Exposing PseudoAstronomy

February 1, 2009

Planet X and 2012: The Pole Shift (Geographic / Spin Axis) Explained and Debunked


Continuing my series on Planet X and 2012, one of the main claims of what will actually happen is termed a “Pole Shift.” Sounds scary, huh? The Earth’s pole(s) … shifting!?

But what does it actually mean? Well, Earth actually has two sets of North and South Poles – the geographic and the magnetic. Most of the doomsdayers that I’ve heard seem to imply that they are talking about a geographic pole shift, but some also talk about a magnetic pole shift. Since both are completely different, and since they are significant enough topics by themselves, I am doing separate posts on them. This one addresses the geographic pole, also known as the rotation axis.

There are actually a few different specific versions of this scenario that various doomsday folks have created. The one that I know the most about and will address in this post is that of Brent Miller, founding member of the “Horizon Project,” and the statements that he has made on the November 10, 2008 and January 11, 2009 episodes of the Coast-to-Coast AM radio show. I am not going to use many quotes because there is no transcript for these shows and it’s an awful lot of typing and pausing and typing and pausing for me to supply a direct quote for each claim.

All posts in this series:

Main Premises

Basic Premise of a (Geographic) Pole Shift: The basic premise that Brent Miller argues for is that Earth’s spin axis will change. At present, Earth revolves such that the north geographic and south geographic pole stay stationary with respect to the stars, always pointing at the same location in space. The rest of the planet rotates around this axis. In a “pole shift” event, the geographic location of this axis would change such that two different locations would stay fixed with respect to the stars while the rest of the planet rotates around that axis.

Milky Way’s Black Hole Creates a “Dark Rift:” I addressed this more in-depth in my post about the pseudoastronomy of galactic alignments, but in brief, Miller thinks that the Milky Way’s black hole spins out gravity waves that create a “dark rift” along the center plane of the galaxy.

Properties of the “Dark Rift:” Miller claims the main property of this is an intense gravitational force that (a) will cause Earth’s poles to shift, and (b) contains a lot of “junk” material (my words, not his) such as asteroids that could impact Earth.

Earth’s Continents Are Kept “Afloat” By Earth Spinning on Its Axis: Miller points out that because Earth spins on its axis, the equatorial diameter is 42 km greater than the polar diameter, and that this is proof that the continents are above sea level because they are “pushed out” by Earth spinning. If Earth stopped spinning or if it started to spin around a different central axis, then the continents as we know them would sink because there is no longer the centrifugal force keeping them “out.”

This Has Happened Before and there’s Proof Its Happening Now: He goes through many apparent points of evidence to show that this has happened before (around 11,000 B.C. and something like it in 705 B.C.) and shows apparent evidence that it is starting to now.

Dissecting the “Evidence”

Milky Way, Black Holes, and “Dark Rift:” This is not correct, mostly for the reasons I pointed out in this post. There is no “dark rift.” If the Milky Way’s central supermassive black hole is throwing off gravitational waves, at the location we are, they will bend and flex us by less than the width of an atom.

Miller also claims that his “astrophysicists” have now verified we’re moving into the galactic plane (which we’re not) and his “quantum mechanics guys” have shown what the effects of the gravity waves would be. Because I want to really harp on this, here is the quote (from hour 4 of the Jan. 11 program at about 31 min 15 sec into the program): “Pretend the calendars never existed. Independent of the calendars, the quantum physicists have already confirmed that the center of our galaxy really is a super-massive black hole, they’ve confirmed the location of the galactic plane, uh, the astrophysicists have already mapped out the time in which we are going to be crossing the galactic plane, and they estimate it to within 2 or 3 days of [when the Mayans said it would happen] at the end of 2012.”

This really shows that the people who work with him (a) don’t know what they’re doing, (b) don’t read the scientific literature, (c) don’t contribute to the scientific literature, and (d) that he doesn’t know what someone in the fields he’s quoting should be doing. None of this has to do with quantum mechanics. Mapping out the galaxy is for astronomy. Finding “when” we’ll cross the actual galactic plane is for an astrophysicist. Finding the supermassive black hole in the galaxy’s center is for astronomy. Gravity waves are for general relativity (the opposite, pretty much, of quantum mechanics). And gravitational effects are Newtonian mechanics (classical mechanics). So really, this is an example of throwing out very important-sounding terminology and having no idea of what they actually mean, besides the actual information being wrong.

In sum, this will not be, “just like going into the black hole,” as Miller claims. And, as a consequence, his “theory” has now been shown to have absolutely no physical mechanism.

Earth’s Continents Staying Afloat: It’s difficult here to not resort to ad hominem attacks because this simply has no basis in reality. Pretty much the only thing correct in this entire argument is Earth’s equatorial diameter is 42.6 km greater than its polar diameter (from NASA’s factsheets). And it is thought that this is due to Earth’s rotation, that there will be a bulge around the middle that’s the effect of billions of years of rotation.

But other than that, nothing he says about this is correct. The continents don’t “float” such that if Earth’s spin were altered or stopped they’d suddenly sink (he quotes timescales of several hours or days for an entire landmass to sink). Centrifugal force does not keep them above water. Rather, they are less dense than the rock underneath. The average density of continental crust is 2.7 g/cm3. The average density of ocean crust is 3.0 g/cm3 That’s why at zones where oceanic meets continental crust, the oceanic crust goes underneath the continental crust. In addition, the continents have a “root” that goes between 20-70 km down, making an indentation into the underlying lithosphere.

What that all boils down to is that the continents are not tenuously kept above water just because Earth rotates. Claims that they are are incorrect and have no basis in what is the accepted structure of Earth as shown through models and evidence (such as gravity mapping and mapping of the interior structure via earthquakes).

So at this point I’ve now shown that his basic mechanism for a pole shift is wrong, and that his claim of what would happen as a consequence wouldn’t actually happen. But there’s more.

Examining His Historic Evidence: There are many, many points of apparent historic evidence for this that Miller points to To try to organize them a bit, I will address them as bullet paragraphs:

  • Continental Drift – Miller claims that we’ve all been taught that continental drift (the continents moving around on the lithosphere) takes millions of years. He says this is wrong, that it happens very quickly. The evidence he points to is that the crust in the Atlantic Ocean is about the same age – has the same amount of dead animals and mud and silt – as the crust in the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, they must be about the same age, indicating that the Americas separated from Eurasia and Africa very quickly. However, this is based on a misunderstanding of plate tectonics – specifically subduction. While the Atlantic Ocean is growing and the mid-Atlantic Rift is creating new crust, the Pacific Ocean is also creating new crust, but it is sinking once it spreads to the continental plates. The image below shows this reasonably well, and it is color-coded with the age of the seafloor. The dark, solid lines indicate either spreading or subduction zones. So, even if you don’t necessarily trust these ages, you should at least start to doubt the evidence and Miller’s interpretation of the evidence (an interpretation which is not supported by the scientific community).

