The ancient poles we have identified were once located on and around Greenland. Their existence is supported by converging lines of evidence: the orientation clustering of ancient structures, the hemispheric asymmetry in those orientations, the ice-sheet centroid, and independent geometric derivations performed in 2015 and 2020. An independent pre-registered statistical verification in 2026 confirmed that the site-level clustering is real.
The next question is: when did the poles shift? How old are they? And if ancient structures were oriented to these former poles, are the structures themselves as old as the poles they point to?
Answering these questions requires connecting the orientation data to the geological record — specifically, to the ice cores from Antarctica that preserve a continuous climate record stretching back hundreds of thousands of years.
The Ice Core Connection
Antarctic ice cores are the deepest and oldest continuous climate archive on Earth. They record temperature, atmospheric composition, and dust levels through glacial and interglacial cycles. Scientists have traditionally interpreted these cycles as “ice ages” — long cold periods punctuated by shorter warm intervals, driven by variations in Earth’s orbit.
But the ice cores record something else as well. They record the fingerprint of crustal deformation.
If the geographic North Pole shifted in latitude — moving from Greenland toward its current position — the climate would change radically. Regions that had been polar would find themselves in warmer latitudes. Ice sheets would melt. The biosphere would be disrupted. And all of this would be recorded in the stable ice sheet of Antarctica, which remained near the South Pole throughout these events.
The magnitude of each temperature shift in the ice core record should match the latitudinal distance between successive pole positions. The sequence of shifts should match the sequence of poles. If they do, we have independent confirmation of both the pole positions and their timing.
They do.
The Five Poles
The Sequence Match
The five pole positions are at 90°N (Pole I, current), 76.0°N (Pole II), 72.2°N (Pole III), 64.1°N (Pole IV), and 52.3°N (Pole V). Pole VI at 42.0°N is a candidate requiring further data.
The latitudinal distances between successive poles are not equal. Pole II to Pole I is the largest shift — 14.0 degrees of latitude. Pole III to Pole II is the smallest — 3.8 degrees. Pole IV to Pole III is 8.1 degrees. Pole V to Pole IV is 11.9 degrees.
When you examine the temperature record from Antarctic ice cores over the past 450,000 years, you find four major temperature swings — the terminations of glacial periods — and their relative magnitudes match the relative distances between the poles. The largest temperature jump corresponds to the largest pole shift. The smallest corresponds to the smallest.
The probability of this sequence matching by chance alone is 1 in 256, or approximately 0.39%. This is not a proof on its own. But it is a strong indication that we are looking at the correct time frames, and it warrants deeper investigation.
Do Deformation Cycles Look Like This?
Filtering Out Natural Climate Variability
The Earth’s climate varies even without crustal deformation. Solar activity fluctuates. Ocean currents shift. CO₂ levels rise and fall. These natural variations create a background of temperature change against which any crustal deformation signal must be detected.
To isolate the deformation signal, we first need to establish the natural range of temperature variability during a period when the crust was stable. The last 10,000 years — the Holocene, corresponding to Pole I — provide this baseline.
Tree ring data from the past 2,000 years, analyzed using the σ95 technique to filter out extreme outliers, show a natural temperature variation of approximately 2.8°C. Greenland ice sheet data over the past 10,000 years show the same pattern: a stable variation of about 2.8°C, independent of CO₂ levels, which have risen sharply in the industrial era without a corresponding temperature spike.
This 2.8°C band is the background noise of a stable crust. It is always present, woven invisibly into the glaciation graphs. To reveal the crustal deformation signal, we must subtract it.
Tree Ring Data Over the Last 2,000 Years
Greenland Ice Sheet Data Over the Last 10,000 Years
High-Resolution Data Over 800,000 Years From Antarctica
The Crustal Deformation Constant
When the crust deforms in latitude, the climate changes. But the relationship between latitude and climate is not linear. The poles are cold, but their surface area is small. The equator is warm, and its surface area is large. A shift of 10 degrees near the pole affects a small region. The same 10-degree shift near the equator affects a much larger one.
To calculate the global temperature effect of a latitudinal crustal shift, we need to integrate the product of temperature change and surface area across every step from pole to pole. This is a calculus problem — not conceptually difficult, but computationally intensive.
The result is a single number: the crustal deformation constant, Cdef.
Cdef = 0.576°C per degree of latitude.
