Look closely at these pictures of the last ice age and ask yourself How is it possible to have

icecaps that size and shape and yet Alaska and Siberia are ice free? The western arctic did not
freeze The only possible way this can happen is if the earth was off its current axis and rotating
around a celestial pole located in Hudson’s bay. It’s not a round Ice cap its bandaid shaped. Take
a minute to examine this and then go on.
I tried to get a handle on the ice age so I looked at a map and after looking at it for a few minutes
something became abundantly obvious to me. There was no ice age! Well not in a global cooling
sense. If you examine figure 1 below you can picture a beret on a head sideways. The ice is too
far south in the US and Covers England deep into Europe. But oddly Alaska and Siberia are
Glacier free how does that work? The coldest land mass outside of Antarctica, Siberia is Glacier
free? So I stuck a dot roughly in the center of the Icecap where the North Pole would have to be,
just in central Greenland. The earth would have to have been on this axis to be in the center of
the Polar ice cap and still have Alaska and Siberia glacier free. And sometime around 5000 years
ago the “ice age ended” when the earth relocated to its present north location. It just made no
sense to have one side of the planet with an ice cap and the other ice free spinning on the North
Pole we have today. As seen in figure 2 below it’s just lop sided. On the Temperature map for
February Month in the Northern Hemisphere you can see the horizontal temperature lines are
fairly consistent east to west and the coldest by far is Siberia you would think you would get a
glacier covering the entire blue cold areas. A glacier just covering the red area makes absolutely
no sense at all. If it’s going to cool off it going to cool off globally not just over North America
and Europe. But what if we just moved the North Pole south to the center of Greenland? Now we
can freeze Europe and North America and still have Siberia and Alaska Glacier free. But the egg
shaped glacier is not possible!

Figure 1 Figure 2
Figure 3 Logical ice age but too big no good. Figure 4 this is not look right out it goes.

Figure 3 shows the normal snowfall radius for the Northern Hemisphere if it got colder you
would expect to see an ice cap this size and shape extending down to Southern United States and
covering Russia 5500 km in all directions. It makes no sense to have the ice advance some 5500
km on the western hemisphere and not even reach the coast of Siberia in the Eastern Hemisphere
with the North Pole at its current location as figure 4 shows. I’m not saying it was not colder at
that time but the earth could not have been in its current location and have an ice cap shaped like
that. If it went down 5500 km on one side it would have to go down on all sides to roughly the
same degree. The ice cap went almost to the tropic of Cancer in the western hemisphere so
likewise you would expect to see the same in the Southern Hemisphere. I’ve seen reports on the
temperatures of Greenland and how it’s warming up and the glacier melting that would make
sense if the whole Island suddenly moved south but it’s more likely the pole shifted, by that I
mean the whole earth’s axis where the North Pole is today had to have been a relatively new
position for it. So that Europe and North America were much farther north than they are today
and Siberia and Alaska were further south. (but that is not possible to have both north America
and Europe further north at the same time is it? So stands to reason that they were further north
at different times. So that when Europe was centered on the North Pole, North America had to be
much further south and vice versa.) With my model I can’t even keep the entire Arctic Ocean
frozen let alone glaciate it. But after doing some research I surprised myself.

The last glaciation centered on the huge ice sheets of North America and Eurasia. Considerable
areas in the Alps, the Himalaya and the Andes were ice-covered, and Antarctica remained
glaciated.

Canada was nearly completely covered by ice, as well as the northern part of the USA, both
blanketed by the huge Laurentide ice sheet. Alaska remained mostly ice free due to arid
climate conditions. Local glaciations existed in the Rocky Mountains and the Cordilleran ice
sheet and as ice fields and ice caps in the Sierra Nevada in northern California. In Britain,
mainland Europe, and northwestern Asia, the Scandinavian ice sheet once again reached the
northern parts of the British Isles, Germany, Poland, and Russia, extending as far east as the
Taimyr Peninsula in western Siberia. Maximum extent of western Siberian glaciation was
approximately 18,000 to 17,000 BP and thus later than in Europe (22,000–18,000 BP).
Northeastern Siberia was not covered by a continental-scale ice sheet. Instead, large, but
restricted, ice field complexes covered mountain ranges within northeast Siberia, including the
Kamchatka-Koryak Mountains.