  • Mayan Prophecy and Legend of Atlantis – Miller claims the Mayans foresaw this event. I have already addressed that in a few posts (here and here, mainly) and so will not do so again here. But Atlantis is a new one. But it is a tired one – Atlantis was introduced by Plato in the same sense that the Empire was introduced by George Lucas in Star Wars: “A long time ago on an island far, far away.” Miller uses the argument ad populum logical fallacy to say that because everyone around the world has this legend of an advanced civilization that had flying machines that all died out, they must have existed. And his twist is that they must have died out because of the pole shift causing their own island continent to sink into the ocean because Earth’s spin no longer kept it afloat. I don’t want to get too much more into Atlantis here since it’s not the focus, and so I will refer you to this 8-minute podcast of the SGU 5×5 for more information.
  • While talking about prophecy, I should mention that he also uses Nostradomus and Casey prophecies, which I won’t address because, as with most “prophecies,” they are so non-specific that they can be retrofitted to fit any event.
  • The Mississippi River Delta – Miller claims that the age of the Mississippi River can be estimated based upon the amount of sediments in the river delta in the Gulf of Mexico. I did a cursory internet search on this and couldn’t actually find much other than various young-Earth creationism claims, so for argument’s sake, let’s say it’s correct. He claims the estimates are to around 11,000 B.C. He says that the river must have formed when the pole shift happened and it shifted the way water flows. Well, how about a different explanation: The last ice age ended 10,0000-15,000 years ago, and retreating glaciers carved out the landscape to form the river. That’s the scientific consensus, in general, that the current Mississippi River owes its course to the last ice age, and it has nothing to do with a pole shift.
  • 705 B.C. Event – Miller claims that in 705 B.C., something happened to cause the Earth to stop spinning, rotate backwards for 10 hrs, then spin back the right way again but slightly slower such that the year had 365 days instead of 360 days. He claims as evidence for this that all 15 “major” calendar systems at the time were all revised “within just 2-5 years” of the event and that a few civilizations recorded it, such as the Chinese astronomers recording that the “sun set twice in one day” on that day. However, other than quotes from Miller, I could find absolutely no evidence to support this claim. And while I’m not saying that is proof against it, one should always be cautious when you cannot independently verify a claim. I would think something that significant would be out there, and so this also gets back to the point I made above that his people don’t publish any of their “findings” … they just sell them in DVDs for $24.95. I should also mention that the mechanism he thinks made this happen is a Planet X. But for reasons that I discuss below in the next section on “What Would it Take to Shift the Poles?” a “Planet X” passing could not do this. In addition, the claim is inconsistent. He states that so many people recorded that this event happened, and that many of them were excellent astronomers. But, they must have been incompetent astronomers if they didn’t notice a giant planet passing very close to Earth (since all ancient civilizations knew about Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn which are much farther away). So this would be the simple logical fallacy of inconsistency.

Examining His Present-Day Evidence: Just as there are many apparent lines of “evidence” of previous pole shifts that I’ve now at least cast serious doubt on if not outright debunked, there’s the question of his present-day “evidence.” However, what this “evidence” amounts to is an attempt to anomaly hunt and claim whatever anomalies one finds (or makes up) are proof of their hypothesis:

  • Chandler Wobble Stopped and Became Erratic – The Chandler Wobble is actually a kinda neat phenomenon and is a genuine pole shift. The wobble is where the rotation axis changes by up to about 0.7 arcseconds (where 1° = 60 arcmin and 1 arcmin = 60 arcsec) which translates to a physical movement of about 15 meters. The wobble has a period of about 433 days and is caused by Earth not being a perfect sphere, but rather more pear-shaped (Since, besides the equatorial bulge discussed above, the north and south hemispheres are slightly asymmetric). Miller claims that the Chandler Wobble was very steady until we entered his dark rift, and then it stopped, and now it’s erratic due to the gravity in the rift. However, he is wrong. There’s simply no other way to put it – he’s wrong. The wobble has varied since it was discovered in the late 1800s, and it has been measured since then and you can download the data for yourself. I graphed the x vs. y position of it since 1980 (shown below) and while it has varried in size, at no point during the last 30 years has it stopped, nor is it now behaving erratically. The only explanation I have for his claim is that either (a) he is completely ignorant of the actual data (perhaps one of his “quantum mechanics” told him wrong, or (b) he’s outright lying.

    Chandler Wobble, 1980-2009

    Chandler Wobble, 1980-2009

  • More and More Earthquakes – This has been a claim of doomsdayers for many years, that the frequency of earthquakes is increasing. This is not true. It’s our ability to measure and locate them that is increasing and hence they can be recorded. The large earthquakes – magnitude 5-6 and above – have remained steady for well over a century. This is according to the USGS (here and here), which is the data that Miller claims to be using. So again a case of inconsistency and just being ignorant of what’s really going on.
  • Weird Weather – This is another catch-all claim by doomsdayers, drawing attention the weird weather around the world (first snow in Baghdad in a century, record flooding and hurricanes, etc.). However, the scientific consensus is that this is due to global warming, where the few-degree temperature increase can easily cause global weather patterns to change, and it has nothing at all to do with the effects of a “dark rift.”

What Would it Take to Shift the Poles?

First off, let’s assume Miller’s basic mechanism of a gravitational event happening “to Earth” is real (assuming this for argument’s sake, and because it’s believed by many others, though they have different causes such as Planet X). If Earth entered a gravitational field of some sort, there is simply no mechanism to shift it (as in a pole shift). While, yes, Earth does rotate on its axis, this axis is an imaginary construct, there is nothing physical to pull on. This is where the analogy of a top spinning fails. And yes, while Earth does bulge at its equator, there is again nothing to really pull on it.

This is especially true when you consider that the field that Miller is proposing would take Earth 20 years to move through. You would need something incredibly focused (think tractor beam on Star Trek) in order to exert a torque (rotating force) on an object in order to spin it. A gravitational field could theoretically move Earth, but the type of field that Miller proposes could in no way exert a specific torque on Earth’s axis to shift the poles a certain amount and then stop.

What about a “Planet X?” Again, even a planet-sized body would exert a tug on Earth as a whole as opposed to through a specific axis and so could not effect a pole shift. I will address this further on a post specifically about what a Planet X could do.

So what would it really take to shift Earth’s poles? Well, in order to rotate something in any direction, you need to apply a force. That force has to be specifically in that direction on the part of the object to make it rotate in that way. For example, if you have a billiard ball and you want to spin it, you normally push it from a side (such as the top). You have provided the force to make it move. Now, if you were to apply that same force to the opposite side of the ball (so push away from you on both the top and the bottom), then it would just move away from you and not spin.

So in order to get Earth to rotate in a new direction, or to “shift” its poles, one would need to apply a lot of force in one direction on only one side. The easiest way I can think of doing this would be a planet-sized asteroid impact. As I have shown now on at least two other threads, even an impactor that is 100 km in diameter would be like a grain of sand plowing into a car. Sure, you’ll get a little dent (and wipe out some life), but the planet as a whole will not care. You need something that is much more comparable to Earth’s mass in order to really shift the poles. Something the size of the dwarf planet Ceres would do the trick – and that object is about 1000 km in diameter (Earth is about 12,900 km in diameter). And I should note that we know where all Ceres-sized objects are that are close enough to cause that to happen within the next few centuries. (Again, I will address that more on a post specifically about Planet X.)

Final Thoughts

This is by far my longest post over the last 4 months, over 50% longer than the previous record. And yet, again, I feel as though I’ve only just scratched the surface of just this version of the pole shift idea. Perhaps it’s because I’ve now listened to 4 hours of Coast-to-Coast AM (the two episodes for the 3 “hours” each that Brent Miller talks) three times each to really get down the bulk of his claims and ideas. And there is still more to get into from him, but for now I want to leave him and let this post stand on its own since it really covers the bulk of his claims. As I’ve stated on other conspiracy-related posts, it’s impossible to get into every single claim because more crop up as soon as you debunk one (much like conspiracy theories).

Hence I have tried to give you the basic information to be able to figure out why the idea of 2012 somehow coinciding with an event that will cause a geographic pole shift has no basis in reality by both debunking or calling into question all of his claims, as well as talking about what it would really take to shift Earth’s rotation axis. If you come across (or have) a claim that I haven’t addressed within this topic, please leave a comment!



  1. Thanks for the thorough analysis. I’m a layman who has only started to study “pole shift” and it’s very confusing. Can you say anything about the phenomenon known as “crustal displacement” and what your thoughts are on the evidence of mammoths being discovered frozen in ice with tropical vegetation found in the stomach. Is it true that there have been events in earth’s past whereby within a matter of hours the crust slid around the core thus swapping arctic and tropical regions?


    Comment by Ben — February 1, 2009 @ 10:54 pm | Reply

  2. Ben –

    Thanks for taking the time to post a comment. The quick answer to your main question is “not really.”

    The longer answer is that “crustal displacement” is the same effect as a pole shift, just that it’s the crust as opposed to the entire planet that is doing the shifting (where the crust is the upper 20-70 km of material vs. the 6738 km radius of the entire planet. This is used by 2012 and pole shift people – at least in my estimation – instead of a full-fledged pole shift because many people are familiar with the nature of plate tectonics, that Earth’s crust is already shifting around so it’s less of a leap to imagine the the whole crust could suddenly move as one entity.

    However, this has the same mechanistic problems as the general pole shift idea – it lacks any mechanism. You would need some directed force to create a torque on the crust to move it all in the same direction. In addition to this, you would need some way to temporarily fuse all of the crustal plates together such that when you move one, it doesn’t just subduct under another plate in the direction its moving and leave a big gap behind it. Again, there’s no mechanism to do that, and certainly the mechanisms proposed (“dark rift” in the galaxy or a passing planetary body) could not accomplish this for the reasons I’ve laid out in the post.

