Hapgood’s Theory of Earth Crust Displacement

There are several problems with this video put out by Sony Pictures which features Woody Harrelson as the doomsday guru ‘Charlie Frost’. The most frustrating thing about it to me is that it is presented in such a way as to be unaccountable for the terrible science and outright lies that it disseminates. After all its just viral promotion for the movie 2012 right?  The problem is that it is done in such a way that seems logical, and it makes assertions that would seem to be unquestionably true.  I dealt with some of the issues in my post Audio commentary on recent solar flare articles from NASA but in this post I will be dealing with a specific claim that the video makes about Charles H. Hapgood and the Earth Crust Displacement theory.

This theory comes almost verbatim from Graham Hancock, even down to the orange “core” analogy used by Harrelson in the video.

I was disappointed to see the video implied that Hapgood claimed that Earth Crust Displacement was caused by the sun’s radiation, but to see the full scope of the error in this video it requires a little background. I will be quoting from and excellent article which refutes both Hapgood and Hancock which can be read here:

http://www.skrause.org/writing/papers/hapgood_and_ecd.shtml

Charles H. Hapgood was not a geologist; he was a professor of the history of science at Keene College in New Hampshire (Hancock, 1995, p. 9). His research led him to study numerous Renaissance and early-modern maps of the world. He made the startling observation that several of these maps seemed to greater and lesser degrees to depict a southern landmass shaped and sized similarly to Antarctica. Although various explorers visited the islands to the south of South America in the 17th and 18th centuries, Antarctica was not officially discovered until 1820. In addition, these maps seemed to be drawn from source maps dating back at least to the Middle Ages and perhaps even to antiquity (Hancock, 1995, p. 5). Even more startling, it seems, is that according to Hapgood, some of these maps depict not the current, icy outline of Antarctica, but instead its sub-glacial topography. This led Hapgood to hypothesize that the original source maps had been drawn by an advanced civilization thousands of years earlier, when, at the end of the last ice age, Antarctica was not completely glaciated. In fact, Hapgood and Hancock argue, at this time, Antarctica lay not at its current position at the south pole, but instead about 30 degrees further north, in a temperate climate.

This article goes into great detail about the theory, and I encourage you to read it, but for our purposes I will skip forward to the rather lengthy refutation.

The Evidence Revisited

The case is more complicated than it at first appears. Should we simply accept this addition to an established theory because it seemingly explains fascinating events in mythology and helps do away with anomalies in ancient maps? Hapgood (1958) and Hancock’s (1995) evidence bears further scrutiny before it is accepted as fact. Since the publication of Hancock’s (1995) book, numerous well-documented criticisms have appeared on the Internet, many of them originating in news- and talkgroups. Just as Hancock’s evidence deals with three main topics, so do the criticisms. In particular, Hapgood’s interpretations of the maps he used is suspect; most accepted evidence with respect to Antarctica contradicts Hancock and Hapgood; and Hancock’s claims about the northern hemisphere and the last ice age tend to be incorrect.

The motivation for ECD seems to be the belief that around 12, 000 years ago Antarctica was at a warmer latitude, and some method is needed to move it south. The claim that the continent was so recently situated farther north comes from the maps cited by Hapgood. The first error in Hapgood’s interpretation is the assumption that these maps showing a southern continent are in fact depicting Antarctica. Since ancient times, it was believed that there must be a southern continent to balance out the overabundance of landmass in the northern hemisphere. For Plato and Aristotle, this was also an aesthetic point: in a proper world, such a continent would exist to provide better balance; since the Greeks were aware of lands near the arctic, there should also be land near the antarctic (Wilford, 1981, p. 139). Without actually knowing the shape or size of Antarctica—or even of its very existence—a southern continent was placed on several early world maps and globes, sometimes with such engravings as: “Terra australis nondam cognita,” the “southern land not yet known,” (Wilford, 1981, p. 139).

