Charles Hapgood, a Harvard-educated professor and author of books like Earth’s Shifting Crust, Path of the Pole, and Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, was an early proponent of the crustal displacement theory – that a catastrophic POLE SHIFT periodically moves the entire surface of our planet in a single piece over the core below.
Albert Einstein corresponded with Hapgood about pole shifts, supported the theory, and wrote the foreword to Earth’s Shifting Crust.
Charles Hapgood – Path of the Pole- The Albert Einstein Letters .wmv
END TIMES PROPHECY 
This comment is amusing: “Consider the energy needed to move that much mass. What you suggest is that instead of the poles switching the whole damn earth flips. Not plausible. ”
With just my mass standing upon a rope holding a ship to the quayside, I can move a mass a million times greater than my own – bringing the ship back against the fenders. It is not a matter of considering the energy I needed, since it is but a small step. It is a matter of force.
Just because the Earth is massive, this does not mean it cannot flip very quickly.
The Earth is spinning, like a top, and in a zero g, and zero friction environment, it doesn’t take much more than a gradual build up of an opposed magnetic field, to change that top from positive stability to negative stability, until eventually, some minor perturbation triggers the rapid switch, whereby the top wobbles, and then inverts, resuming positive stability, even whilst it retains its angular momentum.
A little force is all it takes to persuade a spinning top that it is better spinning the other way up.
Every 12,000 years the polarity of the ambient magnetic field (about the Earth) inverts…
Posted by Zod | February 22, 2019, 10:43 pmI agree that a planet passing through a strongly shifting magnetic field could flip as easily as a magnet held in your hand when another magnetic is brought close. But it might take far less energy to just move the crust over the core, if a lubricating layer is created by a weakening magnetic field.
Posted by David Montaigne | February 23, 2019, 2:45 amAgain, the issue is not the energy, but the force.
A miniscule force can move a super-massive object in free space (zero friction) – it’s just a matter of how long you have to wait for the acceleration to result in a visible movement. Remember: F=MA=M(v-u)/t.
Where is the large force that moves the Earth’s crust – against considerable friction – even when lubricated?
A centripetal force due to dynamic imbalance of accumulated ice? And if so, why shift just a few degrees instead of 90?
The external magnetic field in concert with The Earth’s, causes the planet to flip 180°. The force of that flipping, and of its cessation, is where you find the forces to shift the crust. There is no other sufficiently strong force that will just shift the crust and leave the rest of the planet unperturbed, especially not over a period of 24-48 hours, and on a regular 12,000 year cycle.
Posted by Zod | February 23, 2019, 8:25 amThe Earth’s magnetic field is extremely weak, barely able to move a free-floating, delicately-balanced, light-as-air iron needle in a compass. The massive, inertia bound, 6 billion trillion tonne Earth would need a planet sized object to hit it before its axis would change, destroying Earth. The magnetic field of Earth, or any magnetic field acting on Earth has no physical capability of changing the rotational poles, axis, or tilt of Earth. The magnetic pole wanders, but only because of the slowly cycling electric fields within Earth, always drifting around the geographical pole locations, where the axial poles emerge. The geographical pole locations shift, due to crustal displacement of the crust, but the underlying bulk of Earth does not change its rotational properties, and it can’t over less than 100 million to billion year periods. Crustal displacements occur every 18,000 to 30,000. years, causing major changes in geographical pole locations of 30 to 45 degrees, mistaken for axis and magnetic field changes. Depending how close one is to the pole, the magnetic north can change by up to 180 degrees during and after a crustal displacement. One also has to consider the effects that a crustal displacement (CD) will have on the magnetic field of Earth, possibly weakening it or causing it to reverse, possibilities. CD’s affect the wobble/precession of Earth and, thusly, the cycling tilt of Earth and the period of wobble of Earth, and thusly directly drives the so-called Milankovitch cycle, not to mention all ice core and ocean level graphs.
Posted by Robert Rust | March 30, 2021, 7:33 amI agree the entire planet including the core does not shift, *only* a crustal displacement. But evidence suggests a 12-13,000 year cycle, not 18-30Kyrs. Also it is the magnetohydrodynamics of the strong magnetic field creating a semi-crystalline lattice structure (high viscosity, resistance to movement) below the crust, resisting the torque of mass imbalances. When the magnetic field gets weak enough this effect ends, the fine structure in the magma breaks down and the resistance to torque is overcome.
Posted by David Montaigne | March 30, 2021, 9:11 amCausing the crust to slip over the mantle is well within the ability of a grazing asteroid impact, especially if it is near the equator. With the impact of 10,900 BCE, the first of the stream of meteorites hit in Alaska, causing the crater Sithylemenkat. Then further impacts on the Laurentian ice cap from ice chunks (small comets) continued the impetus, until the two large remaining stone meteors impacted north of Puerto Rico. The impacts created the largest holes in the sea bed in the world, 25,000 feet deep. That is the kind of force needed to cause the crustal displacement. The North Pole was driven from Greenland to its present position, forcing the Laurentian ice cap far south, and leading to the creation of the massive glacial Lake Agassiz.
Posted by Saul Pressman | March 21, 2022, 11:09 pm