Earth Torsion Hypothesis

 

Earth Torsion Hypothesis

 

The hypothesis that I propose here is the result of much thought over many years seeking to accommodate a number of historical and archaeological facts into a mutually agreeable scheme, facts which are often mostly ignored by mainstream historians, archaeologists and even geologists.

I take as the starting point for my hypothesis the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis being axiomatic.

This event set at about 10,850 BC coincides or immediately precedes a number of major Earth changes such as the melting of the North American ice sheet and the consequent sudden rise in sea levels.  The apparent sudden ending of the YD some 1,200 years later may also be implicated.

Randall Carlson has gone into a great amount of detail on how this would have affected the Atlantic basin and how it might have affected an Azores island that may have been Atlantis.  The subject of isostatic adjustment of sea floor and continental levels following the change in loading on the surface of the planet is crucial to any understanding of how this may have affected the morphology of continents.

Randall Carlson has done and collated an immense amount of work on the evidence for some kind of fragmented cometary impact or airburst over Canada or the northern United States as the cause for the sudden melt of the two mile thick ice sheet that was centred on the Hudson Bay area.

Now this is where some strange issues start to arise.  In the epoch of the last Ice age the thickest ice in the Northern Hemisphere was around Hudson Bay, and even more curiously Siberia was a lush savannah grassland as evidenced by the thousands or even millions of mammoth that have been discovered still flash frozen in the Siberian ice in the present epoch, with undigested dandelions found in their stomachs.  How can this be?  I shall pass by for the present on how such large creatures could be so instantaneously frozen before the dandelions they were eating could be digested, but we must ask how it was that there even were so many mammoth grazing and how what is presently permanently frozen tundra could have grown dandelions and other herbage in such a quantity as to be able to feed them all?

The obvious answer to this which has been staring us in the face for decades and which many people are willing to entertain is that the Earth was at the time this happened spinning in such a way that the Hudson Bay was roughly at the North Rotational Pole, and that consequently Siberia was at a much more temperate latitude than it is today.

But how could this change take place?

The theory which has gone in and out of favour over the decades is that of Earth Crust Displacement, proposed by Charles Hapgood in the mid-twentieth century.  It was famously endorsed by Albert Einstein but there are serious and I would suggest insurmountable obstacles to taking it in an unrevised manner.

The Earth Crust Displacement Theory suggests that such movements of the surface of the planet as Randall Carlson, myself and many others have hypothesised took place at the Younger Dryas Boundary Event happened when the crust of the planet slipped like the loose skin of an orange over the mantle resulting in changes of latitude and thus climate.

The several problems with this model start with what could possibly have caused this?  The absence of a mechanism should not be considered cause for a complete refutation, but one is forced to consider what mechanism might have been involved as we have to come to this eventually.  Some massive mechanical force in an order of scale beyond anything we can imagine in our normal experience of the planet would be necessary.  The trouble is that even a massive comet or meteor impact is unlikely to have affected the crust in such a way.

Consider the Xixilub meteor impact which reputedly put the nail in the coffin of the dinosaurs.  An impact sufficiently large to punch into the crust and cause a huge mass extinction from its effects, but could it have been enough to cause crustal slippage?

Apparently the meteor core is still deep in the crust of the planet near the Yucatan Peninsula.  To cause crustal slippage it would be necessary to impact tangentially to the surface, unlike the Xixilub impact which seems to have been more head on.  But a tangential impact would surely just cause a deep and long scar?  And there would probably be some kind of impact remains evidence.  The fragmented air burst suggested by Randall Carlson and other Cometary Impact researchers would not have any direct effect on the crust.

So we are without a mechanism.  But more importantly there are geological features on the Earth which contradict the crust ever having slipped in this manner at all.  The best example is Hawaii, which sits on a thermal plume hot spot from the mantle.  The crust drifts slowly over this in geological time due to its normal gradual movement.  And there is a trail of extinct volcano islands showing the path of the drift over the thermal plume.  So even if the crust had slipped suddenly at some point in geological history it must have been before the current trail developed, which is some millions of years.  There are doubtless other similar examples.  I was surprised that Graham Hancock, who mentioned the Earth Crust Displacement Theory in his early work later acknowledged the Hawaii evidence as being a conclusive refutation but has apparently more recently gone back to it.  My own view is that the theory as proposed in its original form is untenable due to both the contrary evidence such as Hawaii and what seem to me to be insurmountable mechanical problems in its supposed action.

