It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What Hancock, and you describe is Continental shift which does happen.
The crust able to slip and slide over the Mantel, this has happened before and can be seen in the geologic time scale.
A pole shift, which does happen is the true magnetic reversal of the magnetic poles.
This happens to the sun every decade or so which causes in increase in sun spots which we are currently seeing.
Can the crust slip and slide? Yes there is plenty of evidence of that.
Does it slip and slide with every pole reversal? No.
Want evidence? look at the sea bed.
The sea bed shows the different pole shifts our earth has undergone.
If the crust shifted drastically with every pole shift the magnetic evidence would be consumed up by the crust movement and recycled.
Either ground into small material which we can not tell it's orientation, or pushed under the crust to form lava.
Put simply Hancock is wrong, and by phrasing your question the way you did you are propagating incorrect information.
Don't phrase your question by defining a pole shift in terms of something it is not.
You spread very bad information that way...
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.
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.
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.
Actually the answer to that is pretty much no. There is an event from 800Ma that might be a pole shift.
The paleomagnetic record seen in rocks records changed in the direction of Earth's magnetic field. There is no pole shift associated with those events.
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.
I used the term correctly. You might want to read about Hancock's use of the term.
A pole shift is an idea promoted by Hancock that the outer part of the crust shifts over the bulk of the Earth. When that happens the spot on Earth which used to be the North and South Pole are no longer in the places they used to be. This shift of the poles means that there is a new pair of spots that are the poles and there is a new equator. There are new tropical zones and new temperate zones and new arctic zones.
Continental drive does happen, though not as you described.
A pole shift is when the magnetic poles drift, the pole itself drifts not the crust.
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.
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.
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 wrong term is a disservice to those who wish to learn.
Propagating the miss use of a term isn't helpful either.
It has never happened before, and it will never happen again!
You speak with much conviction, like you have insider knowledge. I think it has happened more than once, in fact, I believe it happens every 26-30,000 years or so. Look at the world right now.
The ice packs are melting, whole glaciers are disappearing.
Wild weather and forest fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis.
More and more fluorocarbons in the atmosphere each day.
Heat waves and cold spells all over the world.
I would say Earth is long overdue for a polar shift, in our lifetime. To deny it just offhand is not denying ignorance, it is embracing it.