The Gizars have been out in force this week combing through the internet, and that's certainly true with today's offering spotted and shared by M.S. (with a big thank you). And this one is a whopper doozie, being nothing less than an article from The Journal of Scientific Exploration by Dr. Mark Carlotto, which correlates the location of certain ancient and megalithic sites to poles that have since shifted.
If that seems highly significant, it is, the much more so because of the man who authored the article, Dr. Carlotto. Many Gizars will already be familiar with that name, but many may not recognize it, so a brief review of Dr. Carlotto is in order. Dr Carlotto was involved early on - ca. the 1980s - in pioneering computer analysis of digitized photographs, and actually authored the algorithms of some of the computer analysis programs for photographs both for the American military and for its space program. As such, Dr. Mark Carlotto was brought into the analysis of the Viking photographs of the "Face on Mars" and the surrounding area of Cydonia on Mars by Richard C. Hoagland back during the days of his earliest analysis of those anomalies. Carlotto thus formed a part of Hoagland's "Mars Mission" team back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, along with a host of other scientists, anthropologists, artists, and so on, before Hoagland's "Mars Mission" morphed into his current website, enterprisemission.com. Carlotto went on to offer his own theories on the Martian anomalies, authoring a book and several articles on the topic, and concluding on the basis of astronomical alignments that whatever disaster as befell Mars and the Cydonia region may have occurred ca. 650,ooo years ago.
So when Dr. Carlotto offers a theory with combines "pole shifts" with alignments of ancient megalithic sites on Earth, I sit up and take notice:
This article is, as one can gain from a cursory reading, full of detailed technical and mathematical argument, but the abstract of the article sums up the argument:
Abstract—In a previous study of more than two hundred ancient sites, the alignments of almost half of the sites could not be explained. These sites are distributed throughout the world and include the majority of Mesoamerican pyramids and temples that are misaligned with respect to true north, megalithic structures at several sites in Peru’s Sacred Valley, some pyramids in Lower Egypt, and numerous temples in Upper Egypt. A new model is proposed to account for the alignment of certain unexplained sites based on an application of Charles Hapgood’s hypothesis that global patterns of climate change over the past 100,000 years could be the result of displacements of the Earth’s crust and corresponding shifts of the geographic poles. It is shown that more than 80% of the unexplained sites reference four locations within 30° of the North Pole that are correlated with Hapgood’s hypothesized pole locations. The alignments of these sites are consistent with the hypothesis that if they were built in alignment with one of these former poles they would be mis-aligned to north as they are now as the result of subsequent geographic pole shifts.
Now there is an implication here for my own work, one which contra-indicates some assumptions that are implied in my Great Pyramid weapon hypothesis. Consider the following table from Carlotto's article. On page 216 of the article, Dr. Carlotto notes that several Egyptian sites, including the major pyramids of the Giza Compound, are exactly aligned to the cardinal compass points as currently exist, and not to a previous cardinal north pole. In other words, they were constructed after the previously hypothesized crustal displacement as advocated by Charles Hapgood, which took place ca. 100,000 years ago. While it is certainly true that I did not couple the Pyramid weapon hypothesis to any particular date, I have strongly implied that (1) it was built long before the beginnings of the Egyptian era, and (2) that is may be far older than anyone really knows, and (3) it, or something like it, may have been involved in "the cosmic war" which may have occurred some 3.2 million years ago (see my The Cosmic War: Modern Physics, Interplanetary Warfare, and Ancient Texts). It should also be noted that Carlotto's hypothesis does not contraindicate Christopher Dunn's hypothesis that the Great Pyramid was a machine, for Mr. Dunn did not attempt to place his hypothesis within any broader model of any major historical or chronological revision.
What is also intriguing about Carlotto's table is that it is clear that the basis for the alignments of some sites is different. Some sites - like many of the Egyptian sites - appear to be aligned to the currently existing cardinal compass points. Others are aligned to stellar positions, lunar standstills, and so on. Some, as Carlotto also observes, seem to have no currently recognized basis of alignment.
Interestingly enough, one of the alternative researchers into the subject of megalithic alignments that Carlotto does not mention is Carl Munck, whose work I reviewed in my book Grid of the Gods.
What appears to emerge from all of this is that Dr. Carlotto, at the minimum, has considerably increased the mystery surrounding these ancient sites. Clearly, like Munck, he is implying that the orientation of these sites was not accidental, but served some sort of scientific purpose, and that implies a science to create the alignments that are there. It also implies the possibility that all these projects may have been massively coordinated not only over a wide area of the Earth but over a considerable time as well.
At this juncture, it appears that we're all "back to the drawing board," and in that spirit, I offer a bit of (very) high octane speculation. And that speculation is prefaced by my own personal skepticism of many years about Charles Hapgood's crustal displacement hypothesis. I have never bought into it, for it implies a radically different geophysics than that of the standard model. On Hapgood's view, the Earth's crust "floats" on everything else, and under the right circumstances, might "slip" like the rind of an orange slipping over the rest of the orange. It's a model attractive to some catastrophists, as a sudden "slippage" of that nature would cause all manner of havoc and destruction, from floods to earthquakes to volcanism, and massive topographic changes. In my "weapon hypothesis", I argued that whatever weapon as might have been used in that great "cosmic war" was a weapon that weaponized the fabric of space-time itself, and as such, could perhaps be used precisely to cause that sort of massive geophysical disturbance.
But for the moment, I remain skeptical of Hapgood's idea.
Or to put it country simple, we're still "missing something."
See you on the flip side...