So what other options do we have?

Carlson has expounded at length on isostatic adjustment of the sea floor especially after a massive download of ice meltwater into the ocean, and how this also affects land levels since the land will tend to rebound when the weight of quadrillions of tons of ice is suddenly removed.

I believe the analogy of a water bed has been used to illustrate this.  Weight on one side of the bed means the other side rises.

Now this is where it starts getting complicated.

There was one video lecture in which Randall Carlson explained what I propose as the mechanism but the segment was very short and something of a side track from his main thread.  I will try and find it again but it is quite obscure.

I credit this to Randall Carlson entirely as without his explanation I would not have been able to arrive at any of this, indeed what I am about to try and explain is all his work, I only have to repeat it because he hasn't published anything about it at any length that I am aware of.  (Perhaps he has and I've missed it.)

So what he explained is that when the two mile thick ice melted, the North American land mass began to rebound.  Now here we come to the geomorphic mechanism.  He has often explained how the Earth is an oblate spheroid and that it bulges at the Equator due to the centrifugal force of the spin and the fact that the inside of the Earth is somewhat plastic, like plasticene.

The Earth is always trying to stay in balance with itself and in its spin.  If a surface load that is sufficient to push down the crust is removed, as in the case of the ice sheet, then when the isostatic adjustment takes place there is also necessarily an adjustment in the planet as the rebounding surface seeks at the same time to move towards the Equator where it wants to go in order to achieve maximum balance or equilibrium.

Imagine a spinning top that has a load on one side.  It will wobble.

When the ice sheet was present it had been there for a long time and the Earth was presumably in some kind of balance which it will have achieved over a long period of time, and was probably around the North Pole wherever it was then.

Now, assuming that the rotational North Pole was in the vicinity of the Hudson Bay the weight of the ice would be on land on one side, but on the other side in what is now the Artic Ocean the ice floated on water, spreading the load.  When the ice melted, North America had its load removed and rebounded, while the oceans had a massive increase in load due to all the meltwater.

Thus the balance of the planet will have been changed and so there is increased loading on the oceans and reduced on the land.  The planet will seek to isostatically adjust not only the levels of land and sea floor but also its spin.  Due to the plasticity of the mantle the shape of the planet will morph.

My proposed mechanism for this, rather than simple slippage, is that there was torsion within the mantle.  Carlson has already explained the mechanism for this when he showed how excess mass in higher latitudes seeks to migrate towards the Equator due to centrifugal force.

Thus we have a model which could account for the twisting of the planetary spin which resulted in the poles of rotational spin migrating as the excess mass seeks the Equator.

 

There are a number of possible sequelae to this.

Had there been a geophysical event which had caused the Earth to undergo a torsional event then it is not impossible that the effects could have extended beyond the local areas in which the ice was lost and the most obvious isostatic adjustment took place.

A postulate I would propose is that since the angular momentum of the planet must somehow be either preserved or expended in some way, that the inertia of the spin would quite probably have caused massive earthquakes during rebalancing.  These earthquakes would probably take place at existing tectonic fault lines, such as the fault line which runs down the west coast of the Americas, one of the most major tectonic fault lines on the planet.

Lake Titicaca in the Andes has numerous properties that are difficult to account for.  Alternate researchers have pointed to facts such as that the lake is apparently tilted from a previous epoch, evidenced by erosional layers which are at an angle and also that it is at much too high an altitude for the crops that were evidently grown there to thrive and that some terraces which were too high had been abandoned and new ones lower down begun.  There are also those who suggest that it may have even been at sea level and accessible from the sea due both to the massive stone wharfs at what look like what used to once be a port although miles even from the lake now, and marine shells and residues.

Given the spin of the planet is from west to east it may be postulated further that when the massive increased loading on the sea floors such as the Pacific took place there would have been a complex geomorphic readjustment which may have led to a huge subduction event that could have resulted in the massive uplift of the Andes, the result of which we see today.  The inertial moment of the American continents is in the correct direction for such an event to take place.

The same is possible for the Rockies.  I have noticed Randall Carlson mention how high and sharp they are and ask whether the uplift is greater and faster than the erosion.  Perhaps they are so high and sharp due to a massive sudden uplift in a recent geological epoch?

A curious item I noticed recently may have contributed to my thoughts about this unconsciously or tangentially.  Jahanna James recently made a short video about whether California may once have been an island.  Interesting old maps that have amazing detail but show it as an island are somewhat confusing but also intriguing.  If Lake Titicaca could have been at sea level in some kind of inlet or coastal setting but was uplifted thousands of feet and tilted at an angle then might it not be possible that something similar happened to raise up an island on the west coast of the northern continent and join it to the mainland?  There is indeed a geographic depression between the northern end of the Gulf of California and Los Angeles where it meets the coast.  This matches the ancient maps that Jahanna showed in her video.

Further possible sequelae from all this isostatic adjustment of levels and even axial spin could include North Africa where it has been noticed that there are sizeable deposits and residues of marine life hundreds of miles inland.  These must either result from having once been covered by sea or else have been washed there by mega tsunamis.  Ancient maps of North Africa indicate that it may well have had an entirely different morphology and coastline, which may seem a lot more probable now that we have considered some of the isostatic adjustments and the effects they may have had such as possibly being to uplift the entire Andes chain in one single catastrophic event.

 

There are other consequences and possibilities from this hypothesis and there are still unexplained things such as how it is that the mammoth were frozen so quickly.  Even if the planetary adjustment only took a short space of time it is still unlikely to have been instantaneous, but that is a question I shall have to leave for another time.

Some of the issues still in my mind raise the possibility of planetary cataclysm and geological upheaval beyond anything yet imagined, but then there are ancient myths that say the stars changed in their course.  One interpretation of this could be that the angle of rotation of the Earth changed.  Indeed, it is hard to think of another interpretation, and if so, then the forces necessary to cause such change in motion would be beyond even those required for the gradual tectonic movement of continental plates, vast as those already must be.

 

Issues to be looked at.  These are speculations which doubtless have errors but they are thrown out as points of research and hypotheses to be tested.

Where did the massive salt deposits found in Nevada and Utah originate?  Could they result from massive mega-tsunamis of sea water being swept inland when the proposed uplift of the western coasts of the Americas and the closing of the gap between California and the mainland occurred?

Could the vast salt flats in Bolivia have been caused by a similar event?

Lake Titicaca is however a freshwater lake, so how did it become fresh?  Could the sea water inlet or strait have been so dramatically squeezed out and tipped over the narrow strip of mountains to the east to be later replaced by fresh water, while the Bolivian salt flat Salar Uyuni is in the middle of the widest part of the Andes where it and a number of other small salt flats have settled in lower pockets of land between the two main ridges of the mountain chain at that point.

Examination of Google Earth shows what almost looks like crumpled up land piling ahead of where the salt flats have settled as if forced by a massive indentation of the coast.  If the North Pole had been in the Hudson Bay area this would have been close to the Equator where the greatest inertial moment carried by the crust would be present and thus likely to cause the greatest effect while ploughing to a halt.

While the Eastern Pacific edge of the Americas has accrued a massive uplift, interestingly in the Western Pacific we have the deepest trenches such as the Mariana Trench.  Could these trenches possibly have been left as a result of the slippage of the entire Pacific Ocean floor as it piled up like a carpet under the western edge of the Americas causing islands and inlets to press up against the coast and cause the massive uplift for the mountains and mega-tsunamis as it was subducted leaving basins filled with sea water that dried out, or completely emptied trapped sections of sea inlets which were later filled with fresh water from the sky?

 

Grateful acknowledgement to Randall Carlson without whom I could not have imagined most of this.  Also to Jahanna James whose recent video on Was California an Island? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNFqWc7_BmY was a major inspiration to these thoughts.

Acknowledgement also to Brothers of the Serpent, the Kosmographia podcast team, Ben of UnchartedX, Brien Foerster, Jimmy Corsetti of Bright Insight, Dark Journalist, Dr Joseph P Farrell and Dr Jason Reza Jorjani for their contributions to the background for this hypothesis.