    I have heard the mammoth with vegetation claim, but I have not done any research into it, nor would I really know where to start – it’s very far out of my field of expertise. I did address many of the other historic claims of evidence, though, in this post.

    Perhaps one of the best lines of evidence to counter the idea that there has been a geographic pole shift within the last hundred million years is the island chain of Hawai’i. The Hawai’ian islands are created by a volcanic plume that rises from the mantle, through the crust, and releases lava to build up the islands. But, the crust moves over time (due to plate tectonics) while the plume remains stationary, and hence you have a chain of islands. The fact that they are fairly regularly spaced – even when there is a “kink” in the line – and the oldest one is about 70-80 million years old indicates that there has been no significant shift whatsoever in the crust relative to the mantle.

    So while I can’t answer your question about mammoths, I can assure you that there’s no good mechanism for a “crustal displacement,” and geologic evidence points to it not having occurred within at least the last ~100 million years. I also feel somewhat obligated to emphasize that just because I may not be able to refute one piece of purported evidence does not mean that the entire hypothesis is true. I encourage you to look into primary source reports of the mammoths as opposed to just taking other people’s claims at face value. I also encourage you to look at other sources to verify my own debunking of the doomsday “evidence” claims.

    Comment by astrostu206265 — February 1, 2009 @ 11:30 pm | Reply

  3. Nice…to be honest, I have just recently heard of the whole 2012 thing, though I do remember reading/hearing about some of these phenomenon. I don’t ever remember them being so sensationalized as they are now. I’m certain I heard it in a physics course in college and I’m also certain that if there was any indication that it would lead to the end of the world that I wouldn’t forget that. This whole debate is starting to sound a lot like the creationism/evolution debate. What is the need to ascribe supernatural/metaphysical nonsense to reality. Can’t wait to see this debate die down with the passing of that day in 2012 with barely a disturbance…would be slapstick funny and just another one in a long list of doomsday’s that never were.

    Comment by Rick — February 2, 2009 @ 9:23 pm | Reply

  4. Firstly, it’s so refreshing to have someone debunk all this bs if so much interesting FACTS. Although I’m definately not a believer in doomsdays of any kind, I get a good laugh at visiting these people’s websites and reading their ridiculous theories. One scenerio I haven’t been able to find a lot of information on regarding the pole shift is that landmasses now on the equator were once over the magnetic north pole and that this shift happens within years. (the places and historical times seem to vary, one specifically was that panama was on the north pole, another (someone trying to be realistic to be convincing perhaps) said it was sibera. one mention was the early triassic period (but if i remember correctly the early triassic period took place while there was only one continent? please correct me if i’m wrong i’m not sure). either way the generality of all these statements is that “pole shift” either involves the north and south magnetics to switch (causing the world to turn upside down in some of these statements… i know.. i’m laughing too) or to move to new locations, which apparently happen every so many tens of million years. these specific statements had nothing to do with other planets, black holes, etc, they called it a natural phenomena.
    maybe this is something that would be interesting to address.

    Comment by Julia — February 12, 2009 @ 10:04 pm | Reply

    • comment to Julia , the Pole shift which is related to Planet X is not the same shifts that happened due long Geologiacal periods , the pole shift is of a Geographical shift,( ie that the people of Australia will start to see the North Pole star , and the north magnetic pole will turn together with the Geographical north pole to the South , the proccess will lead to a phenomena that the sun will raise from the west , to imagin this take a pen normal to your desk and spin it to one direction around its coure and then shift the pen upside down , ) the palnet moon will have a participation in this pole shift,the reason why this happen is that when the Planet X comes close to earth the region of Bermuda triangle ( which has a huge gravetational potential ) will attract and makes a bound with planet X , when the planet X rotates round the planet earth it will take the axis of the poles to rotate with it , the resultant is shifting of the pols upside down ,

      Comment by serbest — May 28, 2009 @ 6:19 am | Reply

    • picture the earth as a big induction motor…spinning centre inside STATIONARY crust(s).this spinning creates the magnetosphere around the earth…just like the motor creates it`s own magnetic feild.now the mag.north and south poles dictate the direction of rotation of the earth`s core causing it to `drag` the rest of the crust(s) in that direction…you can change the rotation of any motor simply by reversing it`s poles. now all this said, if our mag. poles did in fact change their geographic location ,by any amount,then the earth`s core would also alter it`s spin direction and line up with the new mag. pole locations thus `dragging` the crust(s) in an altered direction ,causing much ,much damage!
      so what could cause the mag. poles to shift geo locations? massive solar disturbances(cme.flares..).if the charged energy overloads the mag. field around the earth,this `induced` voltage from the sun may be enough to alter the mag. feild around our planet and change the mag. poles ,and snowballing from there. this is the only real scientific explanation i can attribute to the pole shift theory..being an electrical worker ,i can easily reconize the comparisons between our planet and an electrical motor….both behave the same way regardless of the scale diff.
      as for crustal displacement, i think that this would be caused by a massive imballance of weight at the poles. there is much more landmass in the antarctic compounded with all that ice on top.the arctic ic mostly ocean and ice sheets\glaciers\and bergs.now if all that ice in the arctic were to melt then there would be an incredible weght diff between the 2 poles,,this could be the catalyst for a quick crustal displacement…centrifugal motion people.

      now these 2 explanations to me are very solid and scientific.and they`re backed up by charles hapgood (his theory) and albert einstein.


      Comment by steve — October 7, 2010 @ 6:57 am | Reply

      • Show your math – the onus is on you to show this has any basis in reality rather than me to show it doesn’t. And I don’t know anything about Charles Hapgood other than he was a historian and had nothing to do with physics, but I can tell you that Einstein’s work has no relevance to what you speak of, either.

        Comment by Stuart Robbins — October 7, 2010 @ 10:25 am

  5. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread416964/pg1 i’ve added this website… it’s got everything from the number 23 somehow proves we’re all going to die… solar radiation causes pole shifts… to biblical references on noah’s arc… to well you’ll see. of course none of these people are very important… but i think you’ll be interested in this thread because of the topics..
    and i think they’re onto something because they heard it’s based on scientific evident. 😉

    Comment by Julia — February 12, 2009 @ 10:39 pm | Reply

  6. Julia –

    Have you read my post on the magnetic pole shift: ““Planet X and 2012: The Pole Shift (Magnetic) Explained and Debunked?” If not, take a look at that, since I address the magnetic stuff there.

    It’s actually much more plausible that the magnetic poles will shift rather than the spin axis relative to the ecliptic, since we have evidence in Earth’s crust that this has happened many times before, occasionally quite frequently (in geologic terms … “frequently” = tens of thousands of years). However, the last such event was around 780,000 years ago, which is the longest that we’ve stuck with the field orientation we have now in at least the last 5 million years. This is part of why people (legitimate geophysicists, not 2012 doomsdayers) will often say that we are actually “due” for a field reversal, though this is fallacious in the sense of the gambler’s fallacy.

    As I state on the magnetic pole shift post I linked to, we really don’t know why field reversals are triggered, or even if “triggered” is an appropriate term. This of course leaves openings for arguments from ignorance.

    Comment by astrostu206265 — February 12, 2009 @ 11:16 pm | Reply

  7. How do you have proof. so many people debunk all these hair brain Ideas and I believe you as well as many others are only in this to make money.

    Greed Greed Greed…..

    Why do you tell these kind of stories?
    things like Planet X or Nibiru have never be talked about before and nothing has ever happened and as always never will!!!!

    it’s all a scam in ,my eyes and a lot of TALK!!!!!!!

    I want the truth!!!!
    I want the truth!!!!!!!!!!

    Andy [phone number removed by moderator]

    Comment by Andy — February 13, 2009 @ 9:23 am | Reply

  8. Thanks so much for posting this on the net straightening out Brent Miller’s major misconceptions about geology, astronomy and physics. I enjoyed the pics and all the scientific reasoning.

