# Deep Water Megalithic Stones and Structures Near Western Cuba?

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
I have been hearing about this story for some time. I have no idea what to think. It seems to be a step above the typical fringe story so I posted here.

Paulina Zelitsky had been contracted to take ocean current temperatures at various depths for a global warming study. What stunned Paulina about the unexpected structures on the sea floor were the 90 degree angles and regular spacing of large objects one-half mile down as deep as 2200 feet.

Dr. Manuel Iturralde, Ph.D., Geologist at the National Museum of Natural History in Havana, presented a scientific paper about his examination of the side scan sonar images and videos of the stone structures referred to as megalithic because they seem to be shaped or molded.
http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=587&category=Science

Related Earth Sciences News on Phys.org
wolram
Gold Member
i would love to see any follow ups to this story as i think
could not have unless they pre date modern theory for
civilisation.
"modern man cannot recreate stone henge without cheating".

russ_watters
Mentor
Originally posted by wolram
"modern man cannot recreate stone henge without cheating".
Not at all true. What is true is that we can't recreate Stone Henge without taking decades or being barbaric, both of which the builders likely did. And thats generally overlooked by those who speculate on how the ancients built things: they apply modern constraints on the ancient world.

As for the article, the structures they are talking about are absolutely huge. The detail is limited to the resolution of the side-scan sonar, so to say something is a 90 degree angle is wholly meaningless if your resolution is a couple of meters (could even be worse than that).

What they found is likely an interesting rock formation and nothing more. I'm sure the currents in that area do some neat things with the sea floor.

Last edited:
wolram
Gold Member
russ you are a spoil sport,
put up yer dukes an organise
a team to drag a 60ton lump of rock 50 miles up hill an down dale without a
wheel in sight, i bet you a £ to a $you wouldnt get a mile Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member Originally posted by russ_watters As for the article, the structures they are talking about are absolutely huge. The detail is limited to the resolution of the side-scan sonar, so to say something is a 90 degree angle is wholly meaningless if your resolution is a couple of meters (could even be worse than that). What they found is likely an interesting rock formation and nothing more. I'm sure the currents in that area do some neat things with the sea floor. I think your points are valid. Dr. Manuel Iturralde, Ph.D., Geologist at the National Museum of Natural History in Havana, presented a scientific paper about his examination of the side scan sonar images and videos of the stone structures referred to as megalithic because they seem to be shaped or molded....We don't know what it is, but it doesn't look like geology to us.' Clearly some experts find the evidence a little more compelling than you portray. I guess this can only be resovled with deep water ROVs and cameras. russ_watters Mentor Originally posted by wolram russ you are a spoil sport Always. put up yer dukes an organise a team to drag a 60ton lump of rock 50 miles up hill an down dale without a wheel in sight, i bet you a £ to a$ you wouldnt get a
mile
Gimme a team of guys with whips to beat them and I bet I can.
Clearly some experts find the evidence a little more compelling than you portray. I guess this can only be resovled with deep water ROVs and cameras.
Further research is fine, but I won't be holding my breath (I was a swimmer too, so I can hold my breath for quite a long time).

Skeptics

Being skeptic is fine. But it can be overdone. I see several times opinions and decision based not even on examining the evidence but merely on it-can't-be-so-it-isn't. That's not true skeptisism. Your knowledge level need to be at least the same as the person you want to be skeptic about. Now, Manuel Itturalde-Vinent seems to have some international credibility on geology subjects:

Just check: http://www.ig.utexas.edu/research/projects/plates/biblio/carib/i.htm [Broken]
the list starts with:

Itturalde-Vinent, M., 1997. Stratigraphy and correlation of Cretaceous volcanic-arc rocks, Dominican Republic (IGCP 364): July, 1997. Journal of Petroleum Geology, 20(4): 489-491. Hispaniola, Dominican Republic, stratigraphy, igneous, arc.

