Re: Pole Shifts vs Ice Ages (Revisited)

I read Hapgood in detail.  A more cogent summary of his is that
his primary issues of contention are:

(A) The periods of glaciation do NOT synchronize between Europe and
    America (or between other parts of the world with one another) as
    they would under a global ice age, but alternate in such a fashion
    as characterized by a shifting of the polar ice caps.

(B) A detailed reconstruction from all the carbon datings of fauna and
    evidence from other places (including sea core samples) shows in
    extreme detail the shifting of the polar ice cap and
    provides both a detailed timeline and pathway of the shift.

(C) In some (but not a few) cases it's actually necessary to go back to
    the original cites because the data have been simply rejected or ignored
    on grounds of implausibility (with respect to the standard ice age theory)
    and in some cases, the dating method(s) themselves held in question.

If I recall, the primary source for the C-14 data was a standard journal
where all the C-14 cites are listed.

My primary criticism of Hapgood is that instead of assembling the data
in dramatically visible graphic form, and providing similar visual or
graphic representations of the reconstruction, there were nothing but
wordy descriptions interspersed all throughout the book.

Like he didn't want to assemble the big mosaic for fear of what he
might (not) see.

It would be a lot easier and more convincing to see all the data lined
up in clear, consistent and complete and graphic form to see what the
data is ALL actually saying.  To see the big picture.

That's my take on Hapgood.

Alfred Einstead