It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What a Pole Shift looks like

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
It looks like the Japan Earthquake. During the earthquake Japan moved 8 feet to the West. The common claim is that the plates are subducting somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, instead it is more likely that the Expanding Earth Theory is much more than a theory.
The article about Japan moving 8 feet due to the Earthquake is:
Quake moved Japan coast 8 feet, shifted Earth’s axis
www.bestmetalresearch.com...

This goes with reports that the New Zealand moved land mass about a foot and that GPS locators along the West Coast of the US are picking up inaccuracies.
There are trenches opening in Africa and even in the Northern US due to the stress.
Clif High seems to be more and more correct.




posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
you talk about the expansion theory and i know there was already a thread with this earlier this week but ill throw it up anyway because i found it to be interesting

edit on 24-4-2011 by gdaub23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I thought there would have been pictures in this thread. Nice misleading title there. Other than that thanks for the info. I heard shortly after the Mar 11th quake the earths axis had shifted but was unaware it was a pole shift.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by gdaub23
 


Really cool vid,but this guy is a comic book artist?



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by gdaub23
 


Great vid! Thanks, I had seen it before but couldn't find it. I think there May be something to the expando Earth scenario. It would explain a lot of what has gone on and what is going on now.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


and I'm a Geographer, but please don't hold that against me.
hehehe



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Yes he is, but you should really see his work about the expanding Earth.

Neal Adams Work



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
But the ENTIRE SURFACE of the planet would have been submerged in deep water if this were true.
Either that or there would be mountains in the caps that would extended to the stratosphere.

I don't see evidence if either, the water didn't just come from thin air.
The atmosphere wouldn't even be able to hold such a massive amount of water.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Segador
 


I have an old book, and I think there was a thread about it, explaining that limestone becomes water, that becomes again limestone in a cycle of 200 million years. I will try to find the book. It was a French one.

So, even if Earth expands, the limestone-water cycle would probably grow in proportion.

The evidence: Ancient times= smaller Earth=lower gravity pull=bigger life forms. Modern times=bigger Earth=higher gravity pull=smaller life forms to compensate gravity pull.
edit on 24-4-2011 by NowanKenubi because: (no reason given)[/editby

The book is from Robert Charroux and is called "Le livre des mondes oubliés." ( The book of forgotten worlds )
image of tomb
Tomb of Arles-sur-Tech

.
edit on 25-4-2011 by NowanKenubi because: (no reason given)


It talks about how the tomb is regularly filling with water, even when it is very dry and doesn't rain. In fact, it overflowed once, when the weather was very dry. In the book it says the phenomena has been sen in Rome and Bari, Italy, for the last 800 years.

Apparently, it only works when the relics of a saint is inside. In 1951, they got 600 liters from it
edit on 25-4-2011 by NowanKenubi because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by KewlDaddyFatty
I thought there would have been pictures in this thread. Nice misleading title there. Other than that thanks for the info. I heard shortly after the Mar 11th quake the earths axis had shifted but was unaware it was a pole shift.


My understanding is that the axis didn't actually do anything. The axis is defined by rotation of the core. The core didn't actually deviate. Between the core and the mantle that we live on is a liquid layer. The mantle only spins because it sits on the liquid layer and the liquid layer spins with the rotation of the core. It's kind of like if you put a cake mix in a large bowl and use a mixer to stir it up. The bowl will rotate at the speed of the mixer without the mixer ever touching the bowl because of the rotation of the cake mix.

So Japan might have shifted. New Zealand might have shifted. The whole mantle of the earth might have shifted. But the axis is just fine because the core is extremely heavy and it would take a force of much greater magnitude than that produced by the earthquake in Japan to affect it.

That doesn't mean there won't be a pole shift or hasn't ever been a pole shift, but the mantle has been through all kinds of changes before without affecting the axis.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by NE1911
 


The axis did indeed shift by 4 inches - See this article:

articles.cnn.com...:WORLD



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karalyne
reply to post by NE1911
 


The axis did indeed shift by 4 inches - See this article:

articles.cnn.com...:WORLD


CNN is not a source I would reference for a factual account. Several people tried to measure a shift back in 2004 after the big quake then. Some say there was a shift some say no but nobody could prove either side. Even now they are using theoretical calculations to try and determine a shift, but there is no actual proof.

www.sciencedaily.com...

This link is not proof of anything but explains the figure axis as compared to the actual axis. No one can prove there was a shift of the axis. No one can prove that there wasn't. I believe there wasn't. Though I wouldn't encourage you to trust in me. Study the facts and look inside yourself for truth. As always.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by redgreen
 


If the Earth is expanding shouldn't things have moved up instead of moving to one side?



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


It does both, but we will only notice it sideways as it is more "evident"? Not that they would tell us the whole story to begin with...



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by NowanKenubi
It does both, but we will only notice it sideways as it is more "evident"?
I suppose that using the laser reflectors left on the Moon it should be relatively easy to measure that difference, but I do not really know how feasible that would be.


Not that they would tell us the whole story to begin with...
Yeah, nice excuse.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 




But the thing is... If Earth grows, then all celestial bodies do. Would it be measurable with the lasers you talk of? Wouldn't everything stay proportionate? I guess it would show nonetheless.

Not that they wou... no, said it already!



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by NowanKenubi
 


For things to stay in proportion it would mean that planets would need to get farther away from each other, because if the Earth grows and the Moon grows the distance between them would get smaller.

Something like you climbing on a chair and the ceiling keeping the same distance, it would need to move away from you.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I think Dinosaurs are a good way to help prove the expanding Earth theory.

My hypothesis; If the Earth 250 million years ago was smaller (or had less mass) than it is now, then its gravity must have been weaker. Weaker gravity could equal larger animals.

I could also be thought that it was some sort of expansion wiped out the Dinosaurs not a comet.

Just a thought.

ALS



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ALOSTSOUL
 


If that was the case then the larger dinosaurs would not need to have their bodies structured as they had, that structure shows the strength needed for the weight they would have for a gravity as strong as the one we have today.

But I guess we are getting away from the topic.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


No! You bring a good point that is related: If Earth expands, does gravity change?, and if so, when is it detectable?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join