ItturaldeVinent, M.A. and Lidiak, E.G., 2001. Caribbean plate tectonics (IGCP 433). Gondwana Research, 4(2): 247-248. Caribbean, paleogeography.

Iturralde Vinent, M., 1998. Proposed IGCP project on Caribbean plate tectonics. Episodes, 21(3): 201-201. Caribbean, tectonics.

Iturralde-Vinent, M., 1971. Estratigrafía y magmatismo de la provincia de Matanzas y noroeste de Las Villas (Stratigraphy and magmatism of the province of Matanzas and northwest of Las Villas). Revista Tecnológica IX, 2: 27-40. Cuba stratigraphy, magmatism.

Iturralde-Vinent, M., 1974. Circum Caribbean tectonic and igneous activity and the evolution of the Caribbean plate: Discussion. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 85: 1961-1962. Caribbean, tectonic, igneous, kinematic.

Iturralde-Vinent, M., 1975. Problemas en la aplicación de dos hipótesis tectónicas modernas a Cuba y la región Caribe (Problems in the application of the modern tectonic hypotheses to Cuba and the Caribbean region). Revista Tecnológica XIII, 1: 46-63. Cuba.

Iturralde-Vinent, M., 1976. Estratigrafía de la zona Calabazas-Achotal, Mayarí Arriba, Oriente. Part I (Stratigraphy of the Calabazas-Achotal zone, Mayari Arriba, Oriente. Part I). Revista de La Minería en Cuba, 5: 9-23. Cuba.

Iturralde-Vinent, M., 1977. Estratigrafía de la zona Calabazas-Achotal, Mayarí Arriba, Oriente. Part II (Stratigraphy of the Calabazas-Achotal zone, Mayari Arriba, Oriente. Part II). Revista de La Minería en Cuba, 6: 32-40. Cuba.
and so on for a couple of hundred more publications.

Why is it that a specialist who dares to suggest the impossible is wronged by just the bias of things being allegdly impossible

Now this guy is wrong just because he must be wrong. Right? he just overlooked that sea currents easily shape stones in geometric and symmetric patterns. Happens every day. How stupid of him.

Check his webside on the construction:

http://www.cuba.cu/ciencia/citma/ama/museo/exmari.htm [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Thanks for the link. Too bad about the mix up of facts and fiction. That mythical city of which the library is ever increasing could have been anywhere, if at all.

I think it's most likely horsts and/or graben blocks that were dislodged from a fault higher in the terrain.

The bathymetry of the area would seem to support that, but there would have to have been some tectonic event to make it happen.

Whatever it turns out to be Iturralde-Vinent seems to be at the cutting edge of it all. It could be years before we see a conclusion of his research.

Still, Linda Howe's involvement does Iturralde-V no justice. It's too bad interesting geological work gets the stigma of pseudoscience that Howe brings with her. I think it likely that Iturralde-V doesn't even know who she is.

Just in contrast, SW let us see what Dr Manuel Itturalde-Vinent, whose creditials need no discussion, thinks of this:

http://www.cuba.cu/ciencia/citma/ama/museo/exmar6i.htm [Broken]

please check the picture on that page

Second hypothesis: They were build by intelligent beings

The corridor-shaped structures and geometric chambers, as well as the megaliths, do not bear a simple natural explanation. In view of this, an alternative point of view is that they were build by intelligent beings. Some Mayan traditions and those from old Yucatan cultures tell us of an antique island that vanished below sea level due to a catastrophic event near the place where their ancestors hailed from. These traditions have provided some researchers with a foundation for favoring the man-made interpretation of MEGA. However, no matter how attractive and appealing this hypothesis might be, it should not be accepted until we have direct evidences of the action of intelligent beings at MEGA site. The sonar image below exemplifies one of the most striking structures which are extremely hard to explain under natural causes.

The problems for these hypothesis are twofold: 1) According to mathematical calculations, the area of the megaliths, if it was ever emerged in the past, it must have been more than 50 000 years ago. Such a figure emerge from the present depth of MEGA (600-750 meters), and allowing a maximum rate of sinking (subsidence) of the seafloor of up to 15 mm/year. 2) Under this timeframe, no human culture is known to have developed the architectural skills to build such complicate structures.
.

