Mark Gaffney, Pole Shift, Crustal Lithospheric Dysjunction, Earth Changes, DUMBs, The Oldest Anomaly in Science, Is this the former position of the north pole?,Dr Bill Deagle MD AAEM ACAM A4M, NutriMedical Report Show, www.NutriMedical.com, www.ClayandIRON.com, www.Deagle-Network.com,https://www.nutrimedical.com/product-category/epigenetic-song-of-dna-therapy/,
Mark Gaffney explores the ‘extralimital anomaly’ of mollusc shells in the Americas, a hitherto under-researched area of science that supports Charles Hapgood’s theory of crustal displacement.
I first encountered empirical evidence supporting Charles Hapgood’s theory of crustal displacement while reading Charles Darwin’s 1846 book about the geology of South America.i Evidently, the well known French naturalist, Alcide d’Orbigny, had shared this important evidence with Darwin during the preparation of his book. d’Orbigny, a disciple of George Cuvier, preceded Darwin to South America, and subsequently published a detailed account that Darwin called “a most important work.” ii It’s unclear whether the two men ever met, but they corresponded over a period of years. Darwin cites d’Orbigny numerous times in both of his books about South America, and in a footnote writes that d’Orbigny’s research placed him “on a list of American travellers second only to Humboldt.”iii
Darwin included the data in a table along with a detailed discussion.iv I was stunned when I saw this material. It was also clear at a glance that Darwin did not understand what had passed into his hands. The evidence was not limited to a few scraps or observations pertaining to mollusks, but amounted to an entire data-set. True, shellfish are not sexy like saber-toothed tigers and woolly mammoths. But the study of mollusks nonetheless was on a solid scientific footing by the 1830s. This may have been due, in part, to the universal popularity of beach combing and collecting among amateur enthusiasts and trained scientists alike. We humans have always been fascinated with sea shells and love to collect them, whether they find the specimens on a beach, or in a sedimentary deposit on a mountain top.
It is noteworthy that Darwin’s associate, Charles Lyell, drew heavily upon this science in the course of identifying the different epochs of the Tertiary. Lyell applied a statistical method of his own design, which enabled him to distinguish the relative percentage of surviving versus extinct mollusk populations.v The early editions of his Principles of Geology (Volume Three) actually included a 65-page appendix with tables listing innumerable mollusk species. The innovation became known as statistical palaeontology, and although the approach has since gone out of fashion—modern editions of the principles are heavily abridged and do not include the tables—present-day science still owes a substantial debt to the early work on mollusk taxonomy and palaeontology accomplished by Lyell, d’Orbigny, and many others.vi
My excitement mounted as I studied the table in Darwin’s book and eagerly devoured his discussion. The basic facts are easy to summarise. Mollusks tend to live in communities—the standard technical jargon is “faunal assemblages”—and fossil beds of these communities are occasionally found in a pristine state of preservation. Such finds are rare because ocean surf is a powerful destroyer of seashells. Fortunately, due to the Andean uplift that Darwin also describes in his books, a number of these old faunal beds were discovered in pristine condition. On several occasions, Darwin himself found former beaches which had been raised up as much as a thousand feet above the present-day shore.
I have included a facsimile of the original table with all of the relevant data. It summarises the joint collaborative efforts of d’Orbigny and another well-known collector, Hugh Cuming, who had gathered specimens of 79 different species from the late Pleistocene at two principal sites on the Chilean coast: Coquimbo (30 degrees S latitude) and Navidad (34 degrees S latitude). Although many of the specimens were of extinct species, the collection included 12 living genera which are listed in the table. The two columns at the right indicate the latitude at which the specimens were collected, and the southernmost latitude at which the genera may still be found.vii
My jaw dropped as I studied the table. Notice the conspicuous disparity between the latitude at which the fossil specimens were gathered, compared with the latitude at which they are presently found. Nearly all of the extant genera had relocated far up the coast.
Mollusks are extremely fussy about where they live, and water temperature is the most important factor defining their habitat. Shellfish require a narrow temperature range, outside of which they simply are not found. Each species has slightly different requirements. When I crunched the numbers, based on the data compiled in the table, I calculated that the average habitat displacement to the north was 24.4 degrees of latitude. Given 68.7 miles per degree of latitude in the equatorial zone, this means the mollusks on average had migrated northward about 1,683 miles to warmer equatorial waters. Some had relocated as far north as Ecuador.