One of the maps researched by Hapgood is the Oronteus Finaeus map of 1531, which shows a large land mass south of South America, complete with mountains and rivers (Hancock, 1995, p. 14-5). However, two things strike an observer almost immediately: the landmass represented on the map bears little if any resemblance to the Antarctica that appears on modern maps and globes, even accounting for distortions due to map projection. For example, the Antarctica Peninsula is completely missing from the map. Secondly, Finaeus’ southern continent is both far too large and far too close to South America to be Antarctica. Hancock (1995) points out another map cited by Hapgood, the 1737 map by Philippe Buache, which Hancock claims “accurately portrays the subglacial topography of Antarctica” (Hancock, 1995, p. 478) because it represents a southern continent composed of two parts, much like the actual above-sea-level land surface of Antarctica.. However, this does not represent the ice-free topography of Antarctica, since it fails to take into account isostatic rebound. That is, the ice mass on the Antarctic surface depresses the land upon which it resides. If the ice were removed, in order to maintain equilibrium, the land would ‘rebound’, albeit slowly. Such is the case in much of Scandinavia, where once ice-covered regions are increasing in elevation year by year. As pointed out in an Internet file by Paul Heinrich, “the Phillip Buache Map of 1737 fails miserably in any way to accurately portray either the subglacial bedrock topography of Antarctica […] or the ice-free topography of Antarctica as represented by the bedrock surface as adjusted for isostatic rebound” (Heinrich, 1996, MOM and Oronteus…).

Hapgood’s argument that these maps are based upon ancient sources rests upon the assumption that Antarctica was not discovered by Europeans until several hundred years after the maps were made. Although Antarctica was not properly discovered until 1820 by Nathaniel B. Palmer (Wilford, 1981, p. 267), it is quite likely it was visited or at least sighted earlier than that by explorers and traders. Let us not forget that the Vikings visited North America hundreds of years before Columbus was born. There are other claims that the southern continent on these maps is actually Australia, as sighted by early Portuguese merchants, not Antarctica (Lunde, 1980, The Oronteus…). Weakened by this evidence, Hapgood (1958) and Hancock’s (1995) belief in an as-of-yet unknown ancient civilization becomes not only illogical, but absurd.

A review of the evidence relating to Antarctica leads to just as many problems. The first is the age of the Antarctic ice sheet. According to Hancock (1995), “researchers at the Carnegie Institute in Washington DC were able to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that great rivers carrying finegrained well-sorted sediments had indeed flowed in Antarctica until about 6000 years ago” (Hancock, 1995, p. 16). The bulk of core samples from Antarctica, however, show that there is “an abundance of evidence that demonstrates […] that the Antarctica ice cap has been around for the last 2 million years or more […] Ice core and other data from [sic] the Antarctica clearly show that it has been covered by an ice cap for the last 300,000 to 3 million or more years” (Heinrich, 1996, Fingerprints..). In fact, most geology text books, including Plummer and McGeary (1996), state the same. According to Hapgood, ECD caused Antarctica to move south and caused the end of the ice age in the northern hemisphere. The end of the last ice age was accompanied by a several hundred foot rise in ocean levels world-wide. However, Hapgood’s theory also claims that this shift south is what caused the Antarctic ice sheet: that is, Antarctica accumulated the ice-mass lost in the north. But in this case, there would be less of a rise in ocean levels (Heinrich, 1996, MOM and Oronteus…). In addition, the depression of the Antarctic landmass would further lower ocean levels, thus this claim on the part of Hapgood and Hancock disagrees with current knowledge about the end of the last ice age and the rise in sea levels. Furthermore, Antarctica is the world’s largest desert. It seems unlikely that the catastrophic build-up of the Antarctic ice sheet as proposed in Fingerprints of the Gods can be accounted for in such a short period of time, considering Antarctica’s climate.

Hancock’s (1995) arguments for the northern hemisphere are filled with just as many holes. According to Heinrich, the claim that “huge numbers” of animals were frozen in permafrost is erroneous: “First, their claim that hundreds of thousands of frozen carcasses have been found is simply incorrect. At most, only a few tens of frozen carcasses have been documented in all of Siberia and Alaska.” (Heinrich, 1996, MOM and Atlantis…) Additionally, most of the carcasses appear to have gone through extensive decomposition, indicating not that they were suddenly trapped and frozen, but that the remains (mostly bones) were preserved sometime well after death. Even more importantly, it seems that most of the frozen carcasses pre-date the supposed catastrophe as proposed by Hancock by many thousands of years (Heinrich, 1996, MOM and Atlantis…). One of the pieces of evidence for ECD is that different parts of northern continents (now at the same latitude) experienced different levels of glaciation (Hancock, 1995, p. 478). There are, however, other explanations than ECD. For example, the central and eastern parts of North America were covered by a large ice sheet, whereas in the topographically more varied west, mountain or valley glaciers predominated. Additionally, the last ice age was not merely one continuous event: it was punctuated by several interglacial periods. That is, during the ice age, the ice sheets advanced and retreated more than once.

