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