Before I proceed, I should mention that mollusks have very limited mobility. Unlike fish, they cannot swim. However, when they reproduce, they pass through a tiny larval stage, and these larvae are able to hitch a ride on ocean currents over considerable distances. Evidently this is how the various species relocated more than a thousand miles up the coast of South America, at the end of the Pleistocene.
The mass migration greatly intrigued Darwin, for he writes:
“the first impression….is that the climate [where the fossils were collected] must formerly have been warmer than it now is.”viii
Having raised the key question, Darwin then unaccountably begins to hedge, citing cases and evidence which, looking back today with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, seem weak and unconvincing. For example, Darwin mentions the exceptional case of Voluta at the bottom of the list, which apparently did manage to adapt to the same altered, i.e., cooler, water temperatures that drove the other warm water loving species north toward the equator. At present, Voluta is only found south of 43 degrees which is approximately the latitude of the town of Chonchi on the island of Chiloe, one of the large islands in the archipelago of southern Chile. In his account, Darwin shows great reluctance to formulate an opinion about what it all could mean. In a rambling discussion on the next page, he refers to his colleague, Mr. Lyell, who was always known to counsel caution when confronted with anomalous data, to which Lyell often attributed local factors. We will encounter the same tendency again, very shortly.
How then do we account for the fact that warm-water loving mollusks were formerly found at southern latitudes of the Pacific coast, a region that today is significantly cooler? Did the temperature of the nearby Humboldt ocean current change at the end of the Pleistocene? Insofar as I have been able to determine, there is no evidence for this. The ability of the exceptional genera Voluta to adapt to cooler temperatures only clarifies the rule.
Indeed, the average 1,683 mile migration of eleven genera of mollusks northward stands in silent witness to an extraordinary event. And this should also have been obvious in the 1840s. A paradigm-busting data set had fallen into Darwin’s lap, pointing toward a mind-boggling conclusion: that the crust of the Earth had shifted, at the close of the Pleistocene, by approximately the same distance the mollusks had migrated. But Darwin was unable to make this leap of imagination, however logical, because doing so would have required him to think outside the box. The great man who very nearly explained evolution could not shake himself free from the scientific model that held him fast. Darwin remained a prisoner of his own beliefs and, as we are about to learn, in this he was far from alone.
The extralimital anomaly
On a hunch, I did a Google search and within minutes was staring at several scientific studies of mollusk assemblages on the west coast of North America. As I read, I was blown away. The first paper that I examined, published in 1966 by W.O. Addicott, a scientist working for the US Geological Survey, describes a
“heretofore unrecognized late Pleistocene molluscan province characterized by northern mollusks and foraminifers (i.e., linear and spiral shelled mollusks) that are no longer living off the central California coast.”ix
The paper goes on to describe virtually the same phenomenon reported by Darwin in 1846, except that in this case the northward migration of mollusks was from warm water to cold (instead of from cold water to warm) and had occurred not in South America but on the west coast of the United States. By this point, as you might well imagine, I was completely engrossed.
Undisturbed fossil beds at several locations in central California, one at Santa Cruz and two at Point Año Nuevo a few miles up the coast, documented the southernmost outpost of a community of at least 80 species of late Pleistocene mollusks, many of them still living, that are no longer found in the area but presently inhabit the cooler waters of Puget Sound and the B.C. coast as far north as Alaska.x The data presented by Addicott indicates that these surviving late Pleistocene mollusks had migrated from the vicinity of Santa Cruz northward by a minimum of 11 degrees of latitude, a distance of 755 miles.xi
Today, water temperatures in Puget Sound are 4 degrees centigrade cooler than the coastal waters at the latitude of Santa Cruz. Evidently the cool water loving mollusks had moved north in search of their preferred habitat, after the coastal waters of central California warmed up. The obvious question that Darwin failed to pursue is: what caused this warming? Surely the answer is: the same event that caused the cooling of the coastal waters of Chile.
