The Pyramids and axis shifts

The Forum is provided for both SIS members and non-members to discuss topics relevant to the Society's work. It also provides the opportunity for non-members to ask questions about the Society’s work and/or published material.
All posts are moderated before inclusion. No attachments are permitted.

Re: The Pyramids and axis shifts

Postby Peter » Sat 22 Dec 2012 3:31 pm

In my 2007 SIS Cambridge conference poster presentation I showed 5 maps and a globe dating from the first decade of the 16th century all of which depicted the tropic of cancer to the south of Hispaniola and Cuba. I also quoted a passage from the letter written by Columbus telling his sponsor, the king of Spain, of his discoveries that also placed the tropic of cancer to the south of Hispaniola and Cuba. The quote from the letter and the maps can be seen in the 2008 SIS Review.

As far as I am concerned my poster presentation provided unarguable evidence that our world experienced an axis shift, such as described by Peter Warlow in his book, The Reversing Earth, Dent 1982, in the first decade of the 16th century AD. Sailors at that time could take accurate latitude readings and carried sun declination tables; indeed navigators at this time quite often found their destination by sailing east or west along the known latitude.

In a Warlow axis shift the axial tilt of the world and its rotation remain the same, but different parts of its surface are moved to its poles and the equator tips to reflect the change in poles. I don’t like using the term crustal slip although any movement of tectonic plates could be termed crustal slips. In effect crustal slips are earthquakes and while they were regularly experienced at the time of Warlow axis shifts they played a minor part in the pole movements and latitude changes.

I agree with Trevor that the forces required to drive a major crustal slip are immense as are the forces required to drive Warlow axis shifts and inversions. However, the electro-magnetic forces of Wal Thornhill’s Electric Universe are many orders of magnitude greater than gravity. We have evidence of changes in latitudes from many ancient sources and as Laurence has stated ancient readings can be compared with modern readings.

What Trevor wrote about the problems ancient mariners had determining their longitude is correct, but can he argue against their ability to make accurate latitude readings? The differences in latitude readings between the maps in my 2007 poster presentation and modern readings represents evidence of World axis shifts in the quite recent past.
Peter
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:09 am

Re: The Pyramids and axis shifts

Postby Phillip » Sat 22 Dec 2012 4:49 pm

This is just a query aimed mainly at Trevor and Lawrence. You say a crustal slippage would have been catastrophic. Might it simply have involved a rise in sea levels at some points on the surface and a lowering in others - assuming very small amounts of crustal slippage. I know that Hapgood is generally lampooned by science orthodoxy but there are some peculiar facts to take into account. It is assumed Plate Tectonics is fact based - but is it? The idea Europe and Africa were joined to North and South America was something that attracted me, and therefore the idea of continental drift. As I understand it modern Plate Tectonics differs from Wegener's original ideas. One problem I can see is that the continental drift theory, nor the plate tectonics revision, do not take into account submerged continental basins as exist off the coasts of Europe and North America. These were clearly above sea level for at least some of the time during the Pleistocene - and even the beginnings of the Holocene. Is the Atlantic really growing or is it possible that periodic movements of the crust can account for various oddities such as a northern polar region in a slightly different position during the Late Glacial Maximum, as suggested by Peter Warlow at the last Cambridge Conference. Steve often mentions the Dawson and Smith sea level curves, with distinct rises in sea levels in the Late Roman period, and again in the medieval period (not too distant from Peter's shift). Answering this query myself the sea levels went up and then came down - why would that be? Seems to me there is a lot of unknown science here as far as the geoid and its behaviour is concerned and none of it is as clearly defined as the consensus view would allow
Phillip
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue 12 Jun 2012 8:19 am

Re: The Pyramids and axis shifts

Postby Trevor » Thu 27 Dec 2012 8:55 pm

I welcome the recent responses by Peter and Phillip, but may I make a few comments.

Firstly, my recent posting pointed out the impossibility of obtaining accurate longitude determinations at sea before the late 18th century, but perhaps I should also have made it clear that the situation regarding land-based estimates was little better. In AD 1541, the Spanish empire gave great priority to the determination of the longitude of Mexico City (relative to the base line of Toledo in Spain), but the investigators appointed arrived at a value for the difference in longitude between these cities which exceeded the true figure (at least as it is today) by 26%. That can't be taken to indicate an axial shift or crustal slip since 1541, because even if Mexico City had been exactly due west of Toledo in 1541, making the difference in longitude between the cities the maximum possible for the distance between them, that would only have given a value 2% greater than the present one. The investigators undoubtedly made a major error.

As Peter has correctly said, the situation regarding latitude was not as problematical as that concerning longitude. However, there was still a range of uncertainty. Charles Hapgood, the main originator of the theory that there had been a very significant crustal dislocation within relatively recent times, noted in his 1966 book, "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings", the well-established historical difficulties of making accurate determinations of longitude, and added, "The case for latitude is somewhat different. Latitude could be determined in the 15th and 16th centuries by astronomical observations", but he then went on to write, "However, observations taken by trained people with proper equipment were one thing, and observations taken by explorers were quite another". Hapgood was particularly critical of the early explorers of the western Atlantic. Let us therefore take a look at the information provided by these explorers during the late 15th and early 16th centuries. A summary by Peter of the maps produced in this period, as well as quotations from the letters of Christopher Columbus, was published in Review 2008 pp. 11-12.

The AD 1500 map by Juan de la Cosa indicated the Tropic of Cancer running south of Hispaniola and Cuba, as did the 1502 map of Alberto Cantino, whereas today it runs north of Hispaniola and just brushes the northern fringe of Cuba. The map of Bartholomew Columbus, generally dated to 1506, similarly located the Tropic of Cancer south of Hispaniola, but completely omitted Cuba, the largest island in the Caribbean. The 1507 global-gores of Martin Waldseemuller placed the Tropic of Cancer south of both Hispaniola and Cuba, whereas Waldseemuller's world-map dating from the same year, although locating the Tropic of Cancer south of Hispaniola, had the same line of latitude running through the middle of Cuba. The 1508 map by Francesco Roselli (given in Review 2008 as "Rosselini") showed the Tropic of Cancer running south of both Hispaniola and Cuba, whereas the map by Johannes Ruysch, also from 1508, showed the Tropic of Cancer running south of Hispaniola but brushing the southern coast of Cuba.

Two decades later, the 1526 map by Juan Vespucci and the 1528 map by Benedetto Bardone both showed the Tropic of Cancer running through Cuba but passing north of Hispaniola, whereas the 1527 map by Robert Thorne showed the Tropic of Cancer passing north of both Hispaniola and Cuba, in line with the situation of the present day.

Two main scenarios are possible. One is that either an axial shift or a crustal displacement took place during the early 16th century; the other (and to my mind the more plausible one) is that there was a rapid advance in geographical knowledge about the Caribbean region during that period, allowing earlier mistakes to be corrected. We know very little about the origin of the information on which the world maps of the first decade of the 16th century were derived, but it seems clear from the difference between the crude sketches from the period between 1500-1510 (showing, as Hapgood pointed out, considerable variations in relative distances and land-shapes, without any evidence of the use of trigonometry by the explorers) and the much more detailed ones from 20 years later, that significant advances had taken place. In any case, had an axial shift or crustal displacement taken place early in the 16th century, it would have led to changes of latitude throughout the world, not just in the Caribbean. Is there any evidence that the latitude of, say, London or Paris, changed at this time?

Turning to Phillip's queries, Wegener's arguments about continental drift were ignored during the first half of the 20th century largely because he was unable to suggest a plausible mechanism, but the plate-tectonic model proposed by the Princeton geologist Harry Hess, a friend of Velikovsky, provided one, suggesting that continental plates could be pushed around over the top of the Earth's mantle as a consequence of activity involving oceanic plates. Newly-formed oceanic crust would spread out under the seas from mid-ocean ridges and old oceanic crust would eventually disappear, by subduction, back into the interior of the Earth. According to plate-tectonic theory, the situation would keep changing because of interactions between existing plates and also the emergence of "hotspots" from the interior of the Earth, to become new centres of sea-floor spreading. Also, as configurations of plates changed, sea-levels throughout the world might rise or fall in consequence. A configuration in which, in overall terms, oceanic crust was being recycled relatively rapidly would lead to a general upward movement of sea-floors and hence a general rise in sea-levels, and vice-versa. Tectonic effects could also lead to an apparent change in sea-level in a particular locality, because of the elevation or sinking of land relative to the sea. Regardless of tectonic effects, world-wide increases in sea-level could occur because of the melting of ice-sheets following a glacial period, and, more locally, there could also be apparent changes in sea-level after the end of a glacial period because of the "rebound effect".

