SkinWalker:
If by "Earth crustal displacement" you are talking about sudden, massive shifts in the Earth's crust due to pole shifts
I think in ECD the poles (or Earth spin axis) are not supposed to have actually shifted, but the crust under it is thought to have migrated or displaced. Of course, the crust cannot disconnect from the mantle and do this as Hapgood suggested (see Andre's link).
The spin axis of the Earth is rigid. It is not going to shift, other than its regular wobble ("precession") over 25,700 years.
Loops within loops with loops
http://www.pietro.org/Astro_Util_StaticDemo/MethodsNutationVisualized.htm[/URL]
However, I do believe that the crust and mantle together can migrate, perhaps during times of paleo magnetic excursions, when the magnetic field weakens which may break the the core/mantle stability
"As the Earth spins on its axis the moon and sun tug on its bulging equator and create a large wobble, or precession, producing the precession of the equinoxes with a period of 25,800 years. Other periodic processes in the solar system nudge the Earth, too, creating small wobbles -- called nutations -- in the wobble. The principal components of the nutation are caused by the Earth's annual circuit of the sun and the 18.6 year precession of the moon's orbit."
[url]http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0123012.htm[/url]
That term "poleshift" is something of a misnomer and susceptible to confusion. There are several "poles".
definition:
north pole - 1. In astronomy, that end of the axis of rotation of a celestial body at which, when viewed from above, the body appears to rotate in a counter-clockwise direction. [Ed. note: Original text read "clockwise" instead of "counter-clockwise"] See celestial pole, ecliptic pole, geographical pole, geomagnetic pole, magnetic pole.
roland.lerc.nasa.gov/~dglover/dictionary/n.html - More definitions
The magnetic pole does indeed wander, and maps must be updated perhaps annually to keep navigation according to magnetic north current.
[PLAIN]http://geomag.usgs.gov/MagCharts/pdf/N_magpl.PDF[/URL]
[quote]Moreover, there is no evidence of sudden or massive extinctions during any of these occurances, which would be expected if the "pole shift catastrophe" concept were true.[/quote]
Perhaps but the cause of the megafauna extinction at the end of the Ice Age remains unclear. Hapgood knew the answer ;)
[quote]
Originally posted by leijen
Modern science discredits these theories because there are huge gaps in the accepted modern theories that don't account for a lot of archeological evidence that explains more conclusively how thing may have happened in the past.
[/quote]
SkinWalker's reply:
[quote]I'm not sure what archaeological evidence you're referring to, but archaeology also relies upon geologic and paleologic evidence among other disciplines to form hypotheses and support theories.[/quote]
Well this anthropological evidence seems to not to support ice age theory:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/020325/020325-5.html
[quote]Humans dwelt in Ice-Age Tibet
Footprints and a fire found from 20,000 years ago.
27 March 2002
Handprints and footprints 20,000 years old reveal that people lived on the Tibetan plateau at the height of the Ice Age - 16,000 years earlier than scientists had thought. The newly found signs of life cast doubt on the idea that a glacier a kilometre thick covered the plateau at that time.
[/quote]
Some theories get hurt by actual discoveries.
