations of the IPCC concerning the melting rate are exaggerated and based on too many unscientific assumptions.

The ice sheet won’t melt within just a few hundred years. There’s even not enough energy to change ice into water, called heat of fusion, within this short time frame.

When all ice on Greenland is molten into the oceans in about 4,000 years, it will influence the climate on earth dramatically. The risen sea level will influence all coastlines. The energy that was required to melt the ice sheet cannot go anywhere else than into warming the whole atmosphere and the oceans.

The Northern hemisphere will heat up, the Southern hemisphere will cool down. This is a logical part of earth’s balancing mechanism, otherwise it wouldn’t have survived billions of years. But how this exactly will work out is yet unknown.

Evidence for Earth Crust Shifts

Paleomagnetism delivers proof for crustal shift, although scientists may not even recognize it as such.

Scientists assume when they look at the samples of alleged magnetic pole reversals, that the magnetic pole was the only variable that changed, while there’s no way to tell from the samples what has changed – the magnetic pole or the crust. Because the magnetic pole obviously moves, it doesn’t mean the other variable, the crust, is obviously fixed. That’s an unscientific, assumptive error.

It was both that moved. And it can be partially fixed by using the orientation of ancient structures, which show us the way in which position the crust was over the last 400,000 years.

The penny still hasn’t dropped in many scientists that magnetic reversals are in fact evidence for Earth Crust Shifts. Only because we cannot simply solve two variables from just one equation, the assumption is conveniently made that it was only one variable – magnetic reversal. An error which is caused by intellectual laziness, lack of imagination, and a too low consciousness of geoscientists.

Even More Evidence

A next article shows the amazing orientation patterns of more than 500 ancient structures spread around the world. These 500 pyramids point to three different clear locations on Greenland.

And exactly at the same point that was already embraced by the ice sheets of the last glacial cycle. This doesn’t only show an amazing outlining of pyramids around the world, but also that these pyramids are much older than always assumed.

We can find the exact location of the Greenland pole by performing spherical triangulations with the orientation of ancient structures around the world. It has similarities with the way sailors used to find their way on the seas.

Is it Important to Know?

Why it is important to know that the former North pole was once on Greenland? Because this notion has a huge impact on the climate models, and even on the current weather models.

All models somehow try to explain the presence of the ice sheet on Greenland from its current position, and not from the position where it came from, and that the reason is why it is melting in the first place.

As long as the current climate models haven’t included the correct starting parameters, they will all be wrong in their long term predictions.

This is why it is important to know that the former North pole was on Greenland. This theme will be explained in an upcoming new series of articles together with the used data.

A shifting mechanism has serious implications for the Carbon dating method as proposed by Libby in 1947, since the biosphere is not as stable as always assumed. This dating method has become the standard dating technique for organic materials found around ancient sites. It is by definition unreliable when a crustal shifting mechanism is rejected.

But this dating method (the 14C) can be mathematically repaired when we remodel it with the correct parameters from i.a. the crustal dislocations in it. This is a monumental undertaking similar as the remodeling of the paleomagnetic data. But it has to be done to complete the whole picture.

This is why it is important to know, since the theory repairs our view on our planet and our history.

© 2015-2017 by Buildreps

First publication: 09 December 2015