This means that a 10-degree latitudinal shift of the crust leaves a temperature fingerprint of approximately 5.76°C in the Antarctic ice core record. The number is derived from first principles — temperature gradients and surface area distributions — not fitted to match the data.
The Results
When we multiply the latitudinal distance of each pole shift by the crustal deformation constant, we obtain a predicted temperature signal. We then compare this prediction to the actual temperature swings recorded in the Antarctic ice cores, after subtracting the 2.8°C natural background variation.
| Event | From | To | Latitudinal Shift (°) | Predicted Signal (°C) | Observed Signal (°C) | Error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | II | I | 14.0 | 8.06 | 8.00 | +0.80% |
| B | III | II | 3.8 | 2.19 | 2.00 | +9.45% |
| C | IV | III | 8.1 | 4.67 | 5.00 | -6.68% |
| D | V | IV | 11.9 | 6.85 | 6.86 | -0.09% |
| A–D | V | I | 37.8 | 21.77 | 21.86 | -0.40% |
Four independent pole shifts. Four independent predictions. Four matches, each with an error of less than 10%. The cumulative error across all four events is less than half a percent.
This is not a curve fit. The pole positions were derived from the orientations of ancient structures. The crustal deformation constant was derived from first-principles geometry and climate data. The ice core record is an independent dataset, collected and published by climate scientists for entirely different purposes. The three lines of evidence converge.
Cropping the Peaks and Valleys Reveal the Crustal Deformations
| Period | Deformation effect (°C) |
| A | 8.0 |
| B | 2.0 |
| C | 5.0 |
| D | 6.8 |
How Latitude Influences Temperature
How Latitude and Surface Areas Are Related
What This Means
The probability that these two complex patterns — the pole-derived predictions and the ice core observations — would match by chance across four consecutive events, each within 10% error, is very low.
The implications are profound:
The “ice ages” were probably not periods of global cooling. They were crustal deformations — the geographic pole shifted, the climate followed, and the ice sheets grew around the new pole while melting around the old one.
The poles are dated. Pole II existed approximately 130,000 to 155,000 years ago. Pole III: 210,000 to 225,000. Pole IV: 240,000 to 270,000. Pole V: 330,000 to 345,000. Pole I, our current pole, stabilized approximately 26,000 years ago and continues today.
The structures oriented to these poles are as old as the poles they point to. Teotihuacan, aligned to Pole III, is not 2,000 years old. It is approximately 210,000 years old. The Pyramids of Giza, aligned to Pole I, were built within the last 26,000 years — still far older than conventional chronology allows, but consistent with a model in which construction continued across pole periods.
The deformation cycles might have been driven by the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit, or maybe in combination with expansion. The standard Milankovitch theory correctly identifies eccentricity as the pacemaker of the ice ages but incorrectly attributes the mechanism to subtle changes in solar radiation. The mechanism is gravitational, not radiative.
Antarctica remained almost stable. The South Pole barely moved while the North Pole migrated over 4,200 kilometers across Greenland. This is why the Antarctic ice sheet preserves a continuous, reliable stable record of these events, while the Greenland ice sheet is relatively young — no more than 300,000 years old, and formed only when Greenland was carried into the polar region by crustal deformation.
The Flood and the End of a World
When the crust deformed, the effects were catastrophic. Megaquakes. Tsunamis of enormous scale. Volcanic eruptions. The oceans, responding to the shifting equatorial bulge, swept across continental shelves. Coastlines were rewritten. Ice sheets melted catastrophically, raising sea levels by tens of meters.
These events did not happen overnight. The fastest deformation cycles lasted approximately 15,000 years. The slowest extended over 100,000 years. But from the perspective of any civilization living through them, they were world-ending. The survivors rebuilt. They oriented their new structures to the new pole. And they told stories.
Every culture on Earth preserves flood myths. The Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Hindus, the Chinese, the Maya, the Hopi, the Norse, the Aboriginal Australians — all describe a world destroyed by water, a few survivors, and a new beginning. These are not independent inventions. They are cultural memories of real events, passed down through oral traditions that can persist for tens of thousands of years.
The ancient poles are not just mathematical abstractions. They are the record of a world — or worlds — that came before. The structures that point to them are the survivors. The stories we still tell are the echo.
© 2015 – by Mario Buildreps
https://mariobuildreps.com
17 Responses
AI does not possess independent thinking ability; it is merely a summarizer and mouthpiece for the current dominant narrative.
For example, AI claims that the data on the orientation of these ancient buildings is cherry-picked, which is criticism for the sake of criticism. Whether in ancient times or today, the orientation of large buildings is never random. If you randomly select dozens of buildings from around the world and run a statistical analysis, you’ll find that they are all highly correlated with the current geographical North Pole. Since many ancient buildings are not oriented towards the current geographical North Pole, but rather intersect at 4-5 points in Greenland, I am inclined to accept this finding.
For instance, Beijing’s central axis points towards the Polaris star, while Xi’an and Luoyang point towards the current geographical North Pole. Kaifeng, however, does not, but rather aligns with the second point mentioned in the article, meaning that the city of Kaifeng has been rebuilt numerous times on its original site, but its axial orientation has never changed, making it much older than Luoyang and Xi’an.
I see this criticism by Robert Cunningham (“Ethical Skeptic”), and many of his proponents on Twitter. He seems to have gained massive popularity recently, being featured on podcasts such as Grimerica and now doing presentations at Ben Davidson’s Colorado ranch with the tickets costing $500 to $2,500 apiece.
It is very suspicious to me that someone with an admitted history of pushing vaccine programs on poor nations, campaigning heads of state to promote acceptance of GMO agricultural foods into nations which [sic] refuse them, involvement in “top secret” military intelligence, and who advertises “testimonials” of being followed by Laura Ingraham and Glenn Beck on Twitter is suddenly releasing such a flood of “evidence” in favor of a specific catastrophe.
Chan Thomas’ book was released by the C*A in 2013, Charles Hapgood came from a line of Harvard graduates and worked for the COI (precursor to the OSS), and Hapgood’s book contained a foreward by Albert Einstein, who apparently had close correspondence with Immanuel Velikovsky. As many of these men were occultists in addition to being involved with intelligence agencies, it is extra strange that Cunningham references the occult and the “joy of manipulation” on his own website.
The connections between intelligence agencies and this “brand” of cataclysm is very interesting to me, and especially the involvement of AI. Cunningham uses AI very heavily in his writing, as do many of the people he has exchanges with on Twitter. It makes the rhetoric sound very sophisticated and it’s very dense with technical jargon, but as they generally block people who question them or ask for data I suspect it is a fabrication. It’s a devious era we’re entering.
I know about the works of this Cunningham, and he is a cunning twitterer who’s full of nonsense. Honestly I don’t care about his work, and people have their own choice who they want to believe. And if most people are too ignorant to pay big money to listen to bullshit, it’s also their own choice. My work is freely available like the air you breathe.
Hello Mario. I was wondering . Does science distinguish several ice ages when determining the areas covered by ice in the past? And if so. Is there a correlation between the moving poles and a moving ice sheet. Because I imagine every ice age further in the past covering an area closer to our current equator when your theory is correct. Or is there only a map made for she ice age that happened during the switch from Pole 2 to 1? I was also wondering if I’m correct in assuming that the last shift was the worst by far,perhaps even the first time we really lost all memory of the past? Does the increasing mass of the planet cause she deformations to be stronger every time eccentricity is highest?
Hi Skrie, science has major troubles in distinguishing the differences between the boundaries of the ice ages of the different periods. As far as we have found, there is not a good scientific research done to the difference in coverage. That might be caused by the current wrong basic principles of what an ice age actually is. If we look from the perspective of the migrating geo pole, most things start to make sense.
There seems to be a causality between the amount of shift and the amount of eccentricity as well, although this does not seem to be very clear at first glance.
The upward flanks are the recuperations of the biosphere, and the downward flanks are the deformation cycles, i.e., the expansion cycles.
The highest eccentricity for example seemed to have caused the two subsequent shifts B and C, together they accumulate to the largest deformation aka expansion, and the other two, A and D, correlate very well to this principle as well. This is an interesting observation. And that is why we think that eccentricity is the main actuator, which caused the inner core of the earth to become agitated, and so creating a stronger magnetosphere. This stronger magnetosphere on its turn is able to collect more matter from CMEs (as a giant fishnet) which is guided to the cathode of the earth, the south pole (that is why we think Antarctica is indeed more stable than the rest).
Thank you for your good questions. Much appreciated my friend.