It seems as if much of the evidence presented in Fingerprints of the Gods can either be directly refuted or at least called into doubt when compared with well-documented research. For example, neither the northern hemisphere evidence nor the claims about Antarctica are strong enough to support ECD, and Hapgood’s map interpretations all have other possible explanations. By these means, it is clear that there is little reason to support ECD based upon the evidence presented in Hancock’s and Hapgood’s works.

The Sinking of a Theory

Lack of evidence alone does not disprove a theory. So far, no logical inconsistencies have been found in the theory of ECD itself. Perhaps a ‘slip’ with respect to Antarctica did not occur when and where Hapgood claims, but it might still be possible to save ECD as a theory and tie it to plate tectonics. That too, however, is a losing proposition. Valid scientific theories in general have to do two things: explain current data, and answer questions that arise from the logical consequences of the theory. ECD runs into problems particularly with regard to the second requirement.

The first problem comes from the concept of isostacy, which is “the balance or equilibrium between adjacent blocks of crust resting on a plastic mantle” (Plummer and McGeary, 1996, p. 521). As mentioned above, isostatic rebound would affect the rise or fall of sea levels, and ECD provides no acceptable solutions to this problem. Einstein’s claim in Hapgood (1958) that at a certain critical point, a slip of the earth’s crust is bound to occur due to an unevenly distributed icemass also fails to take isostacy into consideration. The earth’s crust is not rigid, as Einstein stated. Instead, as ice builds up on a landmass, that landmass is depressed an appropriate amount to carry the load. Greenland provides an excellent example of this process (Dyson, 1963, p. 103) Also neglected by Hapgood and Hancock when considering icemasses is the fact that under high pressure, ice becomes plastic, that is, it will flow in a viscous fashion. As a result, glaciers are not static sheets of ice, but rather moving bodies of ice, that expand outward (continental) and downhill (alpine). When glaciers reach the sea, they don’t simply continue to build up: pieces break off and form icebergs. Hence, between isostacy and the tendency of ice to flow plastically, the critical point mentioned by Einstein is never reached.

The whole concept of the lithosphere gliding over the asthenosphere “as the skin of an orange […] over the inner part of the orange” (Hancock, 1995, p. 10) is misleading. Just as the lithosphere is not a rigid body, the asthenosphere is not as liquid as Hancock believes. Instead, it is composed of highly viscous rock, which, due to high pressure and temperature, behaves plastically (Plummer and McGeary, 1996, p. 425). The asthenosphere does act as a lubricating layer for the lithosphere, allowing it to move, but due to its highly viscous nature, it cannot permit the rapid, large-scale, motion claimed by ECD.

Our metaphor of the jig-saw puzzle for ECD also falls apart: not because of the ways in which plates interact, but because a jig-saw puzzle can only be moved easily in ways mentioned earlier if it is located on a table. On a sphere, problems are encountered. In a mathematical sense, there are several forms of symmetry in the plane. There is rotation around a point and reflection about a fixed line, for example. For a sphere there is only one type of symmetry: rotation about a fixed axis. Physically, this rotation causes different motion on the sphere near the poles than it does near the equator of the sphere. If the lithosphere were to rotate around an axis over the asthenosphere, one would expect greater torque and friction between the lithosphere and asthenosphere near the poles of rotation than further away from the poles. The concept of evenly displacing the jig-saw puzzle disappears when one considers the jig-saw puzzle on a sphere rather than on a plane. Assuming ECD takes place, it seems logical that near the poles of rotation there should have been some form of increased geologic activity, such as faulting or volcanism, due to increased friction between the lithosphere and asthenosphere. However, neither Hancock nor Hapgood ever cover this point.

A final nail in the casket for ECD might very well be the existence of hot spots, which are areas of “volcanic eruptions and high heat above a rising mantle plume” (Plummer, 1996, p. 521). Yellowstone National Park, for example, sits on one such hot spot. Since the existence of a hot spot rests upon presence of a mantle plume, ECD would cause a dramatic shift in the locations of such hot spots. However, since evidence shows Yellowstone to be a very old hot spot, this weakens the possibility of such a shift due to ECD occurring.