    I’d like to add a couple of points with regards to geology and coastlines during the Ice Age. There’s a great website up on a gov site which maps all the vegetation of the planet at different periods of the Ice Age, including America @

    With an approximate vegetation map of the Mississippi basin at 11,000 YA of this

    At that phase the Mississippi basin was a warm temperate forest type.

    About 2004, Harvard released a study stating that the coastlines at the Last Glacial Maximum were minus 100 meters below present. Since then there has been debate about the specific 100 meters, but in general most would say that the LGM coastlines of the planet are between 100-122 meters below present sea level (which is why there are so many lovely online maps of Beringia–the land bridge at Alaska–showing this past sea level when the water levels were lower because all the water was frozen in glaciers.)

    Mississippi’s Last Glacial Maximum Coastline map can be viewed here in this map.

    Anyhow, these basic facts seem to prove false Miller’s idea of an alleged massive flood at 11,000 BCE. There was no massive flood at that time period. Sea levels were far below what they are now, and quite the contrary, more land was above water at that time period.

    I’ll address him quoting Nostradamus and Cayce. In many instances when people have far out “end of the world” ideas and they claim to be psychics, they tend to claim that either Cayce or Nostradamus said the same as them. When 99% of the time Cayce said no such thing and neither did Nostradamus. With Nostradamus especially, most people making “end of the world” claims are quoting quatrains in English that are horrific translations from the French. And if a person goes back and correctly translates the French back into English, you’ll find Nostradamus said no such thing.

    Speaking of mistranslations, the whole Mayan 2012 crap is also a massive mistranslation. Technically, the Mayan hieroglyphs don’t even say that. It was a Caucasian man who was an “end of the worlder” got ahold of Mayan hieroglyphs and tried to attempt to claim that the Mayans said his end of the world crap, when it’s a complete mistranslation of Mayan hieroglyphs.

    And the last translation error to address would be Plato’s Atlantis, from Greek to English, translated into English in the 1800s by Jowett. Also a completely botched translation. The fact is the world “Atlantis” in and of itself is a word created by Jowett in the 1800s. No such word existed before then. Plato’s sunken island which was referred to in Greek legend was named “Atlas”, the son of Poseidon. (there was no ‘nti’ to make it Atlantis). Plato’s sunken island was referring to an island sunken off the coast of Athens (Athina). It was an island in the Aegean that lay north of the Pillars of Heracles which used to be on the island of Rhodes. The legend was that the inhabitants of the sunken island in the Aegean founded the city of Athina (Athens–capitol of Greece) but that the island inhabitants became corrupt and Athens fought against them to gain their independence, so to speak. Plato’s legend has nothing to do with America, nothing to do with the Atlantic Ocean and nothing to do with the British Isles. Jowett completely destroyed the legend with his outrageous mistranslation of the Greek into English in the 1800s and every whack job has been jumping on the mistranslated English version making ridiculous claims ever since. I have a giant blog up about it on MySpace if anyone else is interested.


    So overall, Brent Miller ignores all the basic science that one would learn in Geology 101, Astronomy 101, and Physics 101. Perhaps he should use some of that income from those tape sales and sign up for some beginners science classes at a local university.

    Comment by Izabol — March 9, 2009 @ 6:04 am | Reply

  9. I have heard one of the interviews on youtube and after a bit of research I found out something strange. It seems that Miller has plagiarized much material from this site


    (orig. dates back to Jan. 20, 2008)

    and Miller put it into the 2012 context. However, the guy from that website says that he does not believe anyone could predict such a geographic pole shift exactly and in my view he presents better arguments than Miller does.

    Comment by Jack — May 28, 2009 @ 3:11 am | Reply

  10. I find this subject absolutely fascinating!!! This has really enlightened me on many arguments i hear daily from those who barely graduated high school but i digress…

    First let me state that i laughed in everyone’s faces on January 1, 2000! I found it extremely difficult to believe that our sofisticated computer systems could not handle a simple switch of dates and knew that it was those just looking to make a profit to include the evil empire of Microsoft! And yet you had every idiot under the sun stocking up on water and supplies hiding in their basements ready for the apocalypse!

    Now we have December 12, 2012…and prior to the advertisement for the movie the average Joe America couldn’t tell you anything about the Mayan Calender, pole shifts or the end. I believe that this has been taken too far and Hollywood has again given the world a reason to go crazy and prepare for nothing. I will admit i’m no expert on the subject and do not have the knowledge to give an educated response, but i do believe that this planet will survive with us on it. And on December 12, 2012 Joe America can prepare for the end of the world and i’ll be Christmas shopping and shoveling out my car from the snowbank.

    Comment by Bradley — July 20, 2009 @ 9:24 pm | Reply

    • Hi Bradley, In reference to the January 1st 2000 “, some computers with very early 1980 odd bios’s did revert back to their original Bios starting date, no major problems ocurred that I came across, but I did have to manually reset the date on dozens of systems to 1st January 2000…
      As for the water and also the year 2000 viral spray that sold like hot cakes in the USA, well what can one say… regards Keith (Australia)

      Comment by Keith — August 26, 2013 @ 8:12 am | Reply

  11. Brent Miller:
    Our earth is really fragile, it spins weightless in space, frictionless almost, on its axis as it travels around the sun. So it’s basically this free-floating ball and any external influence on it will be enough to cause it to wobble. Einstein addressed this issue when he said that the earth was so fragile that all you needed to do is melt the polar ice cap a significant amount and the earth would have a geographic pole shift and decimate the planet.

    There are no documents discussing the previous cataclysmic pole shift but we do have details about how fragile the planet is. In roughly 705bc (we assume) a gravitational body, it could have been a planet or black hole, nobody knows what it was – passed the planet. Here’s the result:

    – it caused the planet literally to stop revolving in its current direction.
    – go backward for approximately 10 hours
    – then it resumed its normal rotational spin

    Our computer model shows what range of gravitational forces must have approached the planet and how they must have left the planet, proximity as they passed by, in the direction opposite to the rotational spin of the planet in order for that effect to happen. This is recorded by many civilizations on that date and yet it’s not taught in schools how delicate the planet is.

    George Knapp:
    Hold on a second now. It’s recorded that the planet changed direction? It’s recorded by whom?

    Brent Miller:
    There were 15 major civilizations at that time, in 705bc. It was recorded in King Hezakaiya’s day as the sun moved “backward up the Sun Palace steps by 10 steps before resuming its normal direction.”

    George Knapp:

    Brent Miller:
    At the very same time the Chinese, as you know, were ancient astronomers. They record on that very same day the event as, “The sun sat in the west, rose back up again from the west on the coast at the high-noon position and then resumed its normal path.” It’s the day that they refer to as “The sun set twice in one day.” It should be noted that the 15 major civilizations on earth at that time, they all had calendars and they were all astronomers and they had very accurate calendars and all their calendars were based on 360-day years. The major civilizations at that time were the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Egyptians, Hebrews, Persians, Greeks, Venusians, Chinese, Mayans, Hindus and 3 others. What happened was after that date the earth turned 365 revolutions in its path around the sun to meet one solar year. It took only 2 years before all these civilizations realized and were properly able to compute the new speed around the sun and the spin rate in order to readjust the 15 standard calendars at that time. Newmas pompeelus (sp), he was the 2nd king of Rome at that time, he reorganized the Gregorian calendar of 360-days by adding 5 days a year. King Hezakaiwa (sp), Newmas’ (sp) contemporary reorganized the Jewish calendar by adding a month each Jewish leap year and others made different adjustments. That was less than 3000 years ago.

    *cut to break*

    Comment by Carlos McElfish — August 15, 2009 @ 11:15 pm | Reply

    • Where is that information from? I have not heard that before. Is this from a book or story? 🙂 I’m laughing because if that is true it’s pretty funny to me.

      Comment by Sarah — September 9, 2009 @ 7:40 pm | Reply

      • The Coast to Coast AM radio show. See my Introduction to this post.

        Comment by astrostu206265 — September 9, 2009 @ 8:06 pm

  12. Correct me if I’m wrong…as I no doubt am considering I can’t tell the difference between a cornflake packet and a science textbook.

    Don’t scientists believe there was a geographic pole shift between 200/800 million years ago and they havn’t established what caused it?

    Comment by Eden — December 9, 2009 @ 2:48 am | Reply

    • Eden,

      There was a magnetic pole shift but it was around 700,000-800,000 years ago. Just GOOGLE keywords “magnetic pole shift” “800,000 years ago” and you’ll come up with a bunch of sites on the topic.