Cheers! Mario
Hi Mario, I am most fascinated by your work, still there are a few issues which feed some doubt…
Eg, about pole V. If really the geo pole V was once situated at 52.1°N 47.1°W, then Florida and Marocco were nearer to ancient pole than actual pole… Cuba and Haiti, more or less the same distance. If so, I would expect that the glacier limit of that old glaciation would have reached much more southern latitudes than the subsequent ones… But that is not the case, at least to my knowledge. Maybe your knowledge is different… Thank you.
Hi Loris, the locations of the poles are not only the result of our math, but it also provide a good explanation as to how the ice sheets started to develop. It also explains how and why the Sahara was once green, and it solves so many more burning questions. And indeed Florida, Marocco, and many more places were at an absolute other latitude, hence had another climate. But there were no ice sheets at these locations, the latitude of these place was still too mild for that.
When the geo pole is in the Atlantic, during Pole V for example, there are hardly any ice sheets on land. The cold water and the ice “leaks” away to the equator. Once the pole started to hit land, the ice started to accumulate, and so ice formation started to grow.
Thank you for your reply, Mario. My reasoning was as follows. During the last glaciation, the glacier limits reached Ohio, that is about 45° from actual Pole, and about 38° from Pole II. About the same distance, 38°, is from Pole V to both south Marocco and Cuba… Therefore I thought that in case of a glaciation during Pole V, these areas should have had much colder climate, if not glaciers. But now you are saying that during Pole V, in the midst of water, there was hardly any ice sheets on land… Well, this could be the answer. And about paleomagnetism, have you considered these data? I guess you have. Do they fit with your model? Thank you.
We have indeed looked into paleomagnetic data. There is a problem with these data. Geologists haven’t considered any crustal instabilities when composing the data. Paleomagnetic data shows an enormous spread in directions. This spread in the data is never well explained. What we have witnessed from the superficial examinations that we have done so far is that the spread in the data increases during the crustal deformations. We still have to do much more research on this.
Fascinating work, MB.
Running time backwards, how would the 47.1 reference line move as the earth got smaller? And where would the Former Pole positions move to as the earth became smaller? Would they move back north?
The spread record on the ocean floor implies a steady growth of the earth. If the Former Poles were “marked” during the interglacial periods, there might not be a need for a cataclysm to explain the re-orientation of the temples.
Ocean floors, fossil sizes, land shapes, and more, point to an expanding earth. But where did the additional mass come from??? (I don’t expect an answer on this one!)
tnx
Hi Bradley. The geo pole moved because the expansion in the Pacific was much greater than on the Atlantic. These crustal changes are amplified by a high eccentric orbit around the Sun. That is why glaciation cycles match the eccentrical sequence. We estimate that the earth expanded between 1 or 2% over the last 500,000 years. That does not significantly influence the position of the poles, i.e. it is in the margin of error. The electric universe explains where the mass is coming from. The universe is full of unobservable energy or dark matter. Thank you for your comment!
Hi Mario, I really admire your work and just keep on reading your articles.
Questions keep popping up as well and I think this could be a good one:
If you look at your research the oldest pole that can be proven is pole V. The reason for this is that there are enough ancient structures to prove it. There are other ancient structures in the database that seem to point to an older pole VI, but this can not be proven yet. The ice core data goes even a lot further than 600.000 years. And there are apparently structures in the database that go beyond pole VI.
The fact that the first ancient structures pop up around the period of pole VI could indicate that the period of earth crust stability during pole VI was a relatively long one. This is visible in the graphs. So it enabled people to develop considerably and make their first sophisticated structures.
At the same time, the eccentricity during this period of earth crust stability was relatively low.
Now if we look at how high the eccentricity currently is, it is close to the eccentricity that was during the period of earth crust stability of pole VI. If we look at the shape of the graph of the changes in temperature during our current pole, we see this relatively low eccentricity similar to the eccentricity of pole VI and we see a relatively long period of a more or less stable temperature.
If we look at pole VI we could imagine that this stable period of our current pole has been going on already relatively long compared to pole II, III, IV and V and will continue for quite some time. Possibly longer than the 5000 years that you mention.
So based on the similarity to pole VI, I would assume that this stable period will last for maybe 10000 years from now.
You say that seismic activity has increased with a factor 5 over the last 100 years. And this is considered to be a proxy for the earth crust deformation. This suggest to me that the last 100 years could be considered as some kind of turning point and that we should expect that things will get worse from now. But to me that seems to contradict with the longer stable period during pole VI.
Do we even know if the seismic and volcanic activity are reliable proxies to measure earth crust displacements? Is and observation time of 100 to 200 years long enough to be sure that the factor 5 increase of seismic activity is telling us something about earth crust displacements? Wouldn’t it be necessary to look at deeper layers of the earth as that is where the oscillations are best measured?
I assume that the high increase of seismic activity can also have another cause: increase of cosmic rays because of lower solar activity. It does also seem to have an effect on global cloud cover according to the research of Svensmark, which explains heavy rainfalls at certain places in combination with record droughts at other places. And even more intense formation of contrails.
So the high increase of seismic and volcanic activity might be not related to earth crust displacements, but to a temporarily effect of higher cosmic rays. If that is the case, it could be that it does not say anything about earth crust displacements. At least not with any certainty. The only proxy that we know of to be reliable to predict earth crust displacements in the future are the Milankovitch cycles.
Looking forward to hear what you think.
Thank you for your interesting in-depth comment, Kenneth. In short, Pole VI cannot be proven due to the large area over which the node is formed in combination with the scarcity of ancient structures. There seems to be no possible way to get it ever proven. The eccentricity during Pole VI was indeed similar to that of today. Of course, it is possible that it takes longer than 5ky before the crust gets unstable. I don’t see how increasing seismic activity over the last 100 year would be a turning point already now. It will become much worse over the next millenniums to come. The earth will become almost inhabitable even before crustal instability starts.
Of course, we cannot tell with 100% certainty yet that volcanic and seismic activity are reliable proxies. They are in our method not used as proxies either. They are a way to predict what is going on currently underneath our feet. If we look at the past events over the last 400,000 years we see during the crustal deformations increasing dust concentrations. The dust concentrations do not precede dropping temperatures, they follow temperature, hence they follow crustal deformations.
You can take a look at this graph from Vostok: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
Dust concentrations are plotted at the bottom of the graph in red. That is why we are almost certain that volcanic activity is a proxy. Volcano eruptions are equivalents of earthquakes. They are the same thing expressed in another way.
Hi Mario, thank you for this clear explanation.
So an increase of 5 times in 200 years of volcanic activity is relatively not impressive I suppose. And looking at the dust concentrations the volcanic activity has been much higher in the past.
I will also read your article about The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis as I see it describes this in more detail.
Yes I can imagine. I would be interested to know what data can be concluded from there are very large oscillations on the Earth’s crust. It does seem to be a statement without any evidence being presented at the moment. Other than this is a good explanation for the deformations of the crust.
The idea to get humanity to Mars is the same as the CO2 story I guess. First an imaginary problem is created and the urgency is exaggerated. After that funds are raised and solutions are developed that can be sold. And a group of stakeholders forms around this business venture.
Your research can do a lot of good in the future to explain the real mechanism of climate changes in our past.
It also supports the idea of cataclysms which it proves to have happened in the past.
At the same time, it leaves room for different interpretations on how far away future cataclysms are.
It would be great to be able to show with the method that future worldwide cataclysms are only to be expected over thousands of years to prevent any imaginary business ventures forming around this idea.
In this research the position of the sun is measured during 50 years and it is noticed that the position changes over time. From which is concluded that there is a slight wobble in the spin axis of the earth.
The data shows that since 2002 this wobble did increase.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrcGQWeO3Jw [23:10 for the graph showing the wobble].
Is this the nutation of the earth and is this movement correlated to the oscillations that are caused by the eccentric orbit?
Without a shadow of a doubt is the earth’s crust becoming increasingly unstable. The guy in the video is talking about a wobble however he measures the movements relative to the crust. The magnetic axis is a precursor of the crustal deformations, and that is because the magnetic pole is more volatile, more etheric so to speak. Eccentricity is currently not as spectacularly high as during the last four events, but it is enough to cause major troubles over the long term. Volcanic activity over the last 200 years has increased with a factor 5. Seismic activity over the last 100 years has increased with a similar factor of 5. Especially the amount of “unimportant” small earthquakes of between 2 and 4 have increased dramatically. Sure, there are enough indications that our civilization will be wiped off the planet in about five thousand years from now. There is no hurry for our next generations but Elon Musk seems to be in a hurry to get humanity off the planet in time. I suspect history repeats itself…