On critic of the documentary MYSTERIOUS ORIGINS OF MAN
                            has written:   "If he [Rand] had taken the time to do any real literature
                            review at he would have found that the beech trees are at least, three million
                            years old, if not older."

                    We know perfectly well that the Antarctic beech trees are from two to
                    three million years old.  The point that was being made was that plate
                    tectonics, as a theory, was incapable of explaining the existence of this
                    forest so close to  the South Pole a mere two to three million years ago.
                    This is not to say that plate tectonics is wrong: it is simply insufficient
                    on its own to account for these facts. At the slow pace of change
                    demanded by plate tectonics the beech trees would have to be many
                    millions (not just 2 or 3 million) of years old to be 200 miles from the
                    South Pole.  In other words, to account for the beech forest on Antarctica
                    we need another whole Earth theory to explain the facts.  Earth crust
                    displacement is a complementary whole earth theory to plate tectonics
                    that can account for these facts. We are not disputing the power of  the
                    plate tectonic theory:  we are simply adding another set of lens with
                    which the past might be viewed.

                    It has been recently discovered that the earth's core rotates faster than the crust.
                    Would not this be an alternative for the Hapgood hypothesis of a movement of
                    the earth's crust?  The result for the shift of position of the continents with respect
                    to the earth's axis would be the same. From a mechanical point of view this seems
                    to be more credible than passing through enormous forces through a relatively thin
                    eart's crust.

                    Yes - this is a real possibility and something which I have been spending
                    quite a bit of time working on.  On the plus side, as you mentioned, the
                    mechanics are entirely plausible and it would explain the RAPID changes
                    we see in: extinctions, falling-sky-deluge myths, ocean level fluctuations and
                    the sudden rise of agriculture around 9600 BC.  On the negative side,
                    we have the problem of how to stop the mantle from moving once it starts.
                    With a crustal  displacement, the planet’s equatorial bulge acts as a "brake"
                    to halt the process.  What  would stop the mantle from continually displacing
                    once it got started?  Perhaps it is the immense pressures at that deepth – I’m
                    not sure.  It’s an interesting problem which takesus to the frontier of geological
                    thought.  It’s a pity there aren’t more geologists seriously considering this
                    problem.

                    I'm a geology student at the university of Durham I know that this will be a suprise
                    a geologist believing that you could be on to some thing. But I need to know about y
                    our beliefs on the ice cap that covered Scandanavia, Scotland and northern england
                    around 10,000 years ago this evidence is established and I have seen it with my own
                    eyes. On the workings of climate:  you have to remember the climate is an engine
                    fueled by the sun which drives three differing parts the atmosphere, the hydrosphere
                    and the lithosphere these run on differant time scales and inter react with each other
                    (see new views on an old planet). Another thing that bothers me is the amount of
                    friction caused by the lithosphere sliding on the 'partialy molten asthenosphere' the
                    asthenosphere is only 6-8% molten and is belived to react like putty flows under
                    gental pressure but under quick strong pressure is brittel. I personaly do not see the
                    need for the crust to slide it is much more believable that the Earth I self could tip on
                    its axis of  rotation which would in all give it the net effect of what you describe. There
                    are some mechanisums for this such as the earths magnetosphere which periodicaly
                    changes polarity and position. What if the magnetosphere interacts with the solar
                    wind or with the rotation of the earth itself to change the latadueds of the earth.
                    P.S  I loved your book!

                Thank you for your comments.  We cite evidence from Norway and Scotland
                that show that these areas were ice-free prior to 12,000 years ago.  We agree
                that they were once under ice but at a much older date than the ice cap that
                covered most of North America.  The Scandinavian and Scottish glaciation
                in our view came about between 91,600 and 50,600 years ago when the
                North Pole was centered in the Greenland Sea.  (see Chapter Six of
                When the Sky Fell).

                If you read the comments on this quest page (especially under the Hawaiian
                Hot Spot section) you will see that I now favor a displacement of the mantle
                rather than the crust so the issue of the viscosity of the lithosphere becomes
                mute.  Neither Hapgood or Einsten  believed that the whole axis shifted but
                others disagree.  I believe that a mantle displacement can account for more f
                acts than either a crustal or an axis shift.

                It is nice to know that some geology students are at least considering
                alternative paradigms and I congratulate you.

                [It has been argued that in 1953 Albert Einstein didn’t have access to all the
                knowledge that we have today so therefore his support for Hapgood’s theory is  no l
                onger relevant].

                Albert Einstein’s support for Charles Hapgood has always been a problem
                for those who are dogmatically opposed to the theory of earth crust
                displacement. The evidence that Einstein speaks of in his letter to Hapgood
                covered a wide range of topics.  I have read the 179 pages of correspondence
                between the two men which took place over a period of two and a half years.

                While it is true that since Einstein’s death we have learned a great deal more
                about the topics that are covered in this correspondence it also true that some
                very fundamental facts remain the same today as they were in 1953. (Moreover,
                much of the evidence brought to light in subsequent years support the claims
                that Hapgood was making.  I can only urge the reader to judge this case
                objectively by reviewing the evidence that we put forward in When the Sky Fell.)
                The fact that Greater Antarctica is a polar desert yet is home to the largest
                ice sheet on our planet was as true in 1953 as it is today. The fact that Lesser
                Antarctica has a very shallow ice sheet despite the fact that it receives the
                bulk of the annual snowfall on the continent is as true today as it was in 1953.
                Clearly, the present is not the key to the past on this problem.  Albert Einstein’s
                support for earth crust displacement was based upon his argument that
                "…the gradualist notions common in geology were … merely a habit of
                mind, and were not necessarily justified by the empirical data."
                (see page 3 of When the Sky Fell). 

                Speaking of the evidence that was presented to him, Einstein wrote:

                 "A great many empirical data indicate that at each point of the earth’s
                surface that has been carefully studied, many climatic changes have taken
                place, apparently quite suddenly."

                The evidence that Einstein had at his command included simple logical
                points.  If  Siberia was warm (see below) and became cold at the same
                time that North America went from being cold to warm then a common
                explanation was needed.  Likewise, the development of new ice on Lesser
                Antarctica at the same time that ice was melting on North America points
                logically to a common cause.  These points of logic remains as valid today
                as they were in 1953.

                    At school I learned that during the last ice age the border of the ice cap reached
                    Holland.Nowadays,according to your map, Holland is closer to the pole than
                    before. Why is it not covered by ice now?
 

                    My lecture at Delaware only covered the last earth crust displacement.
                    In When the Sky Fell  (Dutch title is ATLANTIS WERELD ONDER IJS)
                    we trace the impact of three displacements.  Holland would have been within
                    the Arctic Circle in the time period before the age of Atlantis when the
                    pole (crust moves not axis) was near the Greenland Sea (see page 90 of the
                    Dutch edition).

                    Your theory is very interesting. But there is one thing I don't understand. I know
                    that about 10000 years ago Northern Europe was totally covered by ice. Alps,
                    where I live, were covered too.  Now, if North Pole were located in Hudson Bay,
                    Northern Europe should have been warmer (because distance from the Pole were
                    much longer). Do you have an explanation for this?

                    (See response above) We cite evidence from Norway and Scotland that
                    show that these areas  were ice-free prior to 12,000 years ago.  We agree
                    that they were once under ice but at a much older date than the ice cap
                    that covered most of North America. The Scandinavian and Scottish
                    glaciation in our view came about between 91,600 and 50,600 years ago
                    when the North Pole  was centered in the Greenland Sea.
                    (see Chapter Six of When the Sky Fell).

                        What forces would combine to break the earth's crust free of the
                        underlying mantle?

                    In When the Sky Fell (Chapter Four "Why the Sky Fell")  we review
                    Hapgood’s adoption of the idea that the weight of the ice caps positioned
                    lop-sided to the Earth’s axis was ONE possible force.   We also put forward
                    two astronomical factors as additional contributing forces to the displacement
                    of 9,600 B.C.  The earth’s orbit was much more ellipitical than it is today
                    and thus the gravitational influence of the Sun would "pull" with greater
                    force at the immense (antipodal) ice sheets.  But perhaps most importantly,
                    the angle of the earth’s tilt was at its extreme of 24.4 degrees (it goes through
                    a 41,000 year cycle ranging from 22.8 to 24.4 – today we are at around 23.5
                    and DECLINING – in other words its getting SAFER).  This meant that
                    the ENTIRE earth’s mass was tilted to a greater degree.  This would add
                    momentum to the centrifugal thrust of the antipodal ice sheets.

                        [Please comment on two arguments against the crustal displacment theory]

                    1.  The evidence that the Hawaiian island chain has been positioned over a "hot spot"
                        in the mantle of the Earth continuously since well before 12000 years ago strongly
                        suggests that the crust has not shifted over the mantle during that time.

                    2. The stabilizing influence of the Earth's equatorial bulge interacting with the
                        Moon's gravity seems to be much greater a force on the crust than forces due to
                        the polar ice caps, suggesting that the  forces due to the polar ice caps are not great
                        enough to cause the crust to shift.

                1. Please see below the section called  "HAWAIIAN HOT SPOT".

                2. I have never argued that the weight of the ice sheet ALONE is sufficient
                    to account for the  displacement.  The force that may have been responsible
                    for the last displacement of the mantle is a subject that will be investigated
                    in a new book that Colin Wilson and I are currently writing.

                        The Hawaiian Island chain with its sub-crustal heat plume would seem to
                        have been subjected to a significant displacement. Perhaps the 10,000 year
                        time frame is far too short to see these changes manifest in the volcanism of
                        the area. But there is also the issue of the lack of much real inherent stability
                        to the earth's spin on its axis. A spherical top reveals this rather counterintuitive
                        situation. Could it be that the entire globe simply shifted, interior as well as crust?
 

                An abrupt displacement of the Earth’s tilt has been often sited as a possible
                explanation for the destruction of Atlantis.  Usually such theories include the
                sudden impact of an asteroid, comet or other object (a stellar fragment was
                proposed by the authors of Cataclysm!: Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catatastrophe
                in 9500 B.C. (for which I wrote an Introduction - the British version is called When
                the Earth Nearly Died) from outside our solar system.  The results would be
                sudden and dramatic. The problem is that dramatic changes in the Earth’s
                climate begin as early as 18,000 years ago and only climax at 9,600 B.C.  We
                see this as a slow build up of pressures involving the ice sheets, and astronomical
                factors.

                The Hawaiian Island chain was produced by a "hot spot" beneath the surface
                of the crust.  This poses a more serious problem for the earth crust displacement
                theory since a movement of the crust should result in the hot spot showing
                up somewhere else beneath  the earth’s crust.  It is because of this problem that
                I have considered the movement of the entire mantle as a solution.  A displacement
                of the earth’s mantle (something Hapgood was considering when he wrote his
                last letter to me in October 1982 just weeks before he died in an automobile
                accident) is a much more satisfying explanation for the rapid changes and at the
                same time they can account for the movement of the Hawaiian "hot spot" (it
                simply shifts along with the mantle).

                    It would be useful to coorelate the location of the ice cores showing very old ice with
                    data suggesting what part of the Atlantis continent might have always been ice-covered,
                    at least in the period of interest.
 

                I have more faith in the radiocarbon dates than I do in the ice core calculations
                because they are repeated across various disciplines (archaeology, anthropology,
                and geology).

                The antipodal argument from Siberia is central to our thesis.   (see more below)
                The mere fact that northern Siberia was NOT covered in ice while New York
                state (for example) was blanketed in it should make people pause to think.  But
                when we realize that antelope were roaming the New Siberian Islands at the
                same time that New England was under ice then we really should consider the
                POSSIBILITY that those areas that are EXACTLY on the opposite side of
                the planet (to Siberia) just might have experienced the same climatic conditions,
                then Lesser Antarctica as a site for Atlantis becomes a plausible idea.

                    In the Dutch paper "de Volkskrant" from 28 August '97 there was an  article c
                    laiming that three ice cores are to be bored in  the Ross sea/ice-shelf of Antarctica.
                    Apparently the intention is to determine how many millions (sic) of years ice has
                    been present on the continent. From the proposed  9600 BC shift this area wouldn't
                    have had a much warmer climate before, but what about previous shifts?

            I believe that ice core dating is dubious to say the least.  It may very well be
            accurate for up to five or six thousand years but beyond that time the global
            weather patterns are not as uniform as such dating presumes.  For example, the
            Sahara Desert which today is dry was moist and temperate prior to 5000 BC
            (when the weathering of the Sphinx occurred according to John Anthony West
            and Professor Robert Schoch).  Moreover, even one extra warm summer day
            (at any date in the past) can melt decades if not centuries of ice thereby
            destroying the accuracy of the ice core dating method.  This is a relatively new
            dating method which I believe cannot, even in principle, be a reliable means of
            dating beyond 4000 BC.  I have much more faith in radio-carbon dating because
            the evidence is consistent around the world.  The fact that Siberia had temperate
            adapted mammals (antelope, saber-toothed tigers, etc.) at the time of Atlantis
            (before 9600 BC) means that Lesser Antarctica must have been temperate
            at this time also.

                        One critic of the displacement theory wrote:

                        "There is absolutely no evidence that Siberia, northern Canada,
                        and northern Alaska suddenly became colder about 12,000 B.P.,
                        much less shifted."

                Dr. Dale R. Gutherie of the University of Alaska has written extensively
                on this topic.  Here are some quotes:

                    "When I began to study the thousands of fossils collected from
                    Alaskan Pleistocene deposits, I found that 95 percent were from
                    bison, horse, and mammoth. How could these grazing animals thrive
                    in tundra landscape?"

                 "Many forms appeared in Alaska which are not associated with
                southern grasslands: badgers (Taxidea), ferrets (Mustela), bison
                (Bison), and grama grass (Bouteloua).    Eurasiatic forms like saiga
                antelope (Saiga), horses (Equus), and lion (Panthera) were mixed with
                the North American short-faced bears (Arctodus) and camels  (Camelops).
                Other species stretch the imagination:sabertooth cats (Homotherium),
                yaks (Bos), and  bonnet-horned musk oxen (Symbos)."

                 "Neither glacial nor interglacial age Pleistocene biotic provinces
                closely match those which occurred during the Holocene."

                "The shift at the beginning of the Holocene occurred rapidly.
                Wright (1970), in a synthesis of data relating to the Central Plains,
                argued for a relatively steep gradient from about 12,000 to 11,000 B.P.
                which caused dissolution of the continent-wide boreal forest.
                Though the Holarctic climate events began earlier and continued later,
                this critical millennium was near the threshold of a major ecological change."
 

                [Source: Guthrie, R. Dale. "Mosaics, Allelochemics and Nutrients: An
                Ecological Theory of Late Pleistocene Megafaunal Extinctions", in Martin,
                Paul S. and Richard G. Klein, Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution,
                Tucson Arizona, The University of Arizona Press, 1984, pp. 259-289.]

                 In another article in the same book, the Russian zoologist, N.K. Vereshchagin,
                stated his opinion that the mammoths of Siberia:

                  "… became extinct primarily as a result of the radical reconstitution
                of climates and  landscapes in northern Eurasia at the end of the last
                glacial epoch."

                [Versehchagin, N.K. and G.F. Baryshnikov. "Quarternary Mammalian
                Extinctions in North Eurasia", in Martin, Paul S. andRichard G. Klein,
                Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, Tucson Arizona, The
                University of Arizona Press, 1984, page 492.]

                Another Russian scientist, A.P. Okladnikov:

                "…believes that the late Pleistocene fauna of northern Siberia may have
                 contained as many as eight arctic species and twenty-six southern species."

                [Source:  Graham, Russell W. and Enrnest L. Lundelius, Jr. "Coevolutionary
                Disequilibrium and Pleistocence Extinctions", in Martin, Paul S. and
                Richard G. Klein, Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, Tucson
                Arizona, The University of Arizona Press, 1984, page 237.]

                The antipodal argument from Siberia is central to our thesis.  The mere fact
            that northern Siberia was not covered in ice while New York state (for example)
            was blanketed in it should make people pause to think.  But when we realize
            that antelope were roaming the New Siberian Islands at the same time that New
            England was under ice  then we really should consider the possibilty  that those
            areas that are exactly on the opposite side of the planet (to Siberia) just might
            have experienced the same climatic conditions, then Lesser Antarctica as a site
        for Atlantis becomes a plausible idea.

                    I was fascinated by your theory, it seems feasible and would explain a lot. Even
                    if you are wrong, I think you have reinforced with me how easy it is to view
                    something from your own frame of reference, from your own experiences. I always
                    wondered how the tropics could extend so far north. It never dawned on me that
                    land might move to the tropics and then move again tens of thousands of years latter.

                Hapgood pointed out that animals in the tropics could not have survived
                if the overall drop in the world’s temperature was responsible for the ice ages.
                Moreover, we need evaporation from the tropics to produce the water vapor
                that becomes snowfall in the polar regions.  In other words, warm temperatures
                at the tropics are just as important for the creation of glaciation as are cold
                temperatures at the poles.  Earth crust displacement is a theory about the  ice
                ages that accountsfor the warm tropical temperatures.