Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Messages from Michael L. Morton

Geographic North Pole ..




 In "Whispers From Time" (Volumes 1 and 2), Munck discusses the most recent
 geographic polar displacements on Earth. I told you how he says that
 The Akapana Pyramid in Tiahuanaco (South America) is now on the same
 longitude as the current location of the 'former' (last previous) north 
geographic
 pole. He also says .. that if you draw a straight arc-circle from the center 
of
 The Cholula Pyramid of Mexico .. to Akpatok Island (which is at exactly 60 
deg
 North Lat, at The Akapana Pyramid longitude), that such an arc-circle passes
 directly through the center of Monks' Mound at Cahokia, Illinois !!
 And; both Monks' Mound and The Cholula Pyramid have 4 terraces .. 
 the logic being that they are (together) 'marking' the location of the "4th 
World"
 (matrix) spoken-of by several native tribes .. relative-to .. the current 
surface
 location of the "3rd World" geographic north pole.
 ALSO ... the azimuth of that line (arc-circle) from The Cholula Pyramid, 
through
 Monks' Mound, and on to the Akpatok Island site .. is 16 degrees. That 
number ..
 "16" ... matches the total number of 90-degree corners (16) on The Akapana
 Pyramid itself. Actually .. I need to say; Munck states that the azimuth 
(just
 mentioned) is 17 degrees. I disagree. I'll show you why I disagree, in a 
minute.
 I think it is a 16 deg azimuth.

 Here is an equation I just found. These Grid POINT Values are Munck's.
 But; I discovered how these values relate to this subject-at-hand.

 Take the Grid POINT Values of The Akapana Pyramid (18.23781305),
 The Cholula Pyramid (13.15947253), Monks' Mound (1.047197551), and
 the site at Akpatok Island (1375.098708) ... and multiply them ...
 
 18.23781305  X  13.15947253  X  1.047197551  X  1375.098708 ...
 =  345600.

 Now .. what is the subject (common denominator) of this particular inquiry ? 
 
 The geographic north pole.  A number relating to the poles of Earth ?  
 Its polar circumference .. of .. 21600 nautical miles.  What is the Grid 
POINT 
 Value I found for POLARIS ? 21.6 ... so .. I tried dividing by the 21600 
figure ...
 345600 / 21600  =  16 .. the azimuth (deg) from the center of The Cholula
 Pyramid, through Monks' Mound, straight-on to the 'former' geographic north 
pole !!!

 And .. 16 total corners on The Akapana Pyramid (of 90-degrees each) !!

 ALSO ... the orientation of The Akapana Pyramid appears to be (to me) ..
 offset by 13.15947253 deg west of north. That's the Grid POINT Value of The
 Cholula Pyramid !!!  AND .. that's the azimuth I am proposing .. from the 
Apex
 of 'The D&M Pyramid' to the Nose on 'The Face' .. at Cydonia !!!  PLUS ... 
 'The Face' is oriented west of north by 30 degrees ... matching the 
displacement
 of the former geographic north pole on Earth .. along the meridian of 
longitude
 it now shares with The Akapana Pyramid !!

 To me ... this confirms that we have found the current location of the last
 geographic north pole !!!  And ... that the_Earth_itself actually 'turned', 
BUT;
 the actual *pole* retained its rotational axis_direction_relative to our 
ecliptic.
 And; this was not a "crustal displacement". The Earth's angle-of-inclination
 to our ecliptic must have ended-up essentially the same, as prior to the 
shift.  

 There was some significant sliding of the ice pack, when the net-30 degrees
 of turning of the Earth (displacement) suddenly stopped. The terrain of such 
 areas as southern New England, and Long Island (NY), bear strong witness to
 that. But .. the crust did not slide. The ice re-formed; centered at the new 
surface
 location of the pole, and the ice melted in the areas south_and_southwest of
 the new surface-location of the *former* geographic north pole. That melting 
ice
 and snow would have formed the fresh-water Great Lakes.

 Munck says he studied the geological literature on the subject a number
 of years ago ... and that it is (that literature) basically true, but ..
 that his analysis of these particular pyramids' locations, relative to one 
another,
 'pinpoints' the geographical poles' (north) locations. My equation (see 
above),
 seems to confirm his analysis as correct (involving the number "16", etc.).
 The geological literature was not 'accurate' at all .. partly because of the
 magnetic-north deviations being very tricky to locate by the 
state-of-the-science
 at that time.

                                    ADDENDUM

 I have now visualized a scenario that would fit-in with 'the above', 
regarding
 the directional location of Earth's axis (of rotation), and also Earth's 
angle-of- 
 inclination (obliquity) to our ecliptic.

 I do think that even as Earth itself 'turned' .. such that its geographic 
north
 pole ended-up displaced by 30 degrees .. toward the equator along the 
longitude
 meridian which it shares, today, with The Akapana Pyramid at Tiahuanaco
 in South America .. the actual geographic *pole* of 
Earth_remained_essentially
 unchanged. In other words, even as the shift happened, the directional 
location
 and the angle-of-inclination (relative to our ecliptic) of_the pole_ 
remained constant.
 So ; the new poles essentially "took-up the same positions", relative to our 
 ecliptic, as the old poles. However, Earth itself turned a net 30 degrees ..
 along the meridian shared now by the 'current location' of the former 
geographic
 north pole, and The Akapana Pyramid at Tiahuanaco.     

 So; there was a catastrophic 'dynamic tension' .. a "battle" .. a "refusal" 
by
 the actual geographic pole of Earth .. to "go-along-with" the net 'turning'
 (involving catastrophic "torque" dynamics) and the net-displacement, of the
 former north pole surface-location by 30 degrees along that_ 
particular_longitude. 

 The equatorial bulge, and the flattening-at-poles, would have shifted to new
 surface-locations .. causing various catastrophic "earth changes" .. 
in-addition
 to the havoc wrought by the relatively-sudden 'Earth-turning' itself. 
 But ... Earth's polar axis would have_ended-up_in the same directional 
orientation,
 and at the same angle-of-inclination .. relative to our ecliptic.

 This would allow for a relatively consistent 'average rate-of-movement', 
long-term,
 for both precession and obliquity !!     
 
 This also implies .. that the "Zep-Tepi" orientations .. circa 10500 B.C.,
 (or 'exactly' 10,592 B.C. according to my calculations involving 2368 A.D.
 as the 'actual' beginning of Aquarius) ... were made AFTER the polar-shift 
.. 
 to specifically "relate" to circa 2000 A.D. as 180 degrees of precession 
'from'
 the 10,960 B.C. polar-shift. 

 So; of course, the net_results_of that last polar-shift ... 12960 years ago
 (exactly HALF a precession cycle ago from 'now', circa 2000 A.D.) ...
 determined the orientations that we are now assessing .. in terms of what the
 precise "circa 2000 A.D." pyramid locations (and star-positions, crop 
formation
 locations, etc.) are showing us .. i.e. .. these very precise, consistent, 
redundant
 correlations.

-- Michael Lawrence Morton (c) 2000 

-- Michael Lawrence Morton
http://www.farshore.force9.co.uk/mlmindex.htm
http://www.greatdreams.com/gem1.htm
http://mission-ignition.tripod.com