So, I'm a relative layman when it comes to Geological science. I have read some interesting theories by Graham Hancock, who I believe stumbled onto
something in his research into ancient sites.
A little background on him:
Graham Hancock has been researching ancient sites for decades, writing several books such as Fingerprints of the Gods and Footprints of the Gods
What makes his research different (and often criticised by the scientific community) is that he refuses to remain bound by pre-existing notions as
though everything we have suggested to date is infallible.
He thinks outside of the box, and raises questions.
I appreciate his approach because I do truly believe that modern science is polluted by arrogance. We see something odd in Earth history, and instead
of considering all possible causes, we weave this into a story of already existing history where much of it may well be falsely built on an error
here, or a misunderstanding there.
Quite simply, we are building a picture of nonsense because the very first pieces of that puzzle are in the wrong place, or the wrong way around.
Which brings me to the point of this thread.
Graham Hancock has suggested that the Earth has periods where the Mantle shifts. He doesn't go into what causes it (as far as I am aware), he simply
offers it as an explanation to various inconsistencies, such as the repeated mentions in historical religious texts of "great floods" and
"catastrophe", the physical evidence of ancient submerged sites and so on.
Now, as part of my interest in 2012, I have been recently reading some material on the science of the Magnetic Pole shift.
Something I stumbled upon today is the confusing historical evidence suggested in current research used to establish when and why a Magnetic Pole
shift occurred. The dates seem too confusing and sporadic to be a natural cycle in my opinion.
Link to data
Surely, if the Magnetic Pole shift is due to a natural cycle, the routine of it should be as predictable as the seasons changing?
At first I couldn't quite understand why such evidence is suggesting that there is no real pattern to it. I can understand a window of a few hundred
years, maybe a couple of thousand at most (seeing as this research is so young), but tens of thousands of years?
Something just doesn't add up here.
Then I came to a conclusion.
If, and it is a big IF, Mr. Hancock is right, and we do go through a period of Mantle Shift every 32.000 years (I believe that was the estimate he has
given), wouldn't the Geological historical data used to show previous Magnetic Pole shifts be entirely unreliable and chaotic?
This is where I stump myself and show complete lack of knowledge...
If the current research on Magnetic Pole shifts is taken from researching Geologically Historic points all over the Earth, and this data is showing a
confusing pattern of timings, periods and severity, doesn't this simply add credibility to idea that the Mantle did indeed shift at the same time?
If the Magnetic Poles are shifting, and this is occurring while the Mantle is shifting, the Geological evidence should show a chaotic picture of
nonsense. Which seems to be exactly what the research is showing.
As far as I understand it, Geology takes a snapshot image of time and place, and when it comes to Magnetic Poles, this information is quite basically
imprinted on mineral deposits and Geological structure as a Magnetic fingerprint. I assume that the data is gathered by taking measured readings of
such deposits at specific layers of time and in specific locations to establish where the Magnetic Poles were in reference to them.
I could be wrong, and I need to do some more research into this, but it seems fair right?
So if there was a period of Mantle Shifting during the time of a Magnetic Pole shift, the site that is being measured and used for evidential data may
well have been aligned in one way, and then moved by such a Mantle shift. Likewise all over the Earth. This in turn would provide the confusing data
that we are now seeing.
My personal belief is that there is a cycle (and I am leaning to it being an external planetary force arriving soon, as evidenced by a gradual
increase in various factors). I am forming the opinion that there is indeed a convergence of all of these factors:
Global Temperature changes.
Increasing Weather anomalies.
Increasing Geological instability.
Increasing Magnetic Pole shift.
Increasing Axis shift.
And I do indeed believe it is plausible that we will see an event, not over centuries or decades, but over months and even weeks, where the Mantle
will shift, and the Magnetic Pole will "flip".
I'm very interested in your take on this. There are a lot of intelligent individuals here and I'd love to hear the thoughts of such members.