YouTube Link

'' This video illustrates approximately where the new equator will be located after Earth's pole shift in 2012. This is based on data which indicates the pole shift will be approximately 35 degrees, placing the new North Pole at the top of Mongolia. The white icon in the middle of the video marks the line of the new equator. ''

The reason why the movie 2012 is coming is to redicule these events and any one who speaks of it.

It is one of 'the controllers' plans to get ready for the coming catastrophes.
Fema camps and fluoride to keep people asleep.

The powers that be knows what is coming and if they are to keep control, they need the populus to be ignorant and in trust of the Governments, this is how they will get you and your families to go willingly into these camps, thats why the swine and avian flu is coming hard this fall and why they have scheduled the economy collapse in such a manner that the people will se no other alternative then 'follow the good advise' from the Governments.

DHS are not going to mass slaughter 5 billion people, they know the populus will do this by them selfs when the chaos starts, it is in the human nature.

I'm a little surprised that the graphic didn't seem to adjust topography for advancing sea levels, given than it puts Antarctica much closer to the hypothetical equator.

Interesting, though, thanks.

reply to post by argentus

---

No problem . I think people are waking up to this now, it cant be hidden much longer.

Ask your self, how many people in this field of reshears have you heard saying that 2009 is the Year of Contact or Year of astronomy and such?

Convenient with an year of astronomy wich they suposedly find all this stuff..

I would think that a potential pole shift could happen in any direction, thus there are many possible locations for the future equator. So why did the makers of this video pick that specific location for the new poles/equator?

Can you show me that data that says the poles will shift 35 degrees in the specific direction needed to make this the new equator?

(by the way -- I don't believe in the 2012 pole shift. I thought I should tell you that up front.)


EDIT TO ADD: Hi argentus. I'm not stalking you, really...it just seems we ended up at the same thread again by coincidence . Nice to see you here.

[edit on 6/24/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by ChemBreather

---

hi ChemBreather
can you provide sources to your statements?
It would be great to back them up with hard data and feeds the mind of info nuts like myself.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

---

I cant give you that since I didnt make the video.
But I just watches this 16 part series on the subject, and he say it is based on data from recent research and the already displacement of the poles..

The poles are moving now, when , as I understand it, the north and south magnetic poles are close enough together, earth loses its stability.

One rather must watch videos where he explains it from start to finish..
And just flat out deny any hint towards any of these events is imo is out of total denial or ignorance and one should start researching one self rather than asking for handouts of the truth, cuase that will not make any sence as one do not get the middle parts of 'why' and 'how' can it happen.

I am not calling any one here any thing, it is just an general statement..

YouTube Link

reply to post by warrenb

---

Im surprised you havent heard about the Fluoride hazards / conspiracy without me having to smack down links to 30 pages of data about it !!

its like Chemtrails, they are there and I dont even wanna bother arguing about it, Ive seen them and dont care what others believe, it is not on my head.. same with fluoride, I havnt used it for a year soon and I no longer have icing in my teeth, so for me it seems true..

What sources do you want?? I slap some links here !!

reply to post by ChemBreather

---

Sorry I was not specific, this is what I was referring to:


I am fully aware of the dangers of fluoride, thank you for your concern.

Interesting choice of shift. If this is correct I will be living smack on the equator. Which will be quite an adjustment since I am used to 6 months of winter weather. I suppose I would look forward to this if it weren't for the north pole melting all over me when it happens.

You are welcome, that is the quote from the youtube, you must realize that this is a huge subject, it just dont have to do with earth tipping over, it has to do with the Sun and the Milkyway and how all that combined creates these changes, worsen weather, more earthquakes and tsunamies.

I do not know how much you know of the topic, but scientists say they are surprized by things work when they for decades has said: 'This we know, we are scientists' , and they are taken by surprize over and over..

Not really.

The idea of earth crust displacement was disproven over 50 years ago.

The idea of the entire planet somehow flipping over so it has a completely different axial tilt is complete fantasy - but if by change it did happen then it's likely not only all life on the planet would be destroyed but the oceans and atmosphere as well. The nearest safe place to be would be Mars*.

It's a lot more likely that a mutant space goat will eat the sun. A lot, lot, lot more likely.

All aboard the B Ark




* edit: unless of course it's Mars which impacts Earth to cause the axial tilt. In which case there will be no more Mars. But in a billion years time we might have another big Moon.

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Essan]

reply to post by ChemBreather

---

Not sure I believe in the pole shift but I do think there is a lot of evidence that Antartica was a lot warmer and ice free more recently than scientists say it was.

I have mixed feelings about this. First it would mean if it's correct that my land will be much warmer and give better yields because of the warmer weather. Secondly I'm thinking that I like my cool summers and don't want a hotter summer. Being at a higher altitude and given the changes in water elevation I may suddenly have the next beach front property.

Well, the idea of the coastal fringe being temperate around 4,000,000 years ago is still disputed. There is actually more evidence that I'm a 19 mile high solid gold statue of a 7 legged space rabbit than there is that Antarctica has been warmer than today within recent geological time. Though there's plenty of evidence it has been colder.

As an aside, the last seabed cores provide excellent corroboration with Antarctic ice cores for global temperature changes over the past 500,000 years.

reply to post by PowerSlave

---

Lets take your avatar, Pharaos of ancient egypt.

let my very short connect it to 2012, just the raw basics..

Maintain population under 500 Million..Hmm
Oh yea, the Georgia Guidstones, R.C. Christian , soo what you think?

The Rosicrucian Order



Do you see how the mark of the ancients are still with us even to day, and they must know something since they put up those stones, wouldnt you agree?

The lack of scientific literacy in the World today is stunning....simply, stunning.

I'm not saying it's impossible for the orientation of the Earth's axis in relation to the rest of the Solar System to change (or, more correctly, in relation to the direction of its orbit). Looking at Neptune, for example, something happened there, at some time in the distant past.

BUT, it simply cannot happen to Earth, as described by the video posted in the OP, in just three years!! Unless you wish to deny the Laws of Physics, and Newton, in which case you'd be in a very small club.

There is this pesky little fact of rotational motion known as angular momentum. Note the word momentum. The incredible mass of the Earth is in motion, rotating about what we call the axis. That axis happens to be angled at about 26 degrees relative to the Earth's motion in orbit. The Earth will continue to rotate around this imaginary line, however OVER TIME it is possible that the angle of this line, relative to the motion in orbit, could alter. But, we're talking millions, possibly billions of years for something like that to happen (although, I suppose a very, very large body impacting the Earth could impart a precessional vector influence and cause a more rapid change of "tilt", but then it would wipe out all life anyways...)

I think what the ill-informed are confusing, here, is the possible shifting of the magnetic poles. Geological evidence in ancient strata show indications that this has happened repeatedly over the course of Earth's existence. No one knows for certain, how rapidly it occurs, or even why, exactly. It is a fact that the 'True" poles and the 'Magnetic' poles do not align -- they are off by a few hundred miles -- but as with the True North/South, the Magnetic 'poles' are exactly 180 degrees opposite. They can never be anything but.

Of course, any dramatic changes in the Magnetic pole alignment would be immediately noted by ships, airplanes, GPS, even the casual hiker in the woods. It would NOT go unnoticed, and would be BIG NEWS!

If you wish to educate yourselves further into the ins and outs of navigation on the Earth's surface, and how the above facts inter-connect, just search the terms 'magnetic north', 'true north' and 'variation'. That should get you started.



[edit on 6/24/0909 by weedwhacker]

If the axial tilt changes and we have a new equator, does that mean Ecuador will have to change it's name?

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

Im not reading up on old material , that is what is been wrong all along..

If the evidence change, so must the theory... ( SCI , Gill Grissom )

Some newer studies show



Sooo, this 'experts' get taken by surprize about alot of things lately, and I'm supposed to believe every word they say

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

Agreed. And to add a visual...

If it were somehow true that the crust of the earth could tip 35 degrees in relation to the solar plain, and let's say this transition happened over a period of 3 years. According to my math, that puts the transition at 27 PER MINUTE! The friction caused by moving the entire crust of the earth at the rate of 27 feet per minute continuously for 3 years would likely be enough to melt the entire surface of the earth, and that's assuming a uniform movement, which is unlikely given the nature of plate-techtonics.

I am certainly not saying that this is not possible. I just don't think that it would happen in a short span of time like 3 years and certainly not overnight. More likely any sort of pole shift would be an electro-magnetic pole shift, leaving the geographical position of the earth in place.

reply to post by ChemBreather

---

Excerpt from your 'external source':



I added the bold to indicate what a scholarly level of work this guy has achieved!!!

Anyway, you should read the entire thing. It really has nothing to do with "pole shift" or "equatorial shift" or anything from your OP, it discusses the variable nature of the Earth's magnetic field, and how it interacts with the Sun's radiation. Of course, there is still a lot to learn about all the dynamics of our magnetic field, and how it protects us. We've only had the scientific ability to do real research for about the last 50 years.

But, life has survived thus far, and as the article correctly pointed out, the magnetic field has shifted countless times. And, when they say they were surprised at how 'rapidly' some changes occur, they mean in relation to geologic time periods. Certainly, too, those 'rapid' changes could easily change back, or just be a slight waver. No one really knows, and worrying about it isn't going to affect it.

Best thing is to continue to study. It may affect our power grids, in certain parts of the World...inconvenient, but hardly dangerous. And, we'll learn more how to harden those grids against future anomalies.

Could affect crops, or even Humans directly (increased Solar radiation) but droughts and famine happen due to other forces, weather patterns, pests, etc., and Humans already have a lot of dangers in our natural environment....so.....?



[edit on 6/24/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by ChemBreather

---

I didn't watch the entire 16 part video, but I watched the part you posted (part 8 of 16).

His explanation for the existence of bands of iron oxide and iron oxide-rich red soil in many parts of the world is NOT scientifically sound. They were not deposited there by volcanoes.

The iron was deposited 2.5 billion to 3 billion years ago in ancient seas. Those ancient seas were iron-rich, but not iron-oxide rich (iron oxide is the red iron). This is because before 2.5 billion years ago, the seas and the atmosphere had very little free oxygen. The atmosphere was mostly CO2 and methane -- and the oceans contained little or no dissolved free oxygen. But then, algae life appeared in the oceans -- algae that fed on CO2 and then expelled oxygen into the water and into the air. Over millions of years, this oxygen reacted with the large amount of iron dissolved in the oceans and created iron oxide. That iron oxide was deposited on the ancient ocean floors and that is the the origin of most of red soil we see today.

Also, his claim that geologists cannot explain how the white cliffs of Dover formed is wrong. Geologists have a good idea how they were formed -- and they weren't thrust up out of the water by a sudden reversal of Earth's rotation as the presenter claims in the video. The cliffs are there simply because the water of the channel has eroded the land away -- a process still happening today. Pieces of the cliffs often fall into the channel below.

His theory that sudden reversals in the Earth's rotation is the cause for iron oxide to be found all over the earth and is the cause for some geological formations is simplistic and ignores so much other evidence for the cause of these processes.



[edit on 6/24/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]