The Arctic Ocean between the huge ice sheets of America and Eurasia was not frozen
throughout, but like today probably was only covered by relatively shallow ice, subject to
seasonal changes and riddled with icebergs calving from the surrounding ice sheets. According
to the sediment composition retrieved from deep-sea cores there must even have been times of
seasonally open waters. How is it possible to have an ice age and not have the Arctic Ocean
freeze? The ice was said to be three miles thick! The whole theory is full of holes.

Outside the main ice sheets, widespread glaciation occurred on the Alps-Himalaya mountain
chain. In contrast to the earlier glacial stages, the Würm glaciation was composed of smaller ice
caps and mostly confined to valley glaciers, sending glacial lobes into the Alpine. To the east the
Caucasus and the mountains of Turkey and Iran were capped by local ice fields or small ice
sheets. In the Himalaya and the Tibetan Plateau, glaciers advanced considerably, particularly
between 47,000–27,000 BP and in contrast to the widespread contemporaneous warming
elsewhere. The formation of a contiguous ice sheet on the Tibetan Plateau is controversial.

Other areas of the Northern Hemisphere did not bear extensive ice sheets but local glaciers in
high areas. Parts of Taiwan for example were repeatedly glaciated between 44,250 and 10,680
BP as well as the Japanese Alps. In both areas maximum glacier advance occurred between
60,000 and 30,000 BP (starting roughly during the Toba catastrophe). To a still lesser extent
glaciers existed in Africa, for example in the High Atlas, the mountains of Morocco, the Mount
Atakor massif in southern Algeria, and several mountains in Ethiopia. In the Southern
Hemisphere, an ice cap of several hundred square kilometers was present on the east African
mountains in the Kilimanjaro Massif, Mount Kenya and the Ruwenzori Mountains, still bearing
remnants of glaciers today.

Glaciation of the Southern Hemisphere was less extensive because of current configuration of
continents. Ice sheets existed in the Andes (Patagonian Ice Sheet), where six glacier advances
between 33,500 and 13,900 BP in the Chilean Andes have been reported. Antarctica was entirely
glaciated, much like today, but the ice sheet left no uncovered area. In mainland Australia only a
very small area in the vicinity of Mount Kosciuszko was glaciated, whereas in Tasmania
glaciation was more widespread. An ice sheet formed in New Zealand, covering all of the
Southern Alps, where at least three glacial advances can be distinguished. Local ice caps existed
in Irian Jaya, Indonesia, where in three ice areas remnants of the Pleistocene glaciers are still
preserved today.

Lots of theories and I concluded they are all correct. The ice age started around 60,000 years ago
and 47,000 years ago and 22,000 years ago and 17,000 years ago and how is that possible? I got
the start at between 60,000 and 40,000 years ago what can rock the planet? Earth quake not big
enough… A meteor why not?

Look at these 2 photos of the current arctic ice cap it is getting smaller. By the looks of it we got
a leak of warm water coming up from the Bearing Straight melting the west side of it. And it
looks to be expanding on the east side towards Russia and Europe. (Going to get colder in
Europe and warmer here in North America sometime soon) Or is the earth still wobbling from
the last hit? But at any rate my point here is look at the map and what becomes glaringly obvious
is Greenland it sticks out like a sore thumb here. It’s buried in a glacier and is as far south as the
southern tip of Baffin Island now look at the Islands in Northwesternern Canada no glacier
covering them well not to the extent they cover Greenland and they are surrounded by Glacier.
Look at figure four. With the cross hairs on Greenland where I think the North Pole was located
in the last ice age if you look at the glaciers on Greenland and the surrounding area today. Look
carefully and they form a ring around the North Pole.
Figure 5 shows the current Ice Cap in White and the extent of the Glacier in the last ice age in
the red crosshair. After staring at the map for a few hours trying to figure out why there is an egg
shaped ice cap it came to me. The polar cap had to be constantly moving. Glaciers are showing
up at different times at different places. Much like one of those punching bags when you punch it
the bag moves but returns to its original position. Like a weeble wobbles but it don’t fall down.
But what got it moving? Did something hit the earth or pass too close or is this just a very slow
natural wobble the earth is in all the time and the red zone of maximum glaciations just the path
it has always followed? The latest dates I have are 60,000 to 40,000 years ago I’ll check and see
if anything hit us back then. You have to like Wikipedia.

A meteor hits Arizona bingo; the crater was created about 50,000 years ago during the
Pleistocene epoch when the local climate on the Colorado Plateau was much cooler and damper.
At the time, the area was open grassland dotted with woodlands inhabited by woolly mammoths
and giant ground sloths. It was probably not inhabited by humans; the earliest confirmed record
of human habitation in the Americas dates from long after this impact.

The object that excavated the crater was a nickel-iron meteorite about 50 meters (54 yards)
across, which impacted the plain at a speed of several kilometers per second. The speed of the
impact has been a subject of some debate. Modeling initially suggested that the meteorite struck
at a speed of up to 20 kilometers per second (45,000 mph), but more recent research suggests the
impact was substantially slower, at 12.8 kilometers per second (28,600 mph). It is believed that
about half of the impactor's 300,000 metric tons (330,000 short tons) bulk was vaporized during
its descent, before it hit the ground. The impactor itself was mostly vaporized; very little of the
meteorite remained within the pit that it had excavated. Ok more guesses we got a hole 50,000
years ago on the right side of the planet I’ll guess it was 400,809 tons and going 32,003 mph,
how do I know? Good question, I question everything, I just took a wild guess probably just as
good as theirs, a stab in the dark.

Now we have a catalyst at the right time is that enough energy to start the wobble? A man is
space is weightless so if two astronauts were side by side and one pushed the other they would
both go in opposite directions. Now suppose one of the astronauts gets hit in the head by a little
asteroid and his head doesn’t get ripped off he is going to start spinning back to front like a wind
mill propeller. Even though the meteor was the size of a grain of sand and the astronaut weighs
many millions of times more. So it stands to reason that the earth is weightless in space and if a
meteor hits it it’s going to spin it somewhat kind a like a marble in a weightless environment. I
tried a balloon with a paperclip in a bathtub and threw grains of sand at it. And yes it moved but
it was the way it moved that got me thinking. On impact it moved then it slowed and slowed
finally stopping just for a second then moved faster and faster to the opposite direction then
slowing and stopping and moving back north again but not as far as the last time until finally it
settled down.
Now suppose that the magnetic north pole is not wandering at all! What if geographical north is
doing all the wandering…? What if the earth’s crust is moving and the core is not? Much like a
balloon full of water or a plastic water bottle full of water if you turned it slowly 180 deg. The
water goes nowhere just the plastic. Look at the pole wandering above. Again I say that the pole
has not shifted the earth has shifted above it. And where ever magnetic north pole is on the
planet that is the dead center of the polar icecap at any given time. See in 1831 to 1904 that is the
directional shift the earth’s crust is going southward in Canada and Europe is heading north and
looks to be accelerating. And where will it stop at the same latitude it started only on the
opposite side of the planet. Just north of Sweden (Its like a pendulum of a clock slowly stopping
each swing gets short and shorter until it stops)

Meteor hits Arizona 50, 000 years ago knocks the pole off center that’s going to cause a major
shock wave. (Kind of like getting a kick in the guts and farting… what a (Toba) Catastrophe)
The new North Pole is centered over around the center of Sweden. Now we still have the same
sized polar cap as we do today now it’s on a moving crust trying to get back to its natural
position reaches Churchill Falls, Manitoba, Canada around some 30,000 years later and take it
15,000 years or so to get back home. So you would expect to find evidence of a polar shift along
the green line in the center of the map.

Based on his own research, Hapgood argued that each polar shift took approximately 5,000
years, followed by 20,000- to 30,000-year periods with no polar movements. (But again the poles
didn’t shift the earth over the poles moved.) Also, in his calculations, the area of movement
never covered more than 40 degrees. Hapgood's examples of recent locations for the North Pole
include Hudson Bay (60˚N, 73˚W) , the Atlantic Ocean between Iceland and Norway (72˚N,
10˚E) and Yukon (63˚N, 135˚W).

However, in his subsequent work The Path of the Pole (Perhaps Path of the Earth would have
been more appropriate), Hapgood conceded Einstein's point that the weight of the polar ice
would be insufficient to bring about a polar shift. Instead, Hapgood argued that the forces that
caused the shifts in the crust must be located below the surface. He had no satisfactory
explanation for how this could occur. I would suggest the Arizona meteor hit would give
Hapgood his movement and Einstein sufficient force and me an egg shaped glacial event. To tell
the truth I have no idea about very much as I said I am an uneducated man so when I first wrote
this a few days ago I threw it away because I mean really Hapgood could not figure it out
Einstein missed it and all of earth science missed it but “I” got it figured out? Yup ok… But to
me it just was not right! So I said to myself piss on it I’ll write it put it out there and who cares
what happens at least I had a kick at the cat. Not like any reputation to worry about not like I’m a
university professor and I say that there is no global warming just movement in the earth’s crust.
SO global warming will be relative to where you’re at on the planet USA going to get desert hot
Europe going to be under a glacier. Good time to be in Canada and a fellow should buy as much
of the Sahara desert as he can!

Well two out of three of Hapgood’s pole points coincide with my model (white dots) the Hudson
Bay (60˚N, 73˚W) , the Atlantic Ocean between Iceland and Norway (72˚N, 10˚E) But he hit 2
maybe his third is correct as well what do I know I put this together in a few hours just using
logic and reason. And Hapgood is really not that far off me or rather me off him. I mean I just
used an oval shape because it roughly fit, my money is on Hapgood. I mean when I think about it
the pole could actually be anywhere inside the green oval depending on the wobble. But no
matter where it is Greenland is always cold. Which makes me think that somewhere over
Greenland is where the earth’s crust normal state is or true north without movement. Because the
polar icecap is always circling Greenland that’s why Greenland is so far south but still frozen.
No matter where the icecap is Greenland is always on the edge of it and never gets a chance to
warm up. We are still wobbling from the last hit making a smaller and smaller circle each time
and we think its global warming over here in North America and its getting cooler in northern
Europe.
Figure 5

Below I have tilted the earth to what would be the orientation of the planet with the true north
pole on Greenland with the Polar ice caps anybody in the path of the glacier would have to of
migrated to get away from the three mile thick glacier (seems a bit much to me considering how
little northern Greenland has melted but that’s just my thought on the matter). In figure 5 I have
the Arizona meteor hit on the left which pushes the crust southward. See the three white dots
they are Hapgoods points I can see this orbit being like a snail shell type of orbit getting smaller
and smaller until it finally comes to rest at home. So Hapgoods Yukon location is probably spot
on at some point in the cycle. Or more than likely his dots are the very first cycle. But remember
the magnetic poles are not moving it’s the crust that’s moving! The icecap is never any bigger
than it ever was its just getting new land under it. Much like putting a flashlight beam at the
equator of a globe at south America and moving the globe back and forth across the continent.
This is what I would expect to see with a 5500 km ice limit and no pole shift caps at both poles
and roughly equal distance from the poles (shown in black). And with a moving pole shift in
green with no great global temperature change you get Alaska and Siberia Glacier free and The
Equator moves to the south in the Western Hemisphere and North in the Eastern Hemisphere
(shown in red). I know there were supposed to be glaciers in the Andes but with my model if
anything South America would be much warmer. And for all the Antarctic atlantians out there
Antarctica might have been ice free but I’m thinking it would be more like Greenland is today
yes much warmer but the ice over a land mass would act as a giant insulator I would think so
maybe some melting along the coastal regions and the far west. I am not saying that North
America and Northern Europe were not covered with ice what I am saying is that the earth had to
have been on a different axis than it is now for the shape of the ice cap to be logical. Rather than
trying to fit a sound peg in a square hole I just gave you my reasoning for what I think makes
sense.
Just one last thing on ice caps try this experiment take a glass of water freeze it and you will
notice the volume increases of course everyone knows that water expands when it freezes. Now
let the glass of ice melt and of course the water level drops. Now if 90% of an iceberg is under
water how much wills the water level rise if the expansion of ice is 10% while it’s frozen?
Maybe it’s just me but my glass of ice water never ever overflowed if I let it melt in the sun. The
Arctic ice cap is a big ice cube there is no land under it. I’ll leave it at that. The only reason I
bring this up at all is because of the relevance to the story which begins in Falkland BC.
So there you have it the world according to an uneducated old fool. My grandson asked me about
the ice age and I didn’t know anything about it so I told him I would look into it and find out.
And this is what I found. I’m sure by now you are thinking what a nutcase, he thinks the earth is
round and we all know its flat… I mean we all know the poles are moving. Global warming
seems to be relative to where you are on the planet and angle to the sun at any given time.