The other hypotheses:

http://www.cuba.cu/ciencia/citma/ama/museo/exmar5i.htm [Broken]

First hypothesis: They are interesting natural structures bearing no relation with the action of intelligent beings.

Recorded data do not fully support this hypothesis as the megalithic blocks are situated on a mild submarine slope and do not seem to be associated with fault scarps or active slope failures. However, this hypothesis should not be discarded, as Mother Nature is capable of creating unimaginable structures. Examples of such strange natural structures are the sinusoidal structural promontories observed in the southern plain of Havana, and the "Altar of the Virgin", in Guantánamo province. However, these structures do not resemble the megaliths.
There is also the combined hypothesis:

http://www.cuba.cu/ciencia/citma/ama/museo/exmar7i.htm [Broken]

I observe that Dr Vinent has no clue after careful examination. Always very peculiar to see that a lot of people know immediately what's going on: "It's the lost city of whatever". "no, it's is natural for sure".

Last edited by a moderator:
Second hypothesis: They were build by intelligent beings
the area of the megaliths, if it was ever emerged in the past, it must have been more than 50 000 years ago.
Iturralde-V. himself points out that humans capable of this type of complex architecture simply were not available. There is already a fairly decent chronolgy of man available in fossil/archaeological record above the ocean to support this. Not to mention that the earliest evidence of human occupation in North America dates to around 12,500 B.P. I can only imagine that the islands around Cuba couldn't be far off from that date and, in all probability, not prior to it.

This would seem to allow us to discard his second and third hypotheses.

Notice the curved features (amphitheatre) related to submarine slumping, associated to fractures, faults and steeps slopes. The side scan sonar images below are examples of these features.
http://www.cuba.cu/ciencia/citma/ama/museo/imagen/mderrum.gif [Broken]

When you consider his above assessment of the area, then consider the nature of horsts and grabens (see the illustration in the next link), it is easy to see how these types of "blocks" can be formed.

http://geography.sierra.cc.ca.us/booth/California/landform_provinces/horst_graben_diagram.jpg [Broken]

Itturralde-Vinent's own bathymetry records the landforms and he suggests landslides and faults on the diagram below that may or may not be accurate. I trust that they are fairly accurate based on his experience.

http://www.cuba.cu/ciencia/citma/ama/museo/imagen/morfo.gif [Broken]

This diagram clearly indicates that landslides and at least one fault probably resides above the "MEGA" site.

Landslides + faults + probable horsts + gravity = MEGA

MEGA - probability that man existed in the area at the time (50,000 y.b.p.) = nature did it

I agree, however, that there is much observation left to be done in order to draw further conclusions... I would like to see better bathymetry and optics from RVs.

Last edited by a moderator:
This would seem to allow us to discard his second and third hypotheses.
Then why doesn't Itturalde do it himself? It's not for nothing that he has a crater in Bolivia named after him. Don't you think that he would not have taken the slightest opportunity to discard intelligent interference and prevent putting his reputation at stake.

Of course nature is capable of creating the weirdest things but geometric and more importantly, symmetrical features, with two axes of symmetry seem not to be that frequent. There are usually no crosses on horsts and grabens.

Something in the equation does not add up. 12,500 years? 50,000 years? 15 mm per year? or silly nature, pulling legs?

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Originally posted by SkinWalker
Still, Linda Howe's involvement does Iturralde-V no justice. It's too bad interesting geological work gets the stigma of pseudoscience that Howe brings with her. I think it likely that Iturralde-V doesn't even know who she is.
Howe often alludes to radical explanations for genuine stories. Still, the fact that she is the only source reporting on this, and that she has been nearly from day one I think is a credit to her skills as an investigative jounalist; as well as to science. I think she tries to be accurate in spite of her personal beliefs. She often brings the process of science to one's computer screen.