Writing in 1966, Addicott apparently had no knowledge of the South American case reported by Darwin in 1846, because he credits discovery of the so called “extralimital anomaly” to a US-based scientist, Ralph Arnold, who reported it in 1908.xii Nor have things improved in this respect. A 2014 monograph on the issue published by three scientists, Daniel R. Muhs, Lindsey T. Groves and R. Randall Schumann, makes no mention of Darwin.xiii Nor do the three scientists display any awareness that the phenomenon under discussion is not exclusive to North America.
In their paper, the scientists thoroughly review various local and regional factors proposed by other experts to explain why sea water temperatures along the central California coast warmed up since the late Pleistocene. The possible factors they cite for this include the upwelling of cold water, effects of winds and currents, changes in the geography of the coast over time, as well as the reworking (i.e., alteration) of fossil beds. To their credit, the authors reject all of these, concluding that
“although many mechanisms have been proposed….no single explanation seems to be applicable to all localities where thermally anomalous faunas have been observed.”xiv
Muhs, Groves and Schumann were correct in 2014 to dismiss all of the proposed local or regional explanations. Because surely a temperature-driven anomaly that effects two continents and stretches across two hemispheres of the Earth cannot properly be described as local or regional. The same event that cooled the coastal waters of Chile probably also caused warming of the coastal waters of central California. Both cases appear to be linked and also synchronised. When faced with a global mystery, does a local or regional solution suffice? Probably not. No, one should tailor the search and the solution to the scale of the phenomenon. In this case, the data surely indicates the need to think globally.
The extralimital anomaly therefore does not date to fieldwork by American scientists in the early years of the twentieth century, but to 1846, the year Darwin published his book on the geology of South America. Notice, this would make the anomaly a whopping 170 years old, and this is probably a conservative estimate. More likely, South American collectors knew about the mysterious northward migration of mollusks in the 1830s, and possibly as early as the 1820s. We know that d’Orbigny arrived in Chile in 1826. Notice, this would make the anomaly more than 190 years old!
How many other scientific fields can lay claim to such an extended legacy of failure? Probably few to none. But perhaps the deeper issue is how and why trained experts can have misfired so badly. The extralimital anomaly has not only eluded scientific explanation up to the present day, but in the course of doing so has also managed to stay completely off the radar. At present, insofar as I can tell, outside the tiny field of malacology (the study of mollusks) the anomaly remains virtually unknown, a regrettable fact which I attribute to over-specialisation.
The unfortunate modern-day reality is that our universities train science students to think more and more about less and less. As a result, students by and large never gain the invaluable experience of thinking outside the box; and very few of them go on to develop a holistic approach or an interdisciplinary career. Yet, if there was ever a problem that called for an interdisciplinary approach, it is this one. Sadly, when I contacted the three authors of the 2014 paper to alert them about the larger ramifications, I encountered only silence. I never heard back, not so much as a peep. Not one of the scientists extended me the simple courtesy of a brief acknowledgment. Did they dismiss me as a crank, or a conspiracy nut?
I would be guessing about their motives and their state of mind if I commented further, so I will refrain. Nonetheless, it does appear that the leading authorities in the field are prisoners of their scientific training and beliefs. In this, things have not changed since the time of Darwin. The present generation of experts who write papers about the extralimital anomaly have yet to learn about its actual history and its true scope. As I write in 2019, the matter remains anomalous, as ever.
i Charles Darwin, Geological Observations on South America, originally published 1846, in the Classic Reprint Series: On the Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs; also, Geological Observations on the Volcanic Island and Parts of South America Visited During the Voyage of the Beagle (Forgotten Books, 2012), pp. 406-412.
iii Charles Darwin, The Voyage of the Beagle (New York, Random House, 2001), p. 84.
iv Geological Observations on South America, pp. 406-412.
v For an excellent discussion see Stephen Jay Gould, Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle (Cambridge Mass & London, Harvard University Press, 1987).
vi M.J.S. Rudwick, “Charles Lyell’s dream of statistical paleontology,” Paleontology, 21, 1978, p. 225-244.
vii Geological Observations on South America, p. 406-412.
ix W.O. Addicott, “Late Pleistocene Marine Paleoecology and Zoogeography in Central California”, Geological Survey Professional Paper 523-C, US Government Printing Office, 1966.
x Ibid., p. C-9.
xi Ibid., p. C-10.
xii Ralph Arnold, “Descriptions of new Cretaceous and Tertiary fossils from the Santa Cruz Mountains, California”, US Natl. Musc. Proc., Vol 34, 1908, no. 1617, p. 345-390.
xiii Daniel R. Muhs, Lindsey T. Groves and R. Randall Schumann, “Interpreting the paleozoogeography and sea level history of thermally anomalous marine terrace faunas: a case study from the Last Interglacial Complex of San Clemente Island, California”, Monographs of the Western North American Scientist, Vol. 7, 8th California Islands Symposium, Article 6, 2014.
Mark Gaffney Sub-Page
As announced on my July 04, 2019 Radio show I am posting the work of Mark Gaffney regarding the location of the Old North Pole. Here is the complete posting that will lead to a complete book on this topic. This is a topic I worked on from a different perspective. Much more to come on this and related topics. Please read the following and then listen to the July 18th “James McCanney Science Hour” Radio Show interview with Mark Gaffney … the first interview of many on this topic
at the following link –> Download MP3 File JamesMcCanneyScienceHour_July_18_2019.mp3 .
© June, 2019
Do Ancient Sites Point to the Old North Pole
By Mark H Gaffney
The orientation of ancient sites in Mexico and Central America continues to be one of archeology’s strangest enigmas. Probably the best known case is the avenue at Teotihuacan, Mexico, located about twenty miles northeast of Mexico City. Called the Way of the Dead, the broad straight avenue starts at the foot of the huge Pyramid of the Moon and extends for about two miles. En route, it passes by the even more imposing Pyramid of the Sun. I vividly recall how intrigued I was when I learned that the avenue and these two great pyramids are not aligned to true north like the pyramids of Giza, Egypt but oddly point 15.47º (15º 28′) east of north. Archeologists have never explained this puzzling fact which in my view, calls into question their attempts to identify and impute meaning to equinox and solstice points on the horizon.
Teotihuacan is not a lone case. Most other pyramids and temples in Central America are also aligned east of north. During the early 1970s, the archaeoastronomy Anthony Aveni surveyed the region and identified fifty such sites. He grouped them into three distinct clusters: a small minority aligned to true north, a larger group aligned to 7º east of north, and an even larger third group that ranged between 15º and 20º east of north. Aveni referred to this last group as “the 17 degree family”.[i] He went on to present an exhaustive catalogue of such alignments in a subsequent book Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico.[ii]
Although Aveni never found an explanation, he did conclude that members of the 17 degree family were “nonfunctional imitations” of the oldest site in the region: Teotihuacan. It is curious that nearly all of the sites in this group are also located within 100 kilometers of Teotihuacan. Aveni suggested that whatever the original purpose of the east of north orientation had been, it was eventually forgotten and lost to history.[iii]
He also reported what I regard as the most telling detail of all. An aerial survey of the Central Mexican highlands conducted in 1974 showed that the strange east of north alignment was not limited to religious and ceremonial sites. Most villages, towns and even agricultural fields across the region were generally aligned in the same fashion: east of north.[iv] Evidently the entire grid of human society across Central Mexico was affected. The key question, of course, is why? Were sites in the region originally aligned to true north, before some great earth cataclysm in the remote past shifted the continent? This would imply that Teotihuacan is older, perhaps much older, than we have been led to believe. Although such a conclusion is controversial, an event of this scale would have had to have occurred in remote antiquity, because ocean bottom cores indicate that the crust of the earth has been stable for the last 10,000 years.[v]
As for the similar east of north orientation of Mayan sites in Yucatan and Guatemala, Aveni wrote that “the plans of Maya ceremonial centers seem to exhibit more disarray than those of Central Mexico.”[vi] Aveni attributed the east of north alignment of these sites not to the Mayans themselves but to the Toltecs who, he felt, introduced it when they conquered the region. It’s a plausible explanation. But there is also another possibility. As I studied the region’s geography I began to suspect that the hypothetical event that shifted the continent might also have caused local dislocations, particularly in southern Mexico and Central America. I am no geologist and could be wrong about this. But look at the map. The narrow isthmus of Central America does look twisted. Surely one is safe to assume, as a general rule, that the larger the land mass the more stable.
I gained additional insights from the Austrian geologist Eduard Seuss, compiler of The Face of the Earth published between 1904-1909, a massive work which attempted the near impossible task of summarizing all that was known at that time about our planet. More than a century later, Seuss’s remarkable four volume opus continues to be a useful resource. His book drew my attention to the string of young and very active volcanoes on the west coast of Guatemala, and to the great complexity of the nearby Caribbean basin, including the deep trench south of Cuba and the Antilles.[vii] The seafloor map features three prominent ridges radiating eastward from where Guatemala, Belize and Honduras come together. Were the Guatemalan volcanoes born of deep stresses in the earth caused by the shifting crust? During a recent flight on a clear day from Mexico City to San Francisco I got a good look at Central Mexico from the air. The beautiful countryside is pock-marked with calderas. These old volcanoes are long dormant. But things are very different down in Guatemala. As my thinking evolved, I decided to rule out as unreliable any site south of Mexico City. Ultimately, I retained confidence in only one, Teotihuacan, by far the oldest. As I will attempt to show, one was sufficient.
Recently, we learned that an important site in South America is also aligned east of north. Ongoing archeological excavations since 2000 at legendary Tiahuanacu, Bolivia finally succeeded in exposing the original foundations of the famous Akapana pyramid, and the foundation of a second pyramidal structure at nearby Pumapunku. When I visited Tiahuanacu in October 2018 I was pleasantly surprised to find that the foundations of both of these pyramids are largely intact. This is very good news because a deep overburden of red mud had long stymied efforts to investigate this key site. An early investigator, Arthur Posnansky, called Tiahuanacu the cradle of South American civilization and dated it to 15,000 BC. Today, of course, a near consensus of archeologists reject his early date. Most think Tiahuanacu dates only to the first millennium AD.
Intact foundation of the Akapana, Tiahuanacu
Intact foundation wall, Pumapunku, Tiahuanacu.
Yet, the foundations of these two pyramids are now exposed and their alignments raise new questions. Their east-of-north orientation is hard to explain, assuming that the north-south axis of the present world map has been constant in perpetuity. The Akapana is 0.2º east of north; and the nearby pyramid at Pumapunku is a full 2º east of north.[viii] Neither of these azimuths makes sense from the standpoint of archeology. One may ask: were these east of north alignments caused by the same earth-changing event that shifted Teotihuacan, Mexico?
There is no doubt about the alignments at Tiahuanacu. I was able to confirm them myself using Google Earth Pro, a user-friendly mapping software that, now, happily, is also a free download. The program is based on satellite imagery and has rendered theodolites largely obsolete. Most of the surface features of our planet have now been surveyed from space and are accessible via the Internet. No longer is it necessary to go to the trouble and expense of traveling to an archeological site simply to obtain an alignment. We can now visit sites in cyberspace. Google Earth Pro allows us to zoom in and out with ease. The program is also promising for another reason. Although it displays the earth in virtual space as a perfect sphere, the software takes into account the equatorial bulge and the flattening at the poles when doing calculations. Moreover, Google Earth pro automatically plots the shortest distance between two points on the earth’s surface. These are big advances over the frustratingly inaccurate method of attempting to plot azimuths on a physical globe with a piece of string, or by some other means. Armed with this relatively new earth mapping tool, any computer literal person can accurately plot arcs and great circles at home. So, let’s get to it!
I should mention, right off, that I could make nothing of the 2º east of north alignment of the Pumapunku pyramid. That one remains a mystery.
Even so, my excitement mounted as I plotted the alignments of the Akapana and the pyramids at Teotihuacan. (see illustration one) Is it mere coincidence that the two arcs cross over Baffin Island, Canada, at a point very near to the probable center of the Laurentian ice sheet during the last glacial maximum? In my opinion, no, because I suspect both of these pyramids were originally aligned to true north. If true, this means they still point like an arrow to the former north pole.
A Third Leg
Although I felt confident about these two alignments, it was obvious that a third match would greatly buttress my case. So began the hunt for another matching site. My search led me quite naturally to Egypt which I judged to be ideal because of its
great antiquity, and also because of its geological stability, due to Egypt’s location at the geographical center of the continental land mass of the planet.
By the time I arrived in Cairo in April 2019 for a two-week tour of ancient sites, I had already done sufficient homework that I knew what I was looking for: a pyramid or temple aligned not to the present axis of true north/south, but rather, to a grid oriented west of north. I was even half-convinced I had already narrowed the search to one particular site. In 2005, two archaeoastronomers, Mosalam Shaltout and Juan Antonio Belmonte, had published a list of the orientations of 115 ancient Egyptian temples in southern Egypt. Their paper was a compilation of fieldwork completed in 2004, and their list was exhaustive. It included every ancient site from Abydos south to Abu Simbel.[ix] I was greatly encouraged when I discovered that one site on their list, the temple of Nekhbet at Elkab (on the Nile), was apparently aligned to 25º west of north (155º SE of north): the magic angle at that latitude/longitude which matched the pyramids of Mexico and Bolivia. Nekhbet was the vulture goddess of southern Egypt, and during my tour I observed her winged image on the walls and ceilings of numerous temples. However, I was not able to confirm the professors’ data. Unfortunately, after checking the temple with Google Earth Pro, I reluctantly concluded that Shaltout and Belmonte had erred. There are actually two temples of Nekhbet at Elkab, and both of them are aligned 140º SE of north. There was no match. I was back to square one.
Notwithstanding the setback, the Egypt tour was an amazing experience. My group was international, made up of individuals from more than a dozen countries; and nearly all of us were megalithomaniacs. Each day, we visited incredible places and saw mind-boggling sights. Our tour guides were also exceptionally competent. Almost everywhere we went, we saw evidence of advanced technology. No question about it, the ancients had used power equipment, including saws and drills capable of cutting, dressing and polishing multi-ton blocks of granite, a stone that is 6 or 7 on the Mohs scale of hardness (diamond being 10 and marble 3). Moreover, the ancients were also somehow able to move gigantic stone blocks, which they did with apparent ease. Although a full account is beyond the scope of this discussion, I will mention one site in northern Egypt because it is relevant to this paper, namely, the pyramid complex at Abusir. The place is about seven miles southeast of the Giza Plateau, and a part of the greater Memphite necropolis which the scholar Eve A.E. Reymond called “the sacred homeland of the Egyptian temple,” based on her detailed study of the building texts at Edfu.[x] Today, Abusir is a ruin. Some great cataclysm evidently hit the place in the remote past, shattering its megalithic walls and granite columns, and tossing blocks of stone about as if they were toys. At one temple, we observed that the tops of large limestone columns were entirely missing. Why? Apparently because they were exposed to extreme heat. But what could vaporize limestone?
Back home after the tour, my search continued on line. As I checked alignments using Google Earth Pro, I was able to confirm that nearly all of the Egyptian pyramids from Abu Ruwash south to Meidum are on the same grid as the Great Pyramid, which is aligned to true north. This supports the standard view that all of these pyramids date to the same general era. Nonetheless, I found an exception at the Userkaf Sun temple which is usually considered a part of the Abusir complex (see illustration two). It was allegedly constructed by Userkaf, the first pharaoh of the fifth dynasty. Yet, as I zoomed in, it was evident and to my mind telling, that the standard descriptions of the place by Egyptologists are at odds with the facts on the ground. The site is distinctive because it includes a small pyramidal structure which is aligned to a different grid. Viewed from above, the disparity is quite conspicuous. (See illustration two) Notice that the compound and rectangular enclosing wall are aligned to true north, while the associated pyramid at the left is oriented west of north. Unfortunately, drifting sand has obscured its base so it was not possible to obtain an alignment. Although this discovery was inconclusive, it inspired me to continue searching in the vicinity.
Illustration two: Userkaf Sun temple with displaced pyramid at left
Illustration three: un-named site one mile south of Abusir, Egypt.
Days later, I found what I was looking for: an undisturbed ruin one mile south of Abusir that is aligned to the magic angle (~24º+ west of north) for this latitude & longitude. The place is not on the map, nor could I find a description in the literature. Its coordinates are: 29º 52′ 56” N Latitude & 31º 12′ 1” E Longitude. Although apparently nameless, the site must be known to the Egyptian authorities because someone constructed a fence around it. At least five different foundations are visible from above. Several are partially obscured by sand dunes but, luckily, others are exposed, and all are aligned to the same grid, ~24º+ west of north. The site is large, more than 500 feet wide from side to side, and looks to be undisturbed. Does it date to extreme antiquity? The strange alignment makes this tantalizingly plausible. Of course, the site could just as easily be a former industrial center, or a military base
that was later abandoned. However, if such is the case, why does its alignment match the pyramids in Bolivia and Mexico? Although satellite imagery is a powerful tool, it is not possible to evaluate the site by means of satellite imagery alone. Ultimately, someone will have to go there. One of our tour guides informed me, however, that visiting the place is not possible without authorization.[xi] Even a brief walk-through would be illegal without a special license. The Catch-22 is that licenses and permits are normally granted only to professional archeological organizations, most of whose members probably regard Charles Hapgood as a crank or pseudo-scientist. After centuries of neglect during which time foreigners repeatedly looted Egypt’s priceless antiquities, one can well understand why local authorities are reluctant to grant access. Still, only ground-truthing will answer the key question, does this site predate the Sphinx and Great Pyramid?
I believe it is not a mere coincidence that the alignment of this mysterious Egyptian site matches the pyramids of Mexico and Bolivia. (See illustration five) Although the agreement is not spot on, it is too close to be due to chance. I suspect that all three of these sites were formerly aligned to true north, before the crust of the planet shifted at the end of the last ice age, as Charles Hapgood and others have proposed. This would mean that the crust of the earth shifted by ~1,605 miles. Based on this data, I estimate the coordinates of the former north pole at: 67º 25’ N latitude; 67º 0’ W longitude, which is about 476 miles northeast of Hapgood’s estimated position over Hudson’s Bay (65º N latitude; 83º W longitude).[xii] Hapgood believed the crust shifted about 2,000 miles.
Illustration five: Is this the former position of the north pole?
I never expected such a close match. The outer crust of the earth below the continental land masses is only 20-30 miles thick, and beneath the oceans the crust is even thinner, only 3-6 miles deep. Moreover, the crust is composed of interlocking tectonic plates. For all of these reasons, my working assumption was that any significant movement of the crust would produce major fractures and/or
dislocations that would severely distort any former grid on the surface. But the close agreement of Teotihuacan, Tiahuanacu and the as yet nameless site in Egypt indicates otherwise. Despite the susceptibility of smaller landmasses like Central America to local or regional dislocations, it does appear that the earth’s crust can, at times, move as a whole unit. This indicates that the slippage must occur not between the outer crust and the lithosphere (the layer immediately beneath it) but at a deeper level, an idea first proposed in 2000 by Rand Flem-ath, another Hapgood aficionado.[xiii]
Mark H. Gaffney is the author of Black 9/11 (2nd edition, 2016) and Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes (2004)
He is hard at work on another book that will present important new evidence supporting Charles Hapgood’s theory of crustal displacement. Comments are welcome. Contact Mark at [email protected]
[i] Anthony Aveni, Ed., Archaeoastronomy in Pre-columbian America (Austin and London, University of Texas Press, 1975), see chapter 8, p.163.
[ii] Anthony Aveni, Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico (Austin and London, University of Texas Press, 1980), Appendix A, p. 311.
[iii] Ibid., p. 237.
[v] David B. Ericson and Goesta Wollin, The Deep and the Past (New York, Grosset & Dunlap: 1964), p. 87.
[vi] Skywatchers, p. 238.
[vii] Eduard Seuss, The Face of the Earth Vol. I, trans. By Hertha B.C. Sollas ( Oxford, Clarendon Press: 1904), p. 86-94.
[viii] Recently, a mathematician named Mario Buildreps compiled the alignments of 157 ancient sites from Mexico to Peru, based on satellite imagery.
[ix] Mosalam Shaltout and Juan Antonio Belmonte, “On the Orientation of Ancient Egyptian Temples: Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia,” Science History Publications, Provided by the NASA Astrophysics Data System, 2005, see Table 1, p. 277.
[x] E.A.E. Reymond, The Mythical Origin of the Egyptian Temple (New York, Manchester University Press: 1969), p. 267.
[xi] email from Ahmed Araby, May 30, 2019.
[xii] Charles Hapgood, The Path of the Pole (Adventures Unlimited, Kempton, Illinois: 1970, 1999 reprint), p. 106.
[xiii] Flem-ath was attempting to explain why the geological hot spot beneath Hawaii did not shift during past crustal displacements. Colin Wilson and Rand Flem-ath, The Atlantis Blueprint (New York, Little, Brown & Co., 2000), p. 353.