I am not making up the term. I am using the term as used by Hancock who coined the term. He started the use of the term. I think it is wise to
continue using the term that way.
I didn't say you were making the term up. I said the term he is using is wrong. It also predates him so he did not coin the term. People have been
talking about the magnetic pole shifting since the 17 and 18 hundreds when global navigation began.
No, Hancock is the one describing rapid shifts of the crusts and some in recent times. Continental drift is Wegener's theory which is not the
same as plate tectonics. Continental drift does not happen. That was envisioned as the continents being like ships that moved through the crust. In
plate tectonics the continents are imbedded in plate. The entire plate moves, not just the continent. Hancock would have the entire crust move in a
poleshift. That is not the same as continental drift, or plate tectonics.
Continental drive does happen, though not as you described. I am not saying that the only the continent moves. The entire plate it is on moves. At
the margins where 2 plates meet there are several things that can occur, they can push into each other, one can push under the other, or they can
separate being pushed apart as material from the Mantel comes up.
As far as Hancock saying the entire crust moving that is possible, it's not called a pole shift though. A pole shift is when the magnetic poles
drift, the pole itself drifts not the crust. It happens now, our north pole wobbles, that is a pole shift, more accurately polar drift, as the pole
itself moves about and isn't an anchored item. It has nothing to do with the crust moving. The crust can move, but when it does it is not called a
pole shift. Hancock did not coin the term and he is using it incorrectly.
The term poleshift comes from Hancock and he is talking about his version of crustal movement which is similar to the ECDs described by
Hapgood. Magnetic pole changes are not what is meant by the term coined by Hancock.
He is using the term wrong, it existed long before him as a navigational term used to describe how over time the north pole wobbles. It does not mean
the crust moved. Describing a pole shift in terms of the crust moving is wrong. Hancock is wrong.
Actually the answer to that is pretty much no. There is an event from 800Ma that might be a pole shift.
So you're saying something might be a pole shift as evidence of a pole shift meaning the crust moves. Does the crust move? Yes. That is not called a
pole #. At one point Antarctica was in the tropics, now it is at the south pole. The pole did not shift the crust did. Hancock is wrong in describing
plate movement in terms of the poles. The poles while they do wobble and drift maintain their orientation about the axis. It's the crust that moves.
Hancock is using the wrong terminology to describe the movement of the crust.
The paleomagnetic record seen in rocks records changed in the direction of Earth's magnetic field. There is no pole shift associated with
For acute angle changes in the rocks there is a minor change in the direction of magnetic in the rock. I am not talking about the acute changes, I am
speaking of when the north pole resides in the southern hemisphere. There is evidence going back to at least WW2 with submarine mapping showing the
alignment of the rocks. The alignment shows that the north pole and south pole shift hemispheres. It also shows this occurs without totally destroying
the crust as the evidence would have been destroyed with it.
Hancock is only right in the sense that he invented the term and used the term to describe a crustal event. As far as do pole shifts happen the
answer is not in the manner described by Hancock.
So he is right because he is wrong? That's a horrible argument. His theory may be sound, but he is high jacking a term that existed long before him.
Taking an already existing term and re-branding it doesn't make the use of the term right. He is attempting to change the definition of an already
I used the term correctly. You might want to read about Hancock's use of the term.
You used his term, that does not mean you used the term correctly as you were quoting a flawed source. He is using a term that means something else
and has meant something else for ages.
Using the term as he did propagates an inaccuracy. His theory and his term do not line up as the term existed for something else before his theory.
Using a term that means something else only adds confusion to the matter. It will lead others astray and give them false information. It's his term
that is flawed not his theory.
Using the wrong term is a disservice to those who wish to learn.
Propagating the miss use of a term isn't helpful either.