This is actually the big Question that i do want answered. Crustal shift took place around 12900 BP. Yet most ancient Architecture was build after all that and earlier pieces were mostly on the continental shelf and are now below sea level. This naturally produces plenty of post event structure and rare pre-event structures. Also the actual crustal shift destroyed potential structures over a real percentage of the globe. This is my working framework and it happens to be well supported by the evidence however ignored by most.
What the data suggests is that we have two separate North Pole somehow separated in time and perhaps five degrees apart. It is also possible that our calculations are still too imprecise and that these close centers are actually one and the same.
At the same time we have an earlier pole location at around sixty some degrees. It is plausible that the first event happened naturally and that travel was fifteen degrees and generally insufficient to end the Ice Age but representing proof of concept. The latter single or even double event looks to be deliberately staged in order to truly end the Ice age.
This is all fine tuning the nature of the event A first directed impact would have broken contact and allowed the crust to reimpact. A second event then could have driven the crust home. Both would have been far less massive than originally envisaged and thus much safer. Each impact may well have generated only several degrees of movement. These would thus be survivable over most of the globe.
What comes out is that refining the data opens up an even gentler protocol than expected and much different than expected from any random asteroid impact. All this ushered in the Holocene and our long term prognosis is that Greenland will shed most of its Ice over thousands of years. Once Greenland stops chilling Davis strait we can expect a general warming in the Arctic that sees a mostly ice fee ocean.
© 2016 by Buildreps
Tiwanaku is aligned to the current North Pole under an angle of 359.8 degrees. There's much debate about Tiwanaku and who built it.
What else can that be than another pole? And how long ago could that have been? It won't be easy to argue against this conclusion. Some will try to ridicule it, but it will be much harder to refute it.
Unless you're able to prove that the mathematics that is used here, combined with the approach, is wrong.
Two boats sailing a steady course will intersect at a certain point. We can calculate this intersection point. The same principle counts for pyramid alignments.
But after some thinking I decided it would be better to give all knowledge and data away for free, for everyone available who has access to internet, including all the data. Some parts of the data are available via Mediafire. You will find the links below. More data links and research results will follow during the course of this series of articles.
How Two Pyramids Pointing North Intersect
When two pyramids are pointing North, we can be sure they belong to the same time frame. We now know that this time frame is our current crustal position.
Borobudur is probably the most accurate aligned temple in the world, aligned under an angle 359.99 to the current North pole, which is an amazing achievement.
Total: 43 of 228 (including 3 additional ones in the database)
[These were all located during or after the Bronze Age. Better yet they are all clearly part of the Atlantean global trade culture of the Bronze Age with the exception of Angkor Wat - arclein]
The question is: How likely is it that 43 of the random selected 228 ancient structures cross an area on the North Pole within a certain radius?
Angkor Wat is aligned within 0.2 degrees to the current North pole.
Don't pick just some random buildings, like the Notre Dame in Paris or some other cathedral somewhere.
During the research there were a few alignment clusters found. Alignment clusters are a first indication of a possible former pole.
Measuring the alignment of a pyramid is never 100% accurate. You have to deal with a certain error.
The Accuracy of Measurement'
3σ (99.7%) was accepted as reliable enough for the calculations: ±2.0°. This also includes the error of measurement. Although Giza could be measured much more exact, only ±2.0° (total angle is 4.0°) was accepted as the standard accuracy for the whole project, and that counted for Giza as well.
When alignments are measured under a large angle, the error will remain small.
Measuring objects that are alignment under a small angle result in a larger error.
How large is the chance that more 50% of all the alignments are running over Greenland, which is just 25% of a quarter hemisphere? When we're trying to find another pole, is Greenland our best bet.
Finding the Other Poles
When we draw a vertical line towards the South pole at a longitude of 45 degrees, we can examine how many alignments intersect that line. The peaks in the graph show the most likely locations of the former poles.
The current North pole is easy to find. It is the highest peak in the graph. This graph shows three other peaks. There are three former Geo poles found. A fourth pole is also found, but that required a mathematical trick
Probability can be calculated with the binomial formula.
Intersection Clusters on Greenland
A second cluster was found between latitude 75° and 78°. The weighed average of this cluster is at 76.4°N, 45°W.
A third cluster was found between latitude 63° and 66°. The weighed average of this cluster is at 65.0°N, 45°W.
Greenland went in a few steps over the North pole. It is possible to correlate the magnitude of the steps with the temperature proxies, δD or δ018, respectively found in ice cores of Vostok and Dome-C (Antarctica). The similarities are clear. From this we can directly derive the time frames of the crustal shifts which are clearly related to the Milankovitch cycles.
In a series of next articles I will show you in an increasing detail what happened in our distant past.
First published: February 21, 2016