It is unfortunate that she employs fringe explanations so quickly. She can be a great source for interesting and credible stories. Often, the scientists that she interviews seem to appreciate her efforts to make their work known. Beyond any doubt however, as with most internet sites: Browser beware.

SW:
I would like to see better bathymetry and optics from RVs.
Not to mention samples of the MEGA structure itself. I thought we had some bathymetric views of the site, showing a 3D view of the seafloor around the MEGA site....maybe they are not bathymetric...

Originally posted by Andre
Then why doesn't Itturalde do it himself?
Good question.

Originally posted by Andre
It's not for nothing that he has a crater in Bolivia named after him.
That doesn't make him infallible.

Originally posted by Andre
Of course nature is capable of creating the weirdest things but geometric and more importantly, symmetrical features, with two axes of symmetry seem not to be that frequent.
Lots of symmetry in these images:
http://www.spokaneoutdoors.com/images/basalt15.jpg
http://massimolupidi.com/isl_170_05_2.jpg [Broken]
http://homepage.mac.com/dan_earle/gulf_maine/Annapolis_R_to_Belliveau_s_/images/Digby_Neck-11-139_661-720_.jpg [Broken]
http://members.tripod.com/soundoffzine/images/Ireland 2000/causeway16.jpg
http://www.mcdanielreport.com/pregeol.htmhttp://www.mcdanielreport.com/pregeol.htm [Broken]
http://www.ougsnw.org.uk/photo_gallery/images/Limestone%20Pavement%20at%20Malham.jpg [Broken]

A lot of people in the last couple hundred years were convinced that http://www.rockwallfoundation.org/images/wall_arch_1.JPG [Broken]. It has since been proven to be limestone formations. When various strata of limestone are broken by faulting, the result can be symmetrical and near symmetrical "blocks."

Originally posted by Andre
There are usually no crosses on horsts and grabens.
If you are referring to the sidescan sonar image of very poor resolution, then I think you might want to look at it again. First, side scan sonar is a tool for finding features of large size... not examining detail. Second, the nature of the equipment is that it often produces vertical and horizontal imaging artifacts... which are present in this. This "cross" is as likely an image artifact as not.

So far, I've not seen any visual data that shows clear symmetry... just the suggestion of symmetry. As I've pointed out, nature does this with some frequency.

Originally posted by Andre
Something in the equation does not add up. 12,500 years? 50,000 years? 15 mm per year? or silly nature, pulling legs?
I'm not sure what you're getting at there... but I'm suggesting that it is most likely that the "megaliths" are rock formations that fell from higher elevation due to some underwater, geologic event -perhaps a rouge wave caused by nearby sudden slumping or landslide "pushed" the rocks off their perch above. There are many other possibilities as well.

Iturralde-Vinent suggested that the geology of the site was above the surface some 50,000 y.b.p. I was pointing out that all current evidence in N. America for the occupation of humans is only from about 12,500 y.b.p. (years before present)

It is possible, however, that these "blocks" were at a higher elevation and fell as I stated, but that higher elevation was above water less than 12,500 y.b.p.

Then next question would be, at what point did humans in N. America and surrounding islands have had the architectural ability and technology to create megalithic buildings? At around 4500 y.b.p. Mesoamericans were still living in pithouses. That much is fairly clear in the archaeological record.

Are you suggesting that these blocks are of a civilization before or after this period? If, indeed, they are from a civilization.

Remember, the Great Pyramid in Egypt was constructed at around 2600 &plusmn; BC. That much, too, is fairly clear in the archaeological record. Megalithic construction in Mesoamerica didn't occur until around 2000 years ago.

Last edited by a moderator:
Perched rox?

but I'm suggesting that it is most likely that the "megaliths" are rock formations that fell from higher elevation due to some underwater, geologic event -perhaps a rouge wave caused by nearby sudden slumping or landslide "pushed" the rocks off their perch above. There are many other possibilities as well.
Now THAT's a stretch. How many square miles does MEGA cover?

