Ben Davidson's Reply

To My Two Articles Challenging His 90-degree Pole Flip Hypothesis

In my two articles The Mammoth Conundrum and More Problems with the 90° Earth Flip Theory I examine the pole flip theory offered by Ben Davidson of the YouTube channel Suspicious Observers. Ben Davidson is an influential catastrophist theorist. He combines various scientific sources to make predictions about an impending cataclysm. In those articles, I reviewed the sources and evidence for his claims and concluded that his 90-degree Earth flip hypothesis is baseless and without merit.

To elicit a response to my analysis, I sent the following email to Ben Davidson on Sunday, July 21st 2024:

Hi Ben Davidson,

Thank you for all of the work that you are doing to raise awareness about catastrophism. As I said to you in my previous emails, your videos got my attention about the gravity of our situation.

I have published my second challenge to your 90-degree pole flip theory.

You can view both articles here:

THE MAMMOTH CONUNDRUM

Problems with the 90-degree Earth Flip Theory -- An Advanced Catastrophism Discussion

More Problems with the 90° Earth Flip Theory

A Critique of a Catastrophist's "Best Evidence" -- An Advanced Catastrophism Discussion, Part 2

From the other Observers that have read the articles, it seems that they agree that the strength of my argument is sufficient enough to abandon your 90-degree Earth flip theory.

Further, several Observers have expressed concern that if you include this theory in the upcoming catastrophist documentary, your 90-degree flip idea could discredit the whole documentary.

Thoughts?

Ben’s Davidson’s wife Katherine was one of recipients of the email. She forwarded the email to Mr. Davidson and he replied the same day, July 21st, 2024:

I have never claimed the mammoths were defintiely in the tropics, and indeed they havent been uncovered at the geographic poles. They are uncovered near the arctic circle, which puts them at mid-latitudes, and mid-latitudes has been my overwhelming claim, even while I have stated that they might have been tropical.

Plants arent going to be the same as we consider them today - not only does seed placement matter, but so does the interglacial climate. You wouldnt expect to find modern-tropical food in them. You wrote "If these mammoths were near the equator (as would be required for the 90-degree theory to be correct) why were they found frozen with plant life that grows in the current climate of Alaska?" But that is not my claim, not at all what the evidence shows, and again, Glacial v interglacial, and seed placement matter. I have also suggested it could be anywhere from 75 to 105 degree flip (TES theory) and that would make it make sense.

It can be learned in about 2 seconds of research that Nanook reports went to the pentagon, the OSS was part of everything they did, and Rand was their go-to group. Maynard confirmed this to me in discussions before he died. I did not say the book mentioned them, I said that is how it was, and again, Hapgood was the lead geoscience guy for them at the time, and this was confirmed by Maynard.

You make some interesting points, and you are an excellent writer. But you got my claim about the mammoths wrong - even while citing my mid-latitude quote several times, which you then forget so you can try to cut down my ideas - that doesnt seem legit or fair. As for the book, I had many discussions with Maynard and Ken, and I did thorough research on the government process, the OSS, Rand and much more.

Perhaps you make a case for greater clarity, which I could possibly do by going through my notes from discussion with the Whites. But it is also true that you kind of twisted things to make me look bad.

Best of luck with your research.

Here is the screenshot of his reply:

I sent the following email as a response to Mr. Davidson’s reply on Sunday, August 4th, 2024 :

Hello Ben Davidson,

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I know that you are inundated with emails and are probably overwhelmed with people that want something from you. So I appreciate you looking at the articles on my Substack (https://catastrophism.substack.com/).

Any clarifications of your position on the points raised in the articles are probably best posted on the Substack, so that those who read the articles can better understand your position and decide for themselves what they think about the arguments presented. I would like to think that we are both seeking to find and share the truth as we best understand it. And that we have the humility to acknowledge when we are wrong. No one holds all of the pieces to the cataclysm mystery puzzle. In your position, as an influencer with over 700,000 subscribers it would seem that you have a responsibility to publicly acknowledge any mistakes you may have made and to try to correct any errors because people's lives and the future of our species are at stake.

My comments to your specific points are in bold.

Davidson:

I have never claimed the mammoths were defintiely in the tropics, and indeed they havent been uncovered at the geographic poles.

Kinda.

The geographic North Pole is in the ocean. So the mammoth remains would have to be recovered from the sea up there. I have provided several sources in the article that indicate that mammoth bones litter the Arctic Ocean. But my explanation for this is that the mammoths were swept away in large numbers from the land into the Arctic sea from a giant tsunami.

I am not aware of mammoths or much of anything being found under the ice in Antarctica. Antarctica may not have had mammoths due to ocean barriers. But mammoth remains are reported in South America.

Davidson:

They are uncovered near the arctic circle, which puts them at mid-latitudes, and mid-latitudes has been my overwhelming claim, even while I have stated that they might have been tropical.

I am aware of this and the variability of your statements are noted in the article: ranging from tropical to mid-latitude, with a greater emphasis on the mid-latitude. If your position is that the mammoths were mid-latitude and thrust up closer to the pole, then it seems to me that the shift would not have been anything close to a 90-degree flip (or even a 75-degree flip). For the 90-degree flip theory that you promote to be accurate, would not your theory require that the megafauna that are now found in or near the Arctic circle to have been near the equator at the time of the flip?

Therefore, the mammoth evidence indicates that the last pole flip was not a 90 or 75-degree flip or anything close to that.

Davidson:

Plants arent going to be the same as we consider them today - not only does seed placement matter, but so does the interglacial climate. You wouldnt expect to find modern-tropical food in them.

As I point out in my article, the size of the Laurentide ice sheet and today’s Antarctic ice sheet are estimated to be about the same size. This would suggest that the climate may have been similar to that of today, prior to the last pole flip. Hugh Brown’s idea for an ice age is that the area covered by a polar ice sheet is the area undergoing an ice age but that the ice cap moves with each pole flip. The mainstream idea is that the axis of the Earth does not change much and that glaciation proceeds from the poles toward the Equator. You seem to subscribe to the part of the mainstream narrative of glaciation, about the ice proceeding from the poles, but what would that look like in your model? Do you think Hugh Brown is wrong? Why do you believe that the climate was substantially colder prior to the last flip?

In my mammoth article I provide several data points that argue for Hudson Bay as the last pole location: absence of mammal bones found in the zone covered by the ice cap, isostatic readjustment around the Hudson Bay, and parameters of the Laurentide ice sheet. The findings of the megafauna in the Arctic support the 30ish-degree flip that Velikovsky and Hapgood argue for. I don’t see how your theory of a 90-degree flip (now a 75 to 105-degree flip) would fit the evidence found.

I am curious to know where you think the last polar locations were and what physical evidence you would have to support your idea: glaciation, paleomagnetic, plant and animal remains indicating the prior climate of a region in sediment deposits, etc.

I am not aware of any physical scientific evidence that would support your 90ish-degree hypothesis nor have I seen you present any.

Davidson:

You wrote "If these mammoths were near the equator (as would be required for the 90-degree theory to be correct) why were they found frozen with plant life that grows in the current climate of Alaska?" But that is not my claim, not at all what the evidence shows, and again, Glacial v interglacial, and seed placement matter.

It is not your claim, it is Frank Hibben’s claim.

According Frank Hibben (from the mammoth article):

"In the Alaskan mucks, on several occasions, stomachs of frozen mammoth have come to light. These stomachs have been preserved by the same flux of freezing and eternal refrigeration that has saved skin, tendons, and even flesh, here and there, in these fascinating deposits. These stomach masses, eternally frozen, since the original unfortunate animal ate his last meal and passed away in those regions, yet contain leaves and grass that the animal consumed. These remains, even though partly digested so many thousands of years ago, show the kinds of bushes and trees that the mammoth ate in his prime. Surprisingly enough, the remains show the leaves of alder, birch, and willow, exactly the same trees that grow in Alaska today. The climate, then, certainly differed little, if any, from the climate of the present time."

How do you explain your theory with that observation in mind?

Davidson:

I have also suggested it could be anywhere from 75 to 105 degree flip (TES theory) and that would make it make sense.

I am aware of your new stance and I also note the contrast to your prior statements:

Ben Davidson, The Next End of the World - The Rebirth of Catastrophism (2020), page 69:

"The next cycle, it flips back exactly as it was before. In this way, the evidence of magnetic pole position in the polar regions over eons of time makes sense... it just keeps coming back."

Earth Disaster Cycle: The Cycle Resets Soon (2023), page 59:

"We know exactly where the Earth will tilt, and where it will stop...The new polar regions will be near India and Brazil…"

And on the same day that you sent me your email reply, you stated: "everything logically tells me it [ẗhe return of the flip to the prior location] shouldn't be perfect. I can't just ignore evidence. A lot of the evidence suggests it's pretty damn close to perfect." (Source)

So is it a "damn close to perfect" return to the prior position or a 75 to 105-degree flip?

Maybe you would prefer to state that the pole flip will be somewhere between 1 and 360-degrees. This way you can eliminate errors and contradictions in your statements...?

I do not see how expanding the range from 90-degrees to a 75 to 105-degree flip would explain the evidence. Please explain why you say this.

Davidson:

It can be learned in about 2 seconds of research that Nanook reports went to the pentagon, the OSS was part of everything they did, and Rand was their go-to group.

I have studied the topic for many weeks in order to write my articles. I read World in Peril more than 4 times, looking to verify your claims. I acknowledged in my articles that the Pentagon and Rand were involved, though not necessarily in the ways that you claim. I also pointed out that the Rand model has been proven incorrect.

If it can be learned in about 2 seconds that the OSS was present in Pentagon meetings regarding Project Nanook, please provide me with a reference for this.

Davidson:

Maynard confirmed this to me in discussions before he died. I did not say the book mentioned them, I said that is how it was, and again, Hapgood was the lead geoscience guy for them at the time, and this was confirmed by Maynard.

You started your Youtube channel in 2011.

You began discussing the book World in Peril in your videos in 2019.

Maynard died in 2007: https://www.billingsfuneralhome.com/obituary/Maynard-White

How did you manage to talk to a dead man over a decade after he had died? He died about 12 years before you could have spoken to him.

Or did you read the book World in Peril and contact Maynard before he died and then fail to mention your best evidence for a 90-degree (sometimes a 75 to 105-degree) Earth flip hypothesis for at least 12 years? That would be a curious secret to keep, wouldn’t it?

I understand that you are now 39 years old. So you would have had to have been 22 years old or younger to have spoken to Maynard before he died. Were you even interested in catastrophism at 22 years of age?

It is curious that I did not read or hear once in any of your books and videos that you had a conversation with Maynard prior to his death. That seems like something you would mention.

Davidson:

You make some interesting points, and you are an excellent writer. But you got my claim about the mammoths wrong - even while citing my mid-latitude quote several times,

I think I only quoted you once at the beginning of the mammoth article.

Davidson:

which you then forget so you can try to cut down my ideas - that doesnt seem legit or fair.

I did not forget your position and I feel that your perspective is accurately presented.

I have not misquoted you and all of your statements are cited and linked, so that if there is any doubt about a quote or a desire by the reader to see the full context of your statement, they can easily check what you said for themselves.

What I have done is list your claims. Then I compared your claims to the material that you mentioned as the source material. I pointed out discrepancies, contradictions, and unsubstantiated claims that you made, when compared to the source material. Since you have a legal background you would know this process to be an examination and a cross examination.

I am trying to be as objective as possible and stick to the facts. I said the following in the articles and I will repeat it again: if you dispute anything that I wrote, post a message below the article on Substack. Identify the specific parts of the article that you take issue with. Explain which of my statements are unfair or inaccurate. Provide counter evidence and sources. If I am convinced that I made an error, I will revise my article and publicly acknowledge my mistakes in the article. If I am not convinced by what you say I will offer an explanation as to why I find your argument lacking. In either case, I will not remove or censor any comments that you might post. People can judge for themselves what they think is the truth.

My primary goal is not to cut you down, but to cut down false evidence or assumptions. I wish to face you as a peer, and in the spirit of scientific argument, let the best hypothesis prevail. As I have said before, I am grateful to you for bringing this vital topic to so many people.

Davidson:

As for the book, I had many discussions with Maynard and Ken, and I did thorough research on the government process, the OSS, Rand and much more.

Perhaps you make a case for greater clarity, which I could possibly do by going through my notes from discussion with the Whites. But it is also true that you kind of twisted things to make me look bad.

My goal is to get to the truth. Whether or not that makes you look bad will depend on how much you misrepresent the sources that you cite. It will also depend on how well you can defend your theory when it is put under scrutiny.

I can’t verify what you may or may not have said to the Whites (whether this was on the phone or in a seance). I am not interested in unverifiable claims. More interesting to me would be geophysical evidence and studies that can be used to craft a picture of the locations, dates and sequence of prior pole locations. As far as I can tell, your flip theory has nothing to stand on.

Davidson:

Best of luck with your research.

Thank you for the inspiration to do the research.

By the way, I have encountered some evidence regarding the tsunami height during the cataclysm. I believe that you are greatly underestimating the wave height. Obviously each event will be different and the Earth undergoes changes between each catastrophe. But if we take the highest point that can be found from a prior cataclysm and use this to set the minimum goal to be above, this could serve as a rough guideline for others. The prior tsunami looks to have reached over a mile high and very far inland (up to the Rockies) in North America.

When I finish the article on the past flood height I will post it on my Substack and email you about it. You might want to include the information in your upcoming documentary.

I would also recommend that you drop your 90-degree (or 75 to 105-degree) flip idea too. It discredits your thesis.

You can read what Observers are saying about my articles on these 2 threads, feel free to defend your ideas in a public forum:

https://network.solarkillshot.org/c/forum/problems-with-the-90-degree-earth-flip-theory-an-advanced-catastrophism-discussion-the-mammoth-conundrum

https://network.solarkillshot.org/c/forum/more-problems-with-the-90-earth-flip-theory?login_token=AcGdfmJcijqLR32QLZpD22ZWqba4iq7vYXdX

[Note for Substack readers. The platform linked above is called the Solar Killshot Action Network. It is a private subscription based network for Observers (followers of Ben Davidson’s Youtube channel) that are preparing to survive the coming cataclysm. I have a subscription and I know that Ben Davidson is a member there too. So for him this is a public forum.}

A suspicious observer,

I do not expect Mr. Davidson to respond further or make any debunking videos challenging me to debate. If he did respond, however, we could then continue this discussion in the light of public scrutiny. By continuing the dialogue we can more thoroughly examine our ideas and hopefully come to greater clarity about what may have happened in the past and what may happen in the future. We would all like to know as much as possible about these cataclysmic events so that we can make informed decisions about how to best prepare.

Read more of the…

CATASTROPHISM SERIES

Introduction to Catastrophism

Warnings from our Ancestors

The Mammoth Conundrum

More Problems with the 90° Earth Flip Theory

Ben Davidson's Reply (this article)

How Will South America Fare During the Next Cataclysm?