      A magnetic pole shift can be seen in cooling magma or lava rock from volcanoes and the direction of magnetism is recorded in the rock.

      What’s important is that when the last magnetic pole shift occurred, none of the birds went extinct and they survived it just fine. Mammals existed and none of them went extinct during the last pole shift. And humans existed 800,000 years ago, atleast homo erectus and even neanderthals were around and neither species went extinct during that magnetic pole shift.

      Comment by MapMistress — December 15, 2009 @ 4:54 am | Reply

  13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_hypothesis

    I knew I’d be able to find a reference eventually.

    They discuss it in the area “True Polar Wander”

    They tested this idea by studying magnetic minerals in sedimentary rocks in a Norwegian archipelago. As the mineral grains were deposited or excreted by microbes, they aligned themselves with Earth’s magnetic field. So they act as frozen compasses pointing to an ancient north pole.
    Using these minerals, Maloof and Halverson found that the north pole shifted more than 50 degrees–about the current distance between Alaska and the equator–in less than 20 million years. Earth’s tectonic plates move much more slowly than that, says Maloof, so the best explanation for this wandering pole is planetary rebalancing. This reasoning is supported by a record of changes in sea level and ocean chemistry in the Norwegian sediments that could be explained by true polar wander, the team reports in the September-October 2006 issue of the Geological Society of America Bulletin.”

    So does that mean the earth did shift on it’s axis once, or was that just a shift in the earths mantle?
    Excuse the stupid questions but I’m extremely blonde and quite possibly as dumb as the proverbial dog doodoo and shouldn’t be googling all this haha

    Comment by Eden — December 9, 2009 @ 3:01 am | Reply

  14. I like many of you see such fallacy in the way many of these theories are presented. I even found statements in your debunking that are incorrect. We have not found all of the “large” dwarf size planets that could impact earth. There are strays and there are possible collisions in the Ort cloud that could produce incidents.
    However, I approach this much differently that most people who discuss these topics because first – I’m a Christian and second – I believe in science as well. I believe that correct interpretation of God’s Word will line up with proven science. So, with you understanding of my approach –
    1. the Earth will end one day – whether we are here or not – the Sun will burn up it’s fuel and turn into a Red Giant and it’ circumference will surpass the Earth’s orbit, whereby engulfing the Earth.
    2. we don’t know when
    However, I will say, I’m not one to jump on that man is causing the glaciers to melt etc and is responsible for global warming – I think we are quite self-centered to think we have that much power.
    My fascination with all this is, the junction in time that alot of the theories point to – not just 2012 but 2019 – so many point to the next 20 years. As Christians – we believe that “not a generation will pass” after the formation of the State of Israel before Christ returns – hence Armageddon etc. How long is a generation? The State of Israel was formed in 1948 – that’s 61 years ago – average lifespan of a male today is about 67 years – what defines a generation? I don’t know – was there more symbolism in that statement by Christ? Believe it or not the Bible’s accuracy in prophecy is rated at 100%, while Nostradamus is rated around 72% – if he were 100% – he would have gotten Hitlers name spelled correctly for example.
    Sure, I have just laid down the gauntlet, there are many of you just dying
    to debunk what I have said, but do your homework first!
    Some of the science concerning astronomy, I have learned since I was much younger and much of it has changed. So, here I sit waiting for the next changes, they now believe black holes were created immediately after the big bang rather than only formed as stars collapsed. Of course the big bang itself opens up so many debates – I however favor that theory. The problem with all of us, is while we may be an expert in one field, we don’t have the expertise in other fields to support or find failure in the big picture of things – so we laugh at what we don’t understand. Yes, there are wack-jobs out there – like the one who believes that there is a mini-black hole in the center of the earth. Do you know what that would do? Do you really? Anyway…
    Thanks for the debate – enjoy! – bobby

    Comment by Bobby — December 10, 2009 @ 11:45 am | Reply

    • A generation is usually defined as the average time between a woman’s first offspring and her daughter’s first offspring. So in the USA in 2008 that was about 25 years. Not sure what it is now, although it has been trending upwards (albeit somewhat slowly)

      Comment by Chris — December 15, 2011 @ 9:07 pm | Reply

  15. ||Believe it or not the Bible’s accuracy in prophecy is rated at 100%||

    I don’t believe it.

    Comment by Karl — December 10, 2009 @ 11:51 am | Reply

  16. Me again Stu

    Are you sure that actual part of the link refers to a magnetic shift?

    My mind starts turning to jam after I read the links too much, I understand the magnetic pole changes and moves all the time , but they claim in that instance that it was “true polar wander” in which the mantle and the crust rotate together into new orientations.
    And then go on to state examples


    in this link ………..” Mars, Europa, and Enceladus are also believed to have undergone true pole wander, in the case of Europa by 80°, flipping over almost completely”

    This seems to me to mean an actual shifty shift? Not just where a compass points too?

    As you can tell I’m highly educated LOL

    Comment by Eden — December 11, 2009 @ 2:31 am | Reply

  17. Ok what I’m trying to say…I think

    “So in order to get Earth to rotate in a new direction, or to “shift” its poles, one would need to apply a lot of force in one direction on only one side. The easiest way I can think of doing this would be a planet-sized asteroid impact. As I have shown now on at least two other threads, even an impactor that is 100 km in diameter would be like a grain of sand plowing into a car. Sure, you’ll get a little dent (and wipe out some life), but the planet as a whole will not care. You need something that is much more comparable to Earth’s mass in order to really shift the poles. Something the size of the dwarf planet Ceres would do the trick – and that object is about 1000 km in diameter (Earth is about 12,900 km in diameter). And I should note that we know where all Ceres-sized objects are that are close enough to cause that to happen within the next few centuries.””

    This senario you discuss….do they mean this happened 800 million years ago in where they discuss this?….

    “Using these minerals, Maloof and Halverson found that the north pole shifted more than 50 degrees–about the current distance between Alaska and the equator–in less than 20 million years. Earth’s tectonic plates move much more slowly than that, says Maloof, so the best explanation for this wandering pole is planetary rebalancing. This reasoning is supported by a record of changes in sea level and ocean chemistry in the Norwegian sediments that could be explained by true polar wander, the team reports in the September-October 2006 issue of the Geological Society of America Bulletin.”

    and if not is there any evidence there has ever been a shift in the geographic spin axis?

    Comment by Eden — December 11, 2009 @ 2:37 am | Reply

  18. And if its happened to other planets can it happen to Earth.

    Ok ok going now

    Comment by Eden — December 11, 2009 @ 3:17 am | Reply

  19. Anyone? I’m so confused lol

    Comment by Eden — December 15, 2009 @ 3:26 am | Reply

  20. Planet X is now seen regularly on SOHO imagery, despite editing efforts. How can it not exist? Is someone asleep at the wheel?

    Comment by Burning Beard — January 10, 2010 @ 8:48 am | Reply

    • Care to provide an example?

      Comment by astrostu206265 — January 10, 2010 @ 10:35 am | Reply

  21. I wonder though; what do we know about the Galactic Equator?

    Is it possible that the spin of the galaxy causes a wave of some kind to emanate outwards along the galactic plane?
    Think of a sphere spinning under water; water is pushed away from the sphere causing eddies and currents around it but the fastest current would be caused by the forces acting perpendicular to the axis of rotation.

    So, if we say that the spinning ball can be likened to the galactic centre, that space is the water and that the position of the stars represent the distribution of forces then we can see that the matter furthest away from the galactic centre is distributed along the galactic equator.

    As our Solar System moves into the equatorial region, wouldn’t it experience the effect of moving into a faster current? And if it did, wouldn’t the Earth ‘feel’ the effect more than the sun would through reasons of mass and inertia? If this were the case then surely the Earth’s orbit around the sun would be bound to change and surely that’s not a good thing.

    It seems to me that the above scenario is possible through classical/Newtonian physics.

    Comment by himnextdoor — February 20, 2010 @ 9:58 pm | Reply

  22. There may also be an altogether more sinister effect from crossing the equatorial region but I think its expanation requires a new way of thinking about space.

    Suppose we modify the spinning ball model that I described in my previous comment a little by imagining that the ball representing the galactic centre is made out of hot water and space is made of cold water. Let us assume that for the purposes of this model that there is a constant heat source at the centre of our sphere of hot water and that the cold water has infinite volume.

    Now, in this model, the stars represent the boundaries that occur where hot water meets cold water. We will still observe the laws of thermodynamics and can imagine, and realise, that this system can have no state of equilibrium; that would require that an infinite amount of water would have to reach a uniform temperature. That can never happen so what we have is a model of a continuously expanding system that behaves like a galaxy.

    I guess that what I’m saying is that if the water molecule was the fundamental unit of space the forces would arise that would allow for a real and experience-able [sic I think] universe.

    We need to introduce another phenomena now and I have another model to superimpose onto what we have so far. Think of the lines of force generated by a bar-magnet as depicted by iron-filings on a sheet of paper. Now imagine that those lines of force are the result of space being polarised and that it occurs in three dimensions such that the lines are actually spheres whose centres represent the North- and South-poles of the magnet respectively. These spheres would be distorted though, like two round balloons that are pressed together, they would be flattened out where they meet. This boundary represents the centre of the magnet. The main observation that I would like to make here is that the space around the magnet is polarised either north or south; not neither and not both. The thing is, what happens at the bondary where north meets south? What is the mechanism that causes space to ‘choose’ which direction of polarisation it takes? I suspect that it is a random process. And chaotic.

    So, back to our model; we have a rotating sphere of hot water that is at the centre of an infinite volume of cold water. The spin of this sphere of hot water introduces a directional component to the energy it is dissipating; upward, or north, for forces above the equator and downward,or south, for forces below. And at the boundary, the equator, the forces are indeterminate. The regions where hot meets cold represent existence. That’s our galaxy.

    Our solar-system in north of the galactic equator; all the forces that bring our existence into being are polarised in a northerly direction. That is to say that all the sub-atomic particles in the region of space around the solar-system, and space itself, are composed of forces that originated at the galactic centre and as such, are polarised.

    What are the implications for matter that is completely composed of energy following lines of force in one direction crossing into a region where space is polarised in the opposite direction?

    This could be quite scary. Suppose, for example, that an electron is composed of four seperate regions of space (cold water) each enclosed by a region of energy (hot water) all bound in by an ‘eddy-current’ induced by polarisation. What would happen as that electron crossed the plane of polarisation?

    The situation could occur where the electron is halfway accross the boundary and two of the components of that electron could be composed of north polarised regions and two polarised to the south; would the electron even exist anymore? What would happen to protons as they crossed the boundary?

    Is it possible that all of existence as we know it could dissolve into fundamental particles to be dispersed in a cloud of energy into the southern hemispere of the galaxy, to recombine into new matter?

    I mean to say; is any of this feasible?

    Comment by himnextdoor — February 21, 2010 @ 12:43 am | Reply

  23. Hello Everyone (including astrostu206265),

    This is regret to say that after spending hours to read this whole thread, I am left with complete disappointments of still not knowing what exactly is going to happen in 2012.

    If you know that one’s theory or analysis is wrong, better YOU tell us what is the truth in stead of spending plenty of time in proving that you are right and others are wrong and also making others like me (laymen/beginners in astronomy) to spend our valuable time too in reading plenty of pages with the expectation of finding what truly is gonna happen but ending up just knowing one person has better arguments and facts than the other.

    Proving somebody’s analysis is wrong won’t prove you more intelligent than him. If you know Miller is wrong, YOU tell us what is going to happen in stead of what is not going to happen. We are tired of your scientific knowledge and clever arguments.

    I am not favor of any one here.. I am talking on behalf of all of us who are disturbed by NASA facts and threads like this about 2012. We want to know what is going to happen. We don’t want to know who has better facts and arguments.

    So far I have found, in 2012 we may face a polar shift due to electromagnetic waves which is from Sun have their field dipole in opposite direction since Sun already had its polar shift 9 years ago. Even Michio Kaku, a NASA scientist warned all of us about this big magnetic wave impact from Sun.

    I know he didn’t talk about earth’s polar shift but only about possible failure of all electronics systems and satellites. But here is a link which says in 2010 earth may face a polar shift and disasters.


    If anyone dares to prove this won’t happen and also tell us what exactly will happen, then people like us will be the most happiest and thankful to you geniuses.

    Comment by Apar — February 28, 2010 @ 1:09 am | Reply

    • First, Apar, there are a few minor things incorrect with what you stated. Mainly that Kaku is a physicist on faculty at City University in New York, unaffiliated in any way with NASA. Second, people are often quick to jump on scientific predictions that support their ideas but completely ignore updates. For example, on the site you linked to, it states that the next solar maximum will be in 2012. That was the prediction about a decade ago, but since we have had a very extended solar minimum, almost every solar physicist who studies it is forecasting the solar maximum to be in the 2013/2014 timeframe. However, you won’t find that information on doomsday websites.

      Onto your main comment, effectively that I’ve spent a fair amount of electrons discussing what WON’T happen in 2012 but not what WILL. I think you’re missing the whole point … NOTHING out of the ordinary/supernatural/doomsday is going to happen in 2012, at least by ANY of the mechanisms that have been proposed. My attempt in my whole Planet X and 2012 series has been to examine the main claims and mechanisms by which doomsday-sayers believe the world will end or be destroyed or some such. And show that they violate most physical laws or common sense or evidence.

      About your claim of the sun’s magnetic field shifting — that happens [i]about[/i] every 11 years. But I don’t remember Earth’s magnetic poles flipping in 2001, 1990, 1988, etc.

      Now, next solar maximum, could we have solar events that fry satellites? Of course we could. Could we have a massive coronal mass ejection or flare that even fries some electrical grids on Earth? Yes. I addressed that in my post, “ Planet X and 2012: The Pole Shift (Magnetic) Explained and Debunked.” But that’s not unique to 2012, and likely – if it happens this solar cycle – wouldn’t happen until around 2014.

      Again, the point was to show that the common mechanisms that doomsday proponents put forth don’t work, and to show then that, by default, 2012 will be another ordinary year.

      Comment by astrostu206265 — February 28, 2010 @ 12:00 pm | Reply

      • Hey thanks a bunch for understanding the situation of laymen like me.

        So, I understand that 2012 will be just another ordinary year but 2013/2014 may not be as we expect that the solar maximum may occur and it’s possible effects.

        Okay, while we have solar maximum in a side, we also have galactic alignment in the other side. So far I have read, it happens every 26000 years. But I have seen different theories where one says, earth just came out of that alignment 3 million years ago and it will take another 30 million years again to be aligned in the galactic lane and there is another talk says we are close to the lane and will be aligned in 2012. Also some say that earth is in alignment with Sun and galactic plan in every year. So which is correct?

        If the Earth, Sun, and the galactic plans are going to be aligned in 2012 after 26000 years, will it cause the polar shift due to the highest mass or ‘nuclear bulge’ in that plane?

        Comment by Apar — February 28, 2010 @ 3:15 pm

      • Apar – read my post on “Planet X and 2012: What The Sky Looks Like On December 21, 2012.”

        Comment by astrostu206265 — February 28, 2010 @ 9:16 pm

  24. Greetings from Ethiopia!
    Okay!!!!!! I have something on the current Climate / Earth Change and positional influence of Nibiru (Planet X), Electromagnetic field, Sunspot
    Of course, this agenda is bizarre for most people but very interesting as well in regard to our planet Climate / Earth Change.

    Yahagere sew hoy!! Ketensa ayeker tekit yemenakewn yahel bibal ayekefam, Ayedele???? (It is Etopic Language) Endaygermachihu!!!!) I say something in relation to what is going on around the world currently. The earth quake, flood, ice melt, volcano including comet rain and the inner earth vague entities bla bla; are the foundation for this piece of writing.

    Yes!, not only the earth quake, flood, volcano etc…are manifestation for this days climate change, to express directly and clearly these phenomenon collectively we need other term. There are also various calamities that are yet to come on this planet in the coming few years, is it “climate change!!???” I am not sure!!
    Any way, before going to in detail I have to define what climate change means in scientific terms,
    “Climate Change” is any long-term change in the statistics of weather over periods of time that range from decades to millions of years. It can express itself as a change in the mean weather conditions, the probability of extreme conditions, or in any other part of the statistical distribution of weather. Climate change may occur in a specific region, or across the whole earth.

    In other term, like that of crest and under ocean volcano, and whirlwind like that of cyclone, hurricane etc, ocean tide, mountain slide, storm, flood, large scale pollution, global warming, comets rain and varity of mayhem in the ecosystem and magnetic field unrest as a whole here and there in unusual way, is it really climate change???

    I would rather like to use the term “Earth Changes” than “Climate change” because the earth along with other planets sooner or later will go through a series of cataclysmic events. As the same time which will be the cause for major alteration in human life and brain or consciousness, ecological system and change on the planet itself.

    This natural calamitous such as pole shifting of the planetary axis, major volcanic eruption, earthquakes, melting of the polar ice caps, ocean tides, outlandish rainfall, seasonal shift, climate change or weather disturbance, temperature increment, storm, strong whirlwind, land slide, pole shift as well as varied changes of local, regional and global social and political systems including human consciousness variation would be a phenomenon due to the combined effect of earth’s electromagnetic field alteration, the planet X or “Nibiru” (a planet that is part of our solar system with an orbit beyond that of Neptune; NASA named it “Planet x”) positional influence in this solar system and sun spot / radiation and solar variability.

    Yet again; strongest impact of the sun’s activity on climate change is a direct connection between cloud coverage and cosmic rays. This primary variable also depends on the flux of solar energy. The same applies to variations in the energy flux caused by the sun’s varying activity. In addition to this, there are, in fact, pronounced connections between our sun’s changing energy outputs and earth’s climate, better to say earth’s nature……..

    If the causes are anthropogenic, over the past few hundred years like that of greenhouse gases emission, deforestation activity we can mitigate the problem with strong efforts. There has also been a continuous change of climate on our earth’s history it is clearly confirmed by Dendrochronology or tree-ring dating, however, the past climate changes have never been disastrous as the current/ coming one when we compare with. Scientists and professionals are convinced that human activity has not as much of contribution to this all inclusive and enormous changes.

    Moreover; in other word one can find that, Nibiru has been mentioned in the Book of Enoch (Henok Ethiopian Orthodox Church Canon), Enoch’s visits on the Planet of the Cross – Erisn / Nibiru. It is also well known in Sumerian, Assyrian, Egyptians, Mayan, Cherokee, and Judaic cabalists of olden day’s wisdom.

    Based on modern astronomy and this primeval knowledge, both scientists and wise men can read the earth’s Akashic record (a theosophical term referring to the universal filing system which records every occurring thought, word and action). (Me ‘at chemere lawora alfelegem, yalewn/ yawokut yalugnen enji, Etopic langu).

    All these strange circumstances are playing collective and complimentary role from different directions. At present time, these phenomenons are continuing in a smooth manner on our earth and in solar system as a whole until the early 2012 – 2013.

    It is still amazing that; according to Henoch / Henok “And it came to pass after this that I saw another host of wagons (UFO Flying Saucers), and men riding thereon (Alien race) … And the noise of their wagons *(disc and cigar Saucers) was heard, and when this turmoil took place the holy ones from heaven remarked it, and the pillars of the earth were moved (Pole shift) from their place, and the sound thereof was heard from the one end of heaven to the other,(throughout the galaxies) in one day (The Book of Enoch, chapter LV).

    As far as we are considering the aforementioned cases / phenomenon as real and fact, we couldn’t be in a position either to mitigate or to adapt this EARTH CHANGE / chaos, and on the other hand, if the cases are anthropogenic and CLIMATE CHANGE we may well mitigate and adapt smartly and fashionably.

    Therefore, in order to mitigate these predicaments and tribulation the whole world has to pay the resources that the world has as one and single and work in a cooperative manner rather than in a competitive style.

    Eshi!!! yehea agenda will help everyone to cooperate and work mutually both the have and not have without border and map, because it is our small and suitable, appropriate and bountiful home with abundant and too much resources, we haven’t other shelter in this gigantic universe. Challenging days are coming
    It is too much for our first discussion


    Endatferu (Etopic langu)!!!
    Kassahun Mammo
    + 251 911 137361, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

    Comment by Kassahun Mammo — April 16, 2010 @ 2:28 am | Reply

  25. I am not a geologist or a scientist but I am finding this subject fascinating.
    Before satelite radio, I used to listen to Coast to Coast occasionally. I never thought that the show was meant to be taken seriously.
    I have become skeptical of everything I see, hear or read nowadays.
    I had several problems with the information in the broadcast, particularly about a few subtleties. When he talked about a single world government installing chips on the remaining population, I wondered…. Would this be some sort of GPS device? If so, how did the satelites manage to stay in orbit after all of this? ( Then again, maybe I am unclear as to how GPS technology works). That was my first serious red flag. Also, If the continents are floating and pushed out through centrifugal force, wouldn`t this cause the land mass to be far greater along the Equator? And then the one about the Earth rotating backwards for 10 hours in 705BC. I would think that would be catastrophic.

    Comment by Alex — April 20, 2010 @ 9:44 pm | Reply

  26. IT hasn’t helped that there is information on the internet now about the
    Chilean earthquake causing a microparsec of a shift in the earth’s axis –
    which is nothing if you consider that there is a 15 meter variance in the axises anyway with the wobble effect. The problem is – people will catch onto this and start preaching doom and gloom.

    I do have a question for you though – could the earth’s axis “wobble” more frequently in one direction or another over a long period of time – has anyone tried to predict the wobble pattern over thousands of years – If the “wobble” was greater to one side than another – could it cause increased or decreased polar icecap melting? Subtle chages in weather patterns, currents. El Nino? What I am wondering is if many many subtle small changes over many years could lead to natural climatic changes and perhaps some of the “global warming” we are seeing is due to the cumulation of some events that are individividually
    unimportant but as a whole could lead to subtle changes which in turn can lead to greater changes. If the earth “wobbled” on its axis in a particular pattern over a period of years, subtle influences in PAcific currents could lead to El Nino – I am thinking of a possible 7-10 year pattern of wobble. NOTE: I am just making hypothetical guesses here off the top of my head. I didn’t read this anywhere and I have no scientific evidence to support these questions. They are just questions. thanks

    Comment by cindy — June 11, 2010 @ 4:45 pm | Reply

  27. […] Planet X and 2012: The Pole Shift (Geographic / Spin Axis) Explained and Debunked […]

    Pingback by Planet X and 2012: Proof Earth Is Not Experiencing a Pole Shift « Exposing PseudoAstronomy — July 1, 2010 @ 9:20 pm | Reply

  28. You know, its really sad that our news media with all of its journalistic integrity will show the crazies when talking about things like the 2012 hype, but they won’t point people towards clear-headed investigation and debate. This blog should be the first search result when someone types in 2012.

    Comment by John — August 9, 2010 @ 7:20 pm | Reply

  29. […] Planet X and 2012: The Pole Shift (Geographic / Spin Axis) Explained and Debunked […]

    Pingback by Planet X and 2012: My Posts So Far « Exposing PseudoAstronomy — November 6, 2010 @ 12:12 am | Reply

  30. Hey There,

    Doomsayer Patrick Geryl seems to believe we’ll be hit by a “gargantuan Solar flare” with southern polarity that will cause both a Geomagnetic and a Rotational Pole shift. Most notably, he states that the flare will flip the solid inner core and it will begin to rotate in the opposite direction. Hence he states the earth will then begin rotating in the opposite direction. In one minute, there will be a change in the rotational speed of earth by over 3,000 Km in one minute(Something like that). I’d like to see you write an article about. P.S. He’s supposedly predicting correctly solar activity.

    Here’s a link to some of his nonsense.




    Comment by JasonL — January 30, 2011 @ 10:51 am | Reply

  31. Quote

    “There is ample evidence in the literature of ancient civilizations that such disasters have occured in the past and also clues that they knew when another such calamity would occur.”

    This central claim of Geryl’s CANNOT be true. The Hawaiian island chain shows that the earths plates have moved slowly for 400,000 years, in the case of Hawaii over a mantle plume. No ‘sudden crust shift could have occurred during this period. If you ignore the evidence you can say anything.

    Comment by Mick — January 31, 2011 @ 5:37 am | Reply

    • Well said Mick. Unfortunately, Geryl has a lot of followers. It’s amazing how many people will dismiss the scientific method, but buy into his crap.