Earth Crust Displacement appears to be unable to answer important geologic questions, and indeed, it seems to go against accepted geologic knowledge. Once the evidence is considered, Graham Hancock’s claim that ECD is compatible with plate tectonics no longer seems viable. Not only is Hapgood’s ECD theory lacking supporting geologic evidence, it actually contradicts tested geologic concepts.

Contemplating the Results

After completing an analysis of Hapgood’s theory, ECD doesn’t seem to present a compelling argument. Its evidence can often be ignored, because it is simply wrong. The theory itself is not well thought-out: it fails to answer numerous geologic questions. Even proposing the theory is a logical leap of faith: moving from old world maps to a theory that Antarctica was located 30 degrees further north about 12,000 years ago has no logical basis. Hancock commits another logical fallacy by claiming ECD is correct because certain other possibilities seem absurd: “Are we therefore to assume the intervention of alien cartographers […] Or shall we think again about the implications of Hapgood’s theory […]?” (Hancock, 1995, p. 19) Hancock just presents us with two equally absurd possibilities.

It is also important to critically analyze what is being said and by whom. Hapgood was a historian, not a geologist, and Hancock is a writer with no credentials in cartography, archaeology, or geology. It is then no wonder that for so long ECD has been ignored by the scientific community. At the same time, however, there is definitely the need for science to stay open to new ideas. There are basically two views of how science progresses: either “through the gradual accumulation of discoveries and inventions” (Hallam, 1973, p. 106) or by paradigm replacement: the replacement of one world view with that of another. In a way, global plate tectonics seemed to be a new paradigm when it was brought forth. In retrospect, it seems only natural that it grew out of continental drift and sea-floor spreading. This revolution in scientific thought, just like that of Einstein’s Relativity, should reinforce the dangers of orthodoxy and dogma in science and the need to consider the method of multiple working hypotheses. Science is empirical: its theories are dependent upon gathered evidence: not the other way around.

In the case of Hancock’s book, perhaps more research needs to be done. Perhaps most geologists agree that Antarctica has been ice-covered for millions of year, but what if there is irrefutable evidence showing the presence of rivers in Antarctica a mere 6,000 years ago? Can they be explained by some sort of interglacial period, or is it necessary to rethink out ideas about Antarctica? Although Earth Crust Displacement seems non-viable, it still raises interesting question for geology and other fields.

Hancock ends Fingerprints of the Gods with a warning of impending worldwide destruction and a second occurrence of Earth Crust Displacement. Indeed, his arguments are no more novel than those of the Neptunists and Catastrophists in the past. We may remain unconvinced by his theories, but at the same time, we have not actually found alternative answers to his questions. Perhaps someday there will be a newer, better theory to explain Hapgood’s ancient maps and truth about Atlantis. Until then, however, all we can do think critically about what we learn, ask questions, and ponder these mysteries whose answers have eluded humans for ages.


Works Consulted

Carey, S. Warren. (1988). Theories of the Earth and Universe: A History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Donelley, Ignatius. (1949). Atlantis: The Antediluvian World. New York: Gramercy Publishing Company.

Dyson, James L. (1963). The World of Ice. New York: Alfred A Knopf.

Hallam, Anthony. (1973). A Revolution in the Earth Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hancock, Graham. (1995). Fingerprints of the Gods. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc.

Hapgood, Charles H. (1958). Earth’s Shifting Crust: A Key to Some Basic Problems of Earth Science. New York: Pantheon Books.

Heinrich, Paul. (1996). The Mysterious Origins of Man: The Oroteus Finaeus Map of 1532. (accessible from http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/mom/oronteus.html).

Heinrich, Paul. (1996). The Mysterious Origins of Man: Atlantis, Mammoths, and Crustal Shift. (accessible from http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/mom/atlantis.html).

Heinrich, Paul. (1996). Fingerprints of the [sic] God. A Review. (accessible from http://goliath.inrs-ener.uquebec.ca/~paynter/paynter/toolkit/fingers.html).

LeGrand, H.E. (1988). Drifting Continents and Shifting Theories. Cambridge: Caimbridge University Press.

Lunde, P. (Jan-Feb, 1980). “The Oronteus Finaus Map.” Aramco World Magazine. (accessible from http://www.millersv.edu/~columbus/h-l.html, under LUNDE02 ART).

Marvin, Ursula B. (1973). Continental Drift: The Evolution of a Concept. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Plummer, Charles C. and David McGeary. (1996). Physical Geology. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.

Wilford, John Noble. (1981). The Map Makers. New York: Alfred A Knopf.

This entry was posted in Charles H. Hapgood, Earth Crust Displacement, Graham Hancock, pole shift, real science, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Hapgood’s Theory of Earth Crust Displacement

  1. Mark Smith says:

    I just finished reading fingerprints of the Gods. I love your refutation here. When he tries to match up ECD with the ancient myths of deluge, it seems to me that none of them mention massive geological upheaval, which I assume is what would have been felt globally. It seems more likely to me that whatever the cause of this flood, most people would have lost their lives as they would have lived coastaly or on low lying plains much as we do now.

    FPOTG offers a unique insight and I do agree with Hancock that we should not ignore potential evidence just because it comes from myth. However, if what he proposes actually happens, I’m not sure I would want myself or my family to survive it. The aftermath would be a world of pure barbarism.

  2. Nels says:

    Personally, I found the Charlie Frost videos to be entertaining in a silly kind of way. I suppose the presentation could be convincing to those who aren’t really paying attention… It reminded me of the kinds of people you hear on Art Bell’s radio show.

    Of course I also Googled the whole mess (finding you in the process) just to be sure there was nothing to it. :o) What is it about doomsday scenarios that we as human beings find so fascinating?

  3. kyle says:

    The case laid out above against Hapgood’s crust displacement theory makes some good point, but is somewhat disingenuous. First of all, Mr Krause will be well aware that the theory itself has nothing to do with Graham Hancock – he merely summarised Hapgood’s work, like a journalist. Hancock has confirmed this himself. Krause implies that it is a joint theory to discredit Hapgood by associating him with an “alternative” writer like Hancock – although Hancock has done some fantastic primary research of his own (see Underworld). The is a common trick used by unscrupulous commentators to discredit radical theories by association. Secondly, he barely cites the actual book at all (Hapgood’s Path of the Pole), but instead makes reference to Hapgood’s other book, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, which does NOT purport to provide real evidence of crustal shift. Hapgood’s main (very extensive) body evidence for Earth Crust Displacement does not include his work on Antarctican maps at all, and Krause knows this, but is again misleading his readers.
    This is not the place to counter Krause’s argument in detail, but I would urge reader to READ HAPGOOD’S PATH OF THE POLE, and ignore the web spin-doctor’s (or should that be web-spinners?!) misleading analyses of it.

  4. andychrome says:

    kyle is spewing exactly the kind of non-empirical rubbish that allows people to believe the Bush administration when they said climate change wasn’t real or when school districts refuse to teach evolution without also teaching creationism. Nothing less than the downfall of rational thought. An idea that scientific theory is nothing more than an opinion that can be easily dismissed. (Like when Hancock says radiocarbon dating is an “opinion”…)

    Understand what it takes to prove something within the scientific community. You can’t, as Hancock often does, explain first that you don’t understand something and then invent a half-baked idea to explain it with no basis in testable scientific method. And then you certainly shouldn’t be offended when the scientific community doesn’t take you seriously, or wonder why no scientist bothers to take the time to publish why you are wrong. Science is full of new ideas too… there isn’t some “mainstream” community shunning new ideas. On the contrary, scientists delight in hearing new things and then trying to prove them wrong. You don’t really find this in Hapgood or Hancock because they never published anything. Nothing in a scientific journal that is. Books geared toward new-agers don’t count.

    In case anyone wants to read it, here is a link to an ACTUAL GEOLOGIST refuting some of Hancock’s and Hapgood’s claims. Good stuff, and kyle, I would love to read how you refute this.

    http://members.cox.net/pyrophyllite/wildside.shtml

  5. Elena says:

    I agree that the movie has some flaws, even the title(the so-called mayan prophecy) didn’t really had any relevance to the story of the movie besides a few lines mentioned by a few characters. But I find it silly that people argue over a hollywood movie. Come on guys, it’s just fiction…for entertainment. Don’t take it seriously.

    Oh wait, don’t tell me you’re the same people who argued about Priory of Scion and Opus Dei in Da Vinci Code and Iluminati in Angels in Demons? In that case I suppose the next topic would be New Moon…lol. Fact: Vampires doesn’t exists but Dracula has…. not as a vampire but as a romanian feudal lord.

    The point is if you’re really a mature person, you wouldn’t believe easily in what you see in movies. Only children do that.

  6. Bwebmasta says:

    #6 is the best comment here as of yet.

  7. Ben says:

    Hi, have just seen your video and I do agree that the 2012 theory is being pushed by certain organisations to exact some sort of agenda, can you tell me your views on why mammoths were found in Sibera, some with food still in their mouths and undigested food in their stomachs, if not a sudden pole shift, what else could have caused this?

  8. JD says:

    Having studied Mr. Hapgood’s theories on polar drift and polar shift and being a non brain trust of our society (but slightly scholarly), I could offer some something to support an alternative way for ECD…but life’s too short.

    I agree with #7…6 is the best comment (I did say I’m not a brain trust)

  9. DDtrik says:

    Wow!!! Well friends, I am neither a scholar or formally educated but by life experiences and some collage but I do believe in intelligent design and a god like entity ( Aliens perhaps? ). I’ll go out on a limb and say were pretty much all on the same page that EDC in theory should be taken into consideration as a true geological phenomenon; but what the real argument should be is in what speed it takes place and if this phenomenon could accelerate due to outside forces such as solar flares emitting radiation or Perhaps the displacement of heavy loads of land mass; such as the ice caps melting away leaving room for the polar land masses to rebound. This could possibly allow for the earth’s crust to move at rate that could not be calculated by science.
    Answer #6 is right on point….
    And the crazies running around holding the ” END IS NEAR ” signs, well, what a hoot it would be if they were right all along.
    I say this to you, the scientist’s and theorist’s keep digging, leave no stone unturned… You are humanities true hero’s…BUT…

    Has anyone taking into consideration that since the earth spins at such a high rate of speed that the molten core might actually be spinning right along with as well? after all lava is a heavy plastic fluid and if you were to fill a glass ball fill it with a heavy plastic fluid such as motor oil and spin in the effect will be that the oil would gravitate to the center walls of the ball and spin along with but at a slower speed…. HA!
    As the earth spins the lava eats away at the layers of the plates, the plates fall causing the shifts ( Tsunamis anyone? ), the mass of lava builds causing pressure, the pressure releases in volcanic activity and the process repeats….
    So EDC is a formidable theory after all !!!

  10. Pingback: cheaper than hysteria | walls of the city

  11. Jeffery says:

    Whoosh!! I have to admit that the looming advent of 12/21/12 and the Hollywood versions that have come frothing and raving forth has brought me continuously to the Google search engine! That said, having lived in southern California 10 years in my early youth (and having lived through the San Francisco quake of 1989), I take a much more cautious approach when it comes to ANY theory, however absurd in the logical sense, about anything involving massive earthquakes and tsunamis! I was very pleased (and I must admit much more reassured) happening upon your result to my search! What does it say about humanity that we must probe constantly upon our most primal emotions? Simply said, we “love to be frightened” (so long as everything turns out all right at the end!) Just as in movies like Hallowe’en or 2012, as long as SOMEONE survives we can sleep at night (smile) I will have to look for Fingerprint of the Gods and read the book, but I will feel better knowing that it is already “debunked”. Thank You!

  12. Terry says:

    For God sake dude, its just a movie. I was amazed when i read your blog. I cant believe you took it seriously.

    Anyway, everyone knows the end will occur on June 22nd 2022 when that peanut shaped comet the size of New York smacks into the planet at 50,000 MPH. That should heat up the earths crust and then some!

    I should know, Im helping to build one of the spacehips to escape it.

  13. Ali Adams says:

    2012: 31 4-day Meteorite Showers

    Prime numbers are used for secret writings (cryptography) and God uses them in the Quran to hide secret messages behind the main text. God even gave us a chapter called The Key that has 7 verses, 29 words, and 139 letters. All are prime numbers and even 729139 and 139297 are primes too.

    The Quran contains all past, present, and future knowledge and God has showed us a link to year 2012 (1433 Islamic year) in chapter #55 that has 31 repetitions of the verse:

    فَبِأَىِّ ءَالَآءِ رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ
    Then which of the bounties of your Lord do you both (Man and Jinn) still belie?

    at verse numbers:

    13, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77

    The sum of these verse numbers is 1433 which is a prime number too but more importantly as we are now in the Islamic year 1431 (2012), God could be pointing to the Islamic year 1433 (2012)?

    And YES indeed God is pointing at an Islamic year because the chapter has exactly 355 words which is the same as the number of days in an Islamic year (lunar calendar)!

    Each word maps to a day in the Islamic year 1433 and because the above verse has 4 words (“Fabiayee aalaee Rabbikumaa tukathibaan?”) and is repeated 31 times, then we should watch out for 31 events each lasting 4 days in 2012.

    If the events are meteorite showers then it is easy to find the locations since each shower lasts 4 days, then it will sweep the Earth along a complete latitude 4 times while the Earth spins 4 times in 4 days.

    So which latitudes? God provided us with 31 numbers that sit exactly in the middle of the range 0 to 90 suggesting that these are latitude numbers. They are the same numbers as the repeated verse numbers:

    13˚ 16˚ 18˚ 21˚ 23˚ 25˚ 28˚ 30˚ 32˚ 34˚ 36˚ 38˚ 40˚ 42˚ 45˚ 47˚ 49˚ 51˚ 53˚ 55˚ 57˚ 59˚ 61˚ 63˚ 65˚ 67˚ 69˚ 71˚ 73˚ 75˚ 77˚
    [from 0 to 13 = from 77 to 90]

    The first event of latitude 13˚ will happen on the 44th day of the Islamic year 1433 which maps to 2012-01-07 and the last event will happen on the 349th day of 1433AH which maps to 2012-Nov-07.

    And God knows best and controls everything in real time.

    Ali Adams
    God > infinity
    http://www.heliwave.com heliwave@yahoo.com

  14. Joe says:

    @kyle and pertaining comments…

    I thought kyle’s comment was well put and insightful. He is obviously familiar with and has actually read Hapgood’s work and thus can knowledgeably assert that his theories are investigative, empirically backed, and by no means put forth as a necessary fact.. only an alternative theory (It seems this blog author and andychrome like to respond without ever having read the work!). I would also like everyone to know and keep in mind that Charles Hapgood lived and put forth his theory almost a century ago. He was not a geologist, as everyone seems to love to point out, but have you looked at what he was? The man studied at Harvard obtaining a degree in medieval and modern history; he taught for most of his life and even held positions with an early pre-cursor to the Central Intelligence Agency and a few other positions with the US government. Later in his life he lectured in Universities on such topics as anthropology and the history of science (among other topics) which I would say are highly relevant to the theory he puts forth… the problem is not by any means purely a geological question. In his book Earth’s Shifting Crust: A Key to Some Basic Problems of Earth Science (1958, foreword by Albert Einstein), he lays out his theory in great detail examining ECD where he actually does address directly the problems isostacy, plate tectonics, mountain formation, etc.

    Before you all run off commenting on something you heard of through cheap hollywood movies and a reference made by an alternative author such as Hancock, READ Hapgood’s work, realize it was a long time ago and needs to be reexamined in light of more modern evidence, and realize that we know very little about how the earth was formed, what it’s really like deep inside, how it changed over vast geological periods in the past, and where it’s going. Hapgood’s work is interesting, fresh, well laid out, and deserves more credit as at least an original, viable theory that maye have some nuggets of truth or even just raise some intruiging questions we should be investigating…. not passionately demonizing!

    Everything deserves an honest look…

    “Of those qualities on which civilization depends, next after courage, it seems to me, comes an open mind, and, indeed, the highest courage is, as Holmes used to say, to stake your all upon a conclusion which you are aware tomorrow may prove false”
    – Irving Dillard

    as Dan Brown says in his new book… google is not synonymous with research! haha

    Keep reading!

  15. JohnPod says:

    I just finished reading Fingertips, and I found it quite interesting. I also see some humility in Hancock, in that he does not seem to be preaching, but merely trying to bring certain information to the conversation that seems to be important but not discussed. Good for him, I hope he continues his work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>