If we are to believe http://www.cuba.cu/ciencia/citma/ama/museo/imagen/morfo.gif [Broken], and I see no reason not to, then the "Mega" site is on the slope of a draw, which, in turn, begins at the base of a large hill or small mountain.

This hill/mountain has a fault. According to I-V's data. Moreover, he suggests that there were landslides directly above the "Mega" site.

Last edited by a moderator:
More data
http://www.cuba.cu/ciencia/citma/ama/museo/siguenlos.htm [Broken]
Goose Barnacles in the Megaliths.

On the expedition of Exploramar in the month of April 2002 the robot gathered samples from the sandy deep in the megaliths, of where it recovered a roughly spherical stone of about 12 cm in diameter, to which was adhered a dead goose barnacle.

According to the robot's video there were 3 barnacles, but on the ascent two came loose. Dr. Manuel Ortiz Touzet, specialist in marine invertebrates at the Center of Marine Investigation at the University of Havana, identified the barnacle in question as belonging to the taxa Berruca sp., a group that live at great depths, generally stuck to the spines of sea urchins. This is the first that is reported stuck to a rock. Now it just remains to establish how the rock that served to support the barnacle reached the interior of one of the megalithic structures of MEGA. The rock is a dense sandstone, without matrix, consistent with a mixture of angular grains of rock and minerals, some of volcanic origin.

Last edited by a moderator:
http://es.geocities.com/ovniscubanos/articulo5.htm [Broken]
There are a few images here, that look fairly symmetrical.
We can't really see details of course.

image areas cover 120 x 180 m, and 150 x 150 meters.

Yes I've seen the Giant's Causeway structures, so your
comparison has been noted.

MEGA megalithic structures cover 20 square km or
~8 square miles, according to ADC.

An older article citing Robert Ballard, and John Echave of
National Geographic who traveled to Cuba and viewed the sonar
images.
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/17/Worldandnation/Underwater_world__Man.shtml

http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/amcuba03.htm [Broken]
"Cuban geologist Manuel Iturralde of Havana's National Museum of Natural History has analyzed the video, sonar images and rock samples from the site. While he has never seen anything like the repetitive patterns, Iturralde wants to see more samples before making any conclusions.

"We have some figures which are extremely unusual," Iturralde said. "But nature is much richer than we think."

The depths at which the structures were found pose problems for an Atlantis-type hypothesis, he added. At the maximum velocity of Earth's tectonic movements, it would have taken 50,000 years for ruins to sink 2,000 feet underwater. However, "50,000 years ago there wasn't the architectural capacity in any of the cultures we know of to build complex buildings," Iturralde said.

Michael Faught, assistant professor of anthropology at Florida State University and a specialist in underwater archaeology, agreed.

"It would be cool if they [Zelitsky and Weinzweig] were right," he said. "But it would be real advanced for anything we would see in the New World for that time frame. The structures are out of time and out of place."

Researchers at the National Geographic Society, whose planned trip to Cuba this summer fizzled because of bad weather and permit problems, say they hope to travel here next year.

"The formation of the Earth took such violent turns at times, it could be many, many things. You will always have people contending that, for example, the pyramids were built by aliens," said John Echave, senior editor at National Geographic magazine, who came to Havana last fall and studied the sonar and video images. "We're at a point where we would very much like to solve this riddle." "

Last edited by a moderator:
Skinwalker,

Not all your links work for me but let me provide some nice natural formations that seem to be incredible:

http://www.americansouthwest.net/utah/arches/delicate2_l.html
http://www.americansouthwest.net/utah/arches/doubleoarch.html
http://www.americansouthwest.net/utah/bryce_canyon/93bryce.html

However these phenomena only form on land under very specific conditions, not on the sea bottom.

You were talking about the poor resolution of side scan sonar. However, for what it is worth:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/41/236.html

ADC's deep-water equipment includes a satellite-integrated ocean bottom positioning system, high-precision side-scan double-frequency sonar, and the ROV.
Why spending so much effort to get so poor quality? I have no clue but I think that the objects that we looking at are dimensioned around 100 feet ROM. And the resolution may be slightly better than the average side scan sonar.

If things do not add up, something, somewhere, must be wrong in our assumptions. I'm not going to tell which one because I don't know but it seem that either one of the next impossible possibilities is going on:

-unknown geological processes can build "cities" under water.

-Known geological processes can build "cities" above water (sandstone formations over salt layers) albeit in areas where sandstone is not autochtone and consequently sink them a few thousend feet under water.

-Not present intelligent beings build a city or modified rocks at least 50,000 years ago that sank with a maximum rate of 15 mm a year into the sea.

- Present intelligent beings build a city or modified rocks much less than 12,500 years ago, that sank to the bottom of the sea with an impossible speed of perhaps meters per year.

Interesting hypotheses. I think we should look into all of them, trying to avoid arguing why one impossibility is more impossible than others.

Last edited:
Megaliths near the Cuban coast

Looking at where these megaliths are supposed to be raises interesting possibilities.
Lately my reading has focused on "earth crustal displacement" and " catastrope"
Ancient man has supposedly survived all these unknown natural phenomena.
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.
Man has been around for some 50-60,000 years if we stretch the imagination a little as this is a small span of time if we consider how old "lucy" is.
The earths surface has been on a roller coaster of change for some time.
The changes though have been sudden and violent and destructive to all those species that have been there. Man has clung on to life but has lost whole cities and islands in these maga changes.
How much is down there is anyones guess and the more we explore the more we will stumble on.

I don't have a theory of my own but enjoy reading what has been written.
Sam

Sam, ..eh..

This is a very delicate subject, with a lot of taboos a.k.a. pseudoscience. Besides all those poles shifters like http://www.habtheory.com/coe/index.php [Broken] because their mechanisms would not work and the ice age theory would account for all the Earth facts and evidence as we see it today. So those crackpots are taboo and better close the box very fast in which we are thinking, because we don't like paradigm shifts. All those books that need to be rewritten, all those people having been wrong.

However, we have no idea where to begin to explain this phenomenom and which impossibility is not a impossibility in reality. And if you search real good (google is the greatest invention after the wheel) then you can find a lot more formal scientific impossibilities albeit less spectacular.

Last edited by a moderator:

Originally posted by leijen
Lately my reading has focused on "earth crustal displacement" and " catastrope"
Ancient man has supposedly survived all these unknown natural phenomena.
If by "Earth crustal displacement" you are talking about sudden, massive shifts in the Earth's crust due to pole shifts (which appears to be a current and popular idea among some New Agers), there simply isn't any geologic evidence to support it that I've seen. Pole shifts are relatively common occurances with the planet (relative to the Earth's age) and evidence suggests that they are gradual, rather than sudden occurances by human perspective (though sudden by the perspective of a 4.6 billion year old planet), taking perhaps 50 - 75 years to complete. 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.

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.
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.

Originally posted by leijen
Man has been around for some 50-60,000 years if we stretch the imagination a little as this is a small span of time if we consider how old "lucy" is.
Actually, Tim White's recent discoveries in the Afar region of Eastern Ethiopia indicate that man has been around for up to 160,000 years.

Originally posted by leijen
The earths surface has been on a roller coaster of change for some time.The changes though have been sudden and violent and destructive to all those species that have been there.
But very little in the time of man has been globally catastrophic. Catastrophies occur, naturally, but they are very localized as in earthquakes, volcanos, and tsunamis. Most environmental changes were gradual enough to prompt man to simply pick up and move, as with the post glacial period around 10kya as sea levels rose.

Originally posted by leijen
How much is down there is anyones guess and the more we explore the more we will stumble on.
That is the fun part of archaeology! Everything lost wants to be found!

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]

[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:

[url]http://www.nature.com/nsu/020325/020325-5.html[/url]

[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.

Last edited by a moderator: