Great analysis! I agree with you that this subject is super important. I haven't read every word however I intend to do. Are you familiar with Doug Vogt? His explanation of croc's/gators and a certain fruit (forget which one) being only within 15-20 degrees from the equator supports non tilting as they are very old fauna and flora. He also states the tilt doesn't make sense via physics (tennis racket theorem, etc.). Doug's analysis is different with regards to the intensity of this geomagnetic excursion/nova event. The last point I feel that doesn't support the tilt according to Vogt, is the ancient written records of the Sun setting in a different direction. Thoughts? Thank you!
I am glad that you like the article. I am familiar with Doug Vogt. Could you post a link to Doug explaining his perspective? At this point I do think that the Earth tilts but just not in the way that Ben Davidson claims.
Some of the historical descriptions of the Sun changing which horizon it sets in could be explained by a 180-flip. If the Sun came up in the east and then started to come up in the west, for example. This would be an alternative explanation to Doug Vogt's idea that the Earth reverses it's direction of spin. Both scenarios could have the same observable effect on the Sun's change of behavior. The 180-flip does seem more intuitively correct to me than the Earth coming to a stop and then reversing. But I don't think that the flip happens in the same way every time.
It would be best to have an exact quote describing the Sun's changes in movement for analysis. There is a lot to interpreting historical accounts... What do the original accounts say? Do we still have the original accounts or just copies? Are we reading a translation? Did we lose something in the translation? Has the time period of the observation been adequately determined? Has the meaning of certain words changed? Are there other accounts of the same event recorded in different parts of the world for the same time period? How do the descriptions compare? To make a case that a shift in the Earth occurred, you would ideally have several historical accounts from around the world coupled with a variety of geophysical evidence.
This was the type of research that Velikovski did.
See my comment for mariobuildreps work's introduction. Mario has done the work with ancient structures and angles of the sun under the different planet sizes. Which makes his theory even more mathematically sound.
Kudos to you for an excellent article full of astute observations on this subject. Probably the best that I've yet to read.
I am a regular viewer of both Ben and Diamond's (Oppenheimer Ranch) channels and find both have their pro's and cons, both with equally insightful observations, but both displaying a bit of over-reach. But that is to be expected. Scientific discovery is like making sausage. Grind up the facts at hand and attempt to form them into something consumable and understandable by the readers.
I've never quite swallowed the 90 deg crustal displacement hypothesis, although I also contend that a sudden pole shift would be unlikely to have geographical implications on the rotation of the planet. We already see an existing rotational wobble that brings us our seasonal weather changes, so it stands to reason that a significant excursion, or full polar flip, would act to exacerbate that rotational variation, with its vast climatic ramifications.
I believe that you make a compelling evidential case for a lesser alteration of the earth's rotation shift.
Ben has some extremely good points on the cyclical Galactic influences that go generally under-recognized in our science.
I just don't believe that pushing the 90 deg crustal displacement shift is a worthwhile "petard" upon which to hoist his reputation.. I opine that it would take far more than a magnetic excursion to result in such a dramatic breakage of the crust from the lithosphere. But the entire Earth shifting to a lesser degree (20 degrees) makes far more sense to me, based upon the available evidence. And the mammoth, and other animal evidence appears to support this.
Again.. truly a magnificent, and well-researched, article.
I appreciate your work and find it refreshing to see efforts dedicated to uncovering the truth. As someone familiar with researchers like Paul LaViolette, Ben, Diamond, Vogt, and others such as mariobuildreps (https://www.mariobuildreps.com/) who present mathematical evidence difficult to refute, I am intrigued by the theory that Earth's mass is increasing at a faster rate than anticipated.
This idea, which posits that Earth has experienced six poles, moving due to expansion, in the past 600,000 years or so, holds significant appeal to me. It could potentially explain slight variations in latitude, such as Siberia being slightly farther south, and other phenomena like tsunamis.
Another aspect worth considering is the lack of putrefaction in mammoths' stomachs, which implies extremely rapid freezing of the animals. I recall hearing about a study suggesting that exposure to temperatures as low as minus 160°C would be sufficient for this phenomenon when air is involved. However, it's clear that pressure and other factors could significantly alter these conditions. If anyone has links or references to help us estimate the speed at which mammoths froze, it would greatly contribute to our understanding of their demise
Great analysis! I agree with you that this subject is super important. I haven't read every word however I intend to do. Are you familiar with Doug Vogt? His explanation of croc's/gators and a certain fruit (forget which one) being only within 15-20 degrees from the equator supports non tilting as they are very old fauna and flora. He also states the tilt doesn't make sense via physics (tennis racket theorem, etc.). Doug's analysis is different with regards to the intensity of this geomagnetic excursion/nova event. The last point I feel that doesn't support the tilt according to Vogt, is the ancient written records of the Sun setting in a different direction. Thoughts? Thank you!
Hi Johnny,
I am glad that you like the article. I am familiar with Doug Vogt. Could you post a link to Doug explaining his perspective? At this point I do think that the Earth tilts but just not in the way that Ben Davidson claims.
Some of the historical descriptions of the Sun changing which horizon it sets in could be explained by a 180-flip. If the Sun came up in the east and then started to come up in the west, for example. This would be an alternative explanation to Doug Vogt's idea that the Earth reverses it's direction of spin. Both scenarios could have the same observable effect on the Sun's change of behavior. The 180-flip does seem more intuitively correct to me than the Earth coming to a stop and then reversing. But I don't think that the flip happens in the same way every time.
It would be best to have an exact quote describing the Sun's changes in movement for analysis. There is a lot to interpreting historical accounts... What do the original accounts say? Do we still have the original accounts or just copies? Are we reading a translation? Did we lose something in the translation? Has the time period of the observation been adequately determined? Has the meaning of certain words changed? Are there other accounts of the same event recorded in different parts of the world for the same time period? How do the descriptions compare? To make a case that a shift in the Earth occurred, you would ideally have several historical accounts from around the world coupled with a variety of geophysical evidence.
This was the type of research that Velikovski did.
Thanks again for your comments.
See my comment for mariobuildreps work's introduction. Mario has done the work with ancient structures and angles of the sun under the different planet sizes. Which makes his theory even more mathematically sound.
Kudos to you for an excellent article full of astute observations on this subject. Probably the best that I've yet to read.
I am a regular viewer of both Ben and Diamond's (Oppenheimer Ranch) channels and find both have their pro's and cons, both with equally insightful observations, but both displaying a bit of over-reach. But that is to be expected. Scientific discovery is like making sausage. Grind up the facts at hand and attempt to form them into something consumable and understandable by the readers.
I've never quite swallowed the 90 deg crustal displacement hypothesis, although I also contend that a sudden pole shift would be unlikely to have geographical implications on the rotation of the planet. We already see an existing rotational wobble that brings us our seasonal weather changes, so it stands to reason that a significant excursion, or full polar flip, would act to exacerbate that rotational variation, with its vast climatic ramifications.
I believe that you make a compelling evidential case for a lesser alteration of the earth's rotation shift.
Ben has some extremely good points on the cyclical Galactic influences that go generally under-recognized in our science.
I just don't believe that pushing the 90 deg crustal displacement shift is a worthwhile "petard" upon which to hoist his reputation.. I opine that it would take far more than a magnetic excursion to result in such a dramatic breakage of the crust from the lithosphere. But the entire Earth shifting to a lesser degree (20 degrees) makes far more sense to me, based upon the available evidence. And the mammoth, and other animal evidence appears to support this.
Again.. truly a magnificent, and well-researched, article.
I appreciate your work and find it refreshing to see efforts dedicated to uncovering the truth. As someone familiar with researchers like Paul LaViolette, Ben, Diamond, Vogt, and others such as mariobuildreps (https://www.mariobuildreps.com/) who present mathematical evidence difficult to refute, I am intrigued by the theory that Earth's mass is increasing at a faster rate than anticipated.
This idea, which posits that Earth has experienced six poles, moving due to expansion, in the past 600,000 years or so, holds significant appeal to me. It could potentially explain slight variations in latitude, such as Siberia being slightly farther south, and other phenomena like tsunamis.
Another aspect worth considering is the lack of putrefaction in mammoths' stomachs, which implies extremely rapid freezing of the animals. I recall hearing about a study suggesting that exposure to temperatures as low as minus 160°C would be sufficient for this phenomenon when air is involved. However, it's clear that pressure and other factors could significantly alter these conditions. If anyone has links or references to help us estimate the speed at which mammoths froze, it would greatly contribute to our understanding of their demise
Thank you Mukona.
Mario's work looks interesting at a glance. I have bookmarked it for later study.
In Charle's Hapgood's book, The Path of the Pole, he provides his explanation for how the mammoths froze. (https://annas-archive.org/md5/60b5e2e797525166adbddff667f58173)
Chan Thomas' Adam and Eve Story also had some estimates of the temperatures.
(https://annas-archive.org/md5/c17747d4b1b9b5d22dd4805e40fab5b3)
An alternative perspective is that the intense spectrum of radiation could have sterilized the meat and gut to prevent decay.