There seems little reason to doubt that the tectonic-plate theory is based upon strong foundations. There is, for example, the evidence of sea-floor bands of alternate polarity spreading out from the mid-Atlantic ridge. There is also the geological evidence around Thingvellir in Iceland, showing the separation of the North American plate from the Eurasian one, as well as the geological and biological evidence from North America and Europe which shows that these continents were once linked together. However, many of the details are still far from certain. Timescales are generally
worked out on the assumption that the rates of continental drift in the past could not have been significantly different from those which can be measured today, i.e a few centimetres per year, but does that necessarily follow? On the basis of the uniformitarian approach, it is supposed that North America began to separate from Eurasia about 80 million years ago, and that that the Atlantic Ocean has widened by only a little more than a kilometre since the end of the last Ice Age. However, is it possible that a major catastrophic event at some point in the past could have caused an episode of much more rapid continental drift? That could only be speculation at the present time, but it may be something that can't be entirely ruled out.
Trevor
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:02 am

Re: The Pyramids and axis shifts

Postby rwaite » Fri 28 Dec 2012 1:51 am

barry wrote:In his article in Review 2011, F Slade Barker points out that the Egyptian pyramids are aligned with the cardinal points. He argues that this must preclude any axis shifts of the Earth since those early times. Doesn’t this rule out any theories of later changes to the Earth’s position relative to the stars?


The position of the North Pole doesn't change if there is a shift in the axis. It does shift the position relative to the stars. The pyramids are aligned with true north, not magnetic north, so it seems they may have used the pole star for alignment, though we do not know for sure.

According to the Wikipedia article on the Orion Correlation theory:

"Their initial claims regarding the alignment of the Giza pyramids with Orion ("…the three pyramids were a terrestrial map of the three stars of Orion's belt"— Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods, 1995, p. 375) are later joined with speculation about the age of the Great Sphinx (Hancock and Bauval, Keeper of Genesis, published 1996, and in 1997 in the U.S. as The Message of the Sphinx). According to these works, the Great Sphinx was constructed c. 10,500 BC (Upper Paleolithic), and its lion-shape is maintained to be a definitive reference to the constellation of Leo. Furthermore, the orientation and dispositions of the Sphinx, the Giza pyramids and the Nile River relative to one another on the ground is put forward as an accurate reflection or "map" of the constellations of Leo, Orion (specifically, Orion's Belt) and the Milky Way respectively. As Hancock puts it in 1998's The Mars Mystery (co-authored with Bauval):

"...we have demonstrated with a substantial body of evidence that the pattern of stars that is "frozen" on the ground at Giza in the form of the three pyramids and the Sphinx represents the disposition of the constellations of Orion and Leo as they looked at the moment of sunrise on the spring equinox during the astronomical "Age of Leo" (i.e., the epoch in which the Sun was "housed" by Leo on the spring equinox.) Like all precessional ages this was a 2,160-year period. It is generally calculated to have fallen between the Gregorian calendar dates of 10,970 and 8810 BC. (op. cit., p.189)"

These dates run counter to the accepted conventional and even most revised chronologies. Orbital changes/axial shifts caused by near passes of planetary bodies as described in "Worlds in Collision" would have an impact on the phenomenon known as the wobbling on the earth's axis. If there was a change to the earth's wobble (or it was even created) due to catastrophic celestial events in man's history then the alignments that Bauval and Hancock have calculated may well have occurred much more recently thereby reconciling the alignment evidence they have brought forth with archaeological evidence for the age of civilisation.
rwaite
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu 27 Dec 2012 12:47 am

Re: The Pyramids and axis shifts

Postby Trevor » Fri 28 Dec 2012 8:32 pm

Can I just try to clarify the situation with regard to axis shifts. The term has been used by different people to mean different things, so some confusion is perhaps inevitable. One usage of the term is that employed, for example, by Charles Ginenthal in Workshop 2008:1. This involves a straightforward change in the tilt of the rotational axis of the Earth. This would result in climate changes, but, as pointed out in the posting by rwaite on 28 December, it would not affect alignments because the axis of rotation would still pass through the same geographical poles as previously. The other usage is that employed, for example, by Peter Warlow in his talk at the 2007 Cambridge Conference, referred to by Phillip in his posting on 22 December. This is a more complex concept than the first one. Hence, those reading Peter Warlow's conference paper in Review 2008 without being familiar with his earlier proposals concerning a "tippe-top" model might find it difficult to reconcile statements he made about various ice-age phenomena. For example, he said, "If only we could tilt the Earth we could explain all of these phenomena in one go, with just a single explanation", but then went on to write, "In Fig. 3 is shown what we might expect for the ice distribution on a tilted Earth, with a new pole position between Canada and Greenland". How can tilting the Earth produce new pole positions? If one looks at it purely from the perspective of the terminology used by Ginenthal in Workshop 2008:1, it can't. However, Warlow, in his 1982 book, The Reversing Earth (pp. 158-160), had made it clear exactly what it was that he was proposing. He started off in much the same fashion as in his later presentation at the 2007 conference, writing, "To produce an 'ice age' is quite simple. You merely tilt the Earth a little bit", but he then qualified this by writing, "What we need to do is to tilt the Earth without tilting the spin". That would change the positions of the polar regions, and thus create ice-age conditions in regions where there had previously been a temperate climate. This proposal by Warlow had aspects in common with the crustal shift theory of Charles Hapgood, although viewed from a different perspective, and it was in fact a "crustal shift", not an "axis shift", that F. Slade Barker referred to in Review 2011, suggesting that it could not have occurred after the building of the pyramids. To conclude, it seems that perhaps, to avoid further confusion, we should all try to ensure that, when we refer to "axis shifts" in future, we make clear what we actually mean.
Trevor
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:02 am

Re: The Pyramids and axis shifts

Postby Laurence » Sat 29 Dec 2012 8:44 pm

Consider the great circle on the earth's surface that passes through the northpole and the great pyramid, if an axial shift or crustal slip moved the north pole to another point on this great circle the orientation of the great pyramid would not change, east would stay east and north would stay north. Many writers on the great pyramid have noted this and assumed that crustal shifts and axial tilts have a tendency to be along this line. For axial tilts there might well be a preferential direction, as the axis of rotation and the perpendicular to the elliptic define a plane and the new axis of rotation might have a preference to stay in that plane. I have no idea if the great pyramid is in that plane.
Laurence
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue 12 Jun 2012 8:22 am

Re: The Pyramids and axis shifts

Postby Peter » Mon 31 Dec 2012 4:20 pm

When I write about axis shifts I usually describe them as Warlow axis shifts. In a Warlow axis shift the axis of rotation of the World and its axial tilt remain the same, but the equator moves to reflect a change in surface location of the poles. A 6 degree Warlow axis shift in the Caribbean would, depending on the exact longitude of the shift, have involved only a quite modest change in latitude in London and Paris; the longitude of Panama is around 80 degrees west. A measurable change certainly, but who would have dared to say that the cardinal points had changed if they thought that Venus was responsible.

Navigators probably knew both about the Warlow axis shift that I date to November 1507 AD and of earlier changes in latitudes. For example, Gavin Menzies in chapter 14 of his book, 1421, the year the Chinese discovered the World (Bantam Press 2002), said that the star sightings that the Chinese made in the Canary Islands showed the equator at a latitude 3 degrees 40 to the north of its current location. In support of his axis shift conclusion Menzies records that contemporary accounts show that a Greenland widow at the time of her second marriage in 1419 AD owned substantial flocks of sheep and cattle that fed on lush Greenland pastures. The Greenland climate at that time must have been very different from now. With the equator to the north at this time the Gulf Steam would have delivered a great deal of heat to Greenland allowing the Chinese to circumnavigate Greenland as Menzies claims they did. The Chinese map that I included in my poster presentation showed Panama to the south of the equator.

The latitude figures given in the voyage reports of Amerigo Vespucci are in agreement with the Columbus latitude data (see Clement Markham, Letters of Amerigo Vespucci, Hakluyt Society, 1894). On both of his first 2 voyages, Vespucci says they reached the continent now named after him at a higher latitude than the current most northerly point of South America and on his 3rd voyage he says they sailed south until 32 degrees South, where “Ursa Minor and Ursa Major were far below and scarcely seen above the horizon;” currently this would be at 26 degrees south not 32. Vespucci is considered a liar, but his latitude “errors” are consistent with the Columbus latitude “error”. It would appear from his voyage report that on his 3rd voyage they turned for home when in sight of Tierra del Fuego.

As Trevor says, the Robert Thorne map of 1527 AD (also shown in my poster presentation) has the tropic of cancer to the north of Cuba. Consequently, in addition to believing that a Venus axis shift occurred in November 1507 AD, I suspect that there was a Mars axis shift on the 20th of February 1524 when John de Verrazzano survived “as terrible a tempest as any sailor suffered.” I am confident that his American landfall after the “tempest” post-dates the axis shift, because he locates Long Island Sound at close to its current latitude (Hakluyt Voyages Vol 10, Voyage of John de Verrazzano. J M Dent, 1928).

Old navigation data also reveals evidence of axis shifts. For example Pytheas apparently reported that Iceland experienced the mid-night sun, ie was within the Arctic Circle, and also reported encountering heavy ice-sludge (see Barry Cunliffe, Pytheas the Greek, 2001, page 129). Currently only parts of the north coast and high hills in Iceland experience the mid-night sun and sea-sludge is not now seen in winter, let alone at the time of year that Pytheas must have visited Iceland.

I can understand Trevor’s reluctance to accept evidence for axis shifts, but he is quite wrong to question the competence of navigators at the time of Columbus. The accuracy of their latitude readings made when at sea might be in doubt, but not those made when ashore.
Peter
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:09 am

Re: The Pyramids and axis shifts

Postby Laurence » Wed 02 Jan 2013 9:53 pm

Trevor

In the scale we are talking the earthquake and tsunami in Japan last year was a minor disaster, but a dreadful disaster. The measuring devices on modern satellites were viewing and measuring the effects. There was a crustal shift measured in feet, a change in sea level in western Japan measured in metres, a small axial tilt and a small change in the rotation of the earth using the atomic clock, all reported by NASA. I think I kept the report but where? All these features did change.
Laurence
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue 12 Jun 2012 8:22 am

cause or effect

Postby Laurence » Tue 22 Jan 2013 10:24 pm

NASA has an expert named Richard Gross who is responsible for recording changes in the speed of rotation of the earth and the changes in the tilt of the axis of rotation of the earth and of the position of the pole on the surface. Apparently small errors in these can cause major errors in the position of satellites after they have been launched.

Searching the web revealed that at the time of the 2004 Sumatra earthquake the day was shortened by 6.8 microseconds and the axis changed by 2.3 milliseconds of arc; and at the time of the Chilean earthquake in March 2010 the day was shortened by 126 microseconds and the axis tilted by 2.7 milliseconds and the pole moved by 8 cm. similarly at the time of the Japanese earthquake in March 2011 the day was shortened by 1.8 microseconds and the axis (pole?) shifted by 16 cm.
My search failed to find any data for the time of the earthquakes in Haiti and Christ Church which was disappointing but may just mean I didn't look in the right place.

But it does seem to be accepted that the day shortens, the axis shifts, and earthquakes occur at the same time sometimes.But which is the cause and which the effect.
A few years ago a new cause was proposed for all of them, namely side effects of disturbances in the solar wind caused by explosions of plasma from the sun. I thought this had died down until following up an item in In The News I read the paper by S.A. Reynolds dated Dec 2012 and realised others are actively pursuing it.

It seems to be accepted that the CEM in 1869 is the strongest in recent history. Does anyone have any earthquake..... information from that date?
Laurence
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue 12 Jun 2012 8:22 am

Re: The Pyramids and axis shifts

Postby Duel-Don » Sun 21 Apr 2013 11:23 pm

If there was a crustal rotation, then the time of that shift (if it were very quick) should be detectable.
Starting today and working back in time, recorded eclipses and other astronomical co-ordinates should be fairly accurate for known locations around the world for a two or three millennia; that is, modern retro calculations should work. But only back to the time of a large crustal shift minus, perhaps, a century of unusal results as the earth's crust restabilizes after earth quakes, plate subduction or continental rises/sinkings.
Then, prior to the fast crustal slip, there should be several or a few world-wide records that once again are almost accurate assuming all recent locations were shifted by the same amount of rotation about an axis of rotation.
Such an axis could be geocentric (for easy calculations) exiting the surface at 000N 25E and 000N 205E (155W) as suggested by Peter Warlow and approximated by F. Slade Barker. Rotational calculations must be made because each location would have a different amount of displacement when individual locations are compared before and after crustal rotation. The amount of rotation might be from 170 degrees up to an additional 40 degrees as suggested by Plaxton.
Such a search for an approximate date for crustal rotation requires a digital computer, astronomical simulations, a multitude of pre-rotation location outputs to compare with recorded astronomical data AND human programmed alogrithms to find the average minimum deviation for several locations and subsequently a probable amount of rotation. Of course, this might have to be redone several times if different axes of rotation are considered necessary. This would be an expensive investigation in personnel time, computer time and money!
Oh, but it were done, and succeeded, in approximating the time of a major, fast crustal shift, what an amazingly useful time mark would exit! Time lines for many cultures and nations all over the world could be linked together and co-ordinated!!
Duel-Don
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun 24 Mar 2013 9:04 pm

PreviousNext

Return to SIS Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron