by Sunrisepony » Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:39 am
I think there is evidence of crustal shifts. What about Greenland, couldn't that have been Atlantis and just slipped higher when the planet tilted? How else really could world wide climatic shift with such a dramatic degree really be explained? Prior to the last polar axis shift, the world ...the whole thing was almost tropical, and at the very least Temperate. The deserts that weren't under water at the time (like Death Valley for example) were fertile grass lands when the planet was rotating fully upright. The water damage on the Great Sphinx alone proves that. And, now they're deserts. We have a geomagnetic field encompassing the earth that at one pole is positive, and the other pole "negative", they reverse fields every so often. About every 10,000 - 12,000 years. The we have the physical poles. They are nearing alignment between now and 2015. How much of it has to do with the Geomagnetic Field, Polar Axis Tilt and Crustal Displacement. It's a little beyond my field of knowledge, but I know they exist and do happen.
I read an article years ago called "Sunken Continents 'vs' Continental Drift", it ripped apart the "theory" of Plate Tectonics and Continental Drift. With a sharp knife. Here's an excerpt with link for the rest of it...
In the latter half of the 19th century, when the above passage was written, the idea of submerged continents was accepted by many prominent geologists. This continued to be the case well into the 20th century, though the idea gradually began to go out of fashion. In the mid-1960s came the plate-tectonics ‘revolution’ in the earth sciences. Plate tectonics firmly denies that large landmasses can be elevated from the ocean floor or submerged to oceanic depths.
According to plate tectonics, the earth’s outer shell, or lithosphere, is divided into a number of large, rigid, moving plates that interact at their boundaries, where they converge, diverge, or slide past one another. Such interactions are believed to be responsible for most of the seismic and volcanic activity of the earth. Plates cause mountains to rise where they push together, and continents to fracture and oceans to form where they rift apart. The continents, sitting passively on the backs of the plates, drift with them, at the rate of a few centimeters a year. At the end of the Permian, some 250 million years ago,* all the present continents are said to have been gathered together in a single supercontinent, Pangaea, consisting of two major landmasses: Laurasia in the north, and Gondwanaland in the south. Pangaea is believed to have started fragmenting in the Early Jurassic, leading to the configuration of oceans and continents observed today.
*All dates given in this article are official ‘scientific’ dates. For corresponding theosophical dates, see: Geological timescale, davidpratt.info.
It has been said that ‘A hypothesis that is appealing for its unity or simplicity acts as a filter, accepting reinforcement with ease but tending to reject evidence that does not seem to fit.’ Some proponents of plate tectonics have admitted that in the late 1960s a bandwagon atmosphere developed, and that data that did not fit into the new plate-tectonics model were not given sufficient consideration, resulting in a disturbing dogmatism. In the words of one critic, geology has become ‘a bland mixture of descriptive research and interpretive papers in which the interpretation is a facile cookbook application of plate-tectonics concepts . . . used as confidently as trigonometric functions.’1 A modern geological textbook acknowledges that ‘Geologists, like other people, are susceptible to fads’.2
V.A. Saull pointed out that no global tectonic model should ever be considered definitive, since geological and geophysical observations are nearly always open to alternative explanations. He also stated that even if plate tectonics were false, it would be difficult to refute and replace, for the following reasons: the processes supposed to be responsible for plate dynamics are rooted in regions of the earth so poorly known that it is hard to prove or disprove any particular model of them; the hard core of belief in plate tectonics is protected from direct assault by auxiliary hypotheses that are still being generated; and the plate model is so widely believed to be correct that it is difficult to get alternative interpretations published in the scientific literature.3
In the first issue of the New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, which appeared in December 1996, the editors J.M. Dickins and D.R. Choi wrote:
in the 1950s and 60s the new theory of Plate Tectonics was propounded by ‘geophysicists’ (physicists) and mainly young geologists with little experience, depth of understanding or respect for existing geology. The theory, although admittedly simplistic and with little factual basis but claiming to be all embracing, was pursued by its proponents in an aggressive, intolerant, dogmatic and sometimes unfortunately an unscrupulous fashion. Most geologists with knowledge based locally or regionally were not confident in dealing with a new global theory which swept the world and was attractive in giving Geology a prestige not equalled since the nineteenth century.
The ideological influence and strength of the Plate Tectonic Theory has swept aside much well-based data as though it never existed, inhibited many fields of investigation and resulted in the suppression or manipulation of data which does not fit the theory. In the course of time the method has become narrow, monotonous and dull: a catechism repeated too often. As new data has arisen there is a growing scepticism about the theory. (www.ncgt.org)
Plate tectonics has faced growing criticism as the number of observational anomalies has increased. It will shown below that the theory faces some fundamental – and in fact fatal – problems.
http://davidpratt.info/sunken.htm
. So the Sphinx has to be constructed AT LEAST prior to the end of the last Ice Age. And it had to be long enough prior to that end, for all the erosion patterns to form - so when was that? When did earth's climate, or at least when did the climate of Egypt change from tropical to arid.