      Comment by JasonL — February 7, 2011 @ 3:48 pm | Reply

  32. Nice article. Coast to Coast can be entertaining, but i am saddened to see our culture with such a lack of focus on science. Literally, i almost never hear people reference actual science anymore. Information for people’s decisions and beliefs seem to come entirely from articles initiated by marketing firms and from people who are uniquely unqualified to give out that information. 911 is a great example. The governments investigation inti 911 was horrible and much of it was likely a cover up for some sort of BS; Popular Mechanics’ article was an even worse joke having an agenda and little critical reasoning. One can look around these days and wonder if anyone uses critical reasoning anymore or is every one just bent on proving their hypothesis with a persuasive argument ~ which is not the same thing as science. Not all your arguments are complete, but with so much to deal with…… Well, it can get tedious. 🙂

    Comment by monsoon bloom — September 12, 2012 @ 1:39 pm | Reply

  33. Brent Miller isn’t even a very good liar, I listened to the C2C broadcast from Jan ’09. After telling you the poll shifts up to 30 degrees at each event, he sites, as evidence, Antarctic ice cores that contain information for the last 600,000 years… Apparently, everywhere but Antarctica is shifting.

    Comment by dirtandash — September 20, 2012 @ 11:47 pm | Reply

  34. Would the axis change mean problems to the ecosystem and global warming? Or are we making a big deal out of a small change here?

    Comment by Thermodynamics Enthusiast — November 1, 2012 @ 5:44 pm | Reply

    • Making a big deal out of no change.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — November 1, 2012 @ 5:48 pm | Reply

  35. Debunking has become an awful skill. I must say.

    On one side, mainstreamers love to debunk theories people come up with, (which are interesting, full of imagination and probably not likely to be true) just like a creationist will debunk darwinism “it’s just a theory! he said it was just a theory! haha!”

    I don’t see anything wrong with Millar’s theories, I mean c’mon, the big bang theory has more holes and imagination that his theories. Besides, he’s not doing harm in trying to explain what could happen. If people go ape on it and take him for real, that’s their story.

    Now let’s talk about AGW, where we got politics and true scientists talking fear mongering science as if it’s fact and slaughtering people who try to disprove their facts.
    What’s going on with the world of science?

    How is it that scientists can’t debunk a mainstream idea, and a mainstreamer can debunk a non-mainstream idea with no blowback?

    Let the truth be told. Mainstream/political theories dished out as fact are NOT allowed to be debunked.

    debunkers on a crusade are just sub-conscious slaves to the new Atheism faith.

    Comment by qubit — November 27, 2012 @ 12:53 pm | Reply

  36. Just to add a few things. We know nothing about the Universe.
    WE know nothing about the Sun. We know nothing about the solar system, the Earth, the supermassive blackhole in the milkyway or even what/why consciousness is reality.
    We know nothing about the smallest of the small, or the largest of the large.

    We know enough to have technology, mostly thanks to Einstein and Tesla.

    We know nothing about God, or if there is a God.

    We can not say for sure DNA started on Earth, or if it started in the fashion of darwinism, or if the universe just *spawns* DNA where it is *spawnable*

    We theories, we have beautiful mathematics, we have guesses, we have some empiral facts, but honestly, a true atheist, would agree that we – man kind, don’t know sh1t.

    And if all of the crusade debunkers could put their time and effort into ancient knowledge, and mathematics of today, and put some imagination into things, we would/might be better off with the little knowledge we have.

    To the author of this post, instead of being a google-monkey on debunking theories from people that are smaller than the small in the areas of science, put your google skills into presenting the questions of the universe with your OWN ideas. And hope a debunking-monkey doesn’t find your site and smear you 😉

    Comment by qubit — November 27, 2012 @ 1:01 pm | Reply

  37. I am a Muslim layman trying to find the truth. The truth I found was at the end of the line there was a sales pitch. Visit http://www.thehorizonproject.com and you will understand what I mean. Yep, all they try to do at the end is to sell us something. Take care, GOD bless.

    Comment by Abdul — December 11, 2012 @ 12:00 pm | Reply

  38. hahaha you’r like the Conan the destroyer of Pole Shift conspiracy theories my friend, and what a welcome sight this is, i cant say i know any of the technological jargon used but thankfully you explain things in a simple manner for us less well educated brothers and sisters, seriously tho, really enjoyed the two threads i have read, (this and the relating Pole Shift thread), if Planet X were really heading for us am sure we would have seen it by now, i think we have more to fear from the global economic collapse in 2013 than the global polar shift of 2012, now, lets have a look and see if you have anything on the UFO invasion or the much talked about operation Bluebeam…… really enjoyed your work my good man…….

    Comment by Martin — December 13, 2012 @ 5:25 pm | Reply

  39. The question is, why has discovery of recent planets are the norm these days specifically the dwarf planet Cere? And why can we find remains of aquatics fossil at the top of mountains? Could it not be that some of Mr. Millers claim be true?

    Comment by Jerry Estrada — December 14, 2012 @ 7:54 pm | Reply

  40. I posted this several weeks ago http://www.eearthk.com/Articles11.html No Mayan prophesy. No Gravity force. No planet X. No world end. But shifting mass within the Earth due to the Expanding Earth Theory. Correlates well with Einstein/Hapgood, and with what the Mayan Calendar which indicates the same alignment (reversed) of 1/2 full precession cycle ago. Puts the “observations” (not predictions) of the Mayans back to 10,803 BC+/- where significant Ice Age end events were charted. Article Titled Linking Mayan Prophesy with Pole Shifts and Expanding Earth Evidence; Timing, Cause and Location, of next Pole position. Pole Shifts theorists missed a critical pair of potential causative effects. These two are new and discussed. The pole gyroscopic observations by James Clerk Maxwell also seem to have never been considered. This is a full globe shift indication which thus bypasses all the difficulties of a “Crustal Shift” alternative. All factual observations. How those dots are connected is of course open to disagreement. Any serious discussions always welcome. KW

    Comment by Keoth Wilson — December 23, 2012 @ 3:17 pm | Reply

  41. The historical reference of the “double dawn” can be found in the book Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation, F. Richard Stephenson (Cambridge University Press). On Google Books (page 219):


    “Various attempts have been made to explain a supposed ‘double-dawn’ occurring around 900 BC as produced by a major eclipse at sunrise. This phenomenon is recorded in the ‘Bamboo Annals’ (Chu-shu Chi-nien), a chronicle recovered in AD 281 from the tomb of a prince who had diied in 296 BC.”

    Comment by Fred Anon — February 4, 2014 @ 6:12 pm | Reply

  42. Thank you for this posting of DATA, as a Night Photographer for 45 years, yes it IS QUITE AMUSING to see some people run off with their mouths and DENY FACTUAL EVIDENCE you can study. The idea of a PLANET SPINNING one direction then reversing and going the OTHER WAY then returning to it’s normal spin…
    ha ha apparently they have never spun a bucket of water on a rope & seen the results of such an action.
    They EQUALLY refuse to believe that i track stars & sun movement & go places to shoot the sun, moon stars based on where they are at that TIME OF YEAR over dozens of years… Again DENIAL OF FACTUAL DATA.
    But then if that Bible was true, when Moses led ALL THE SLAVES OUT OF EGYPT, every country around the Mighty Egypt would have recorded the FALL, the burning of temples, destroying of the pyramids, the killing of Pharaohs, AND 10 TO 50 YEARS OF SLAVE RAIDER WARS s the Elite Rich would want their slaves back instead of washing their own floors & toilets. Or Solomon who have made BEAUTIFUL GOLD, SILVER & FINE STONE WORK pillars instead of “Salt Trader Caravan trail markers” of common stone.
    AFTER ALL EVERY CULTURE has always used Gold, Silver, Fine Gems & Jewels to MARK ANYTHING to a “God”.
    The images are of course always easy to explain as a PHOTOGRAPHER, but heck 45 yrs PROFESSIONAL & 56 years handing just about every KIND OF IMAGING DEVICE from 130 years old to Modern digital cameras & TEACHING PHOTOSHOP IN 1994, what could I possible know??
    Good Job!

    Comment by Peter — July 12, 2018 @ 8:19 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: