When we look at the ancient poles that were once located on Greenland, it should be clear to anyone that such massive catastrophic events do not go unnoticed. Nor do they take place over the course of a few years, because the earth’s crust is too massive to change overnight.
The ancient locations of the geographic poles are mathematically proven by us – 100%. It is also an established fact that the crust deformed on a massive scale and the geographic North pole migrated in several steps to where it is today. Our next task here is to attach a timeframe to our discovery. That is not as easy as it seems, because that demands a thorough scientific study.
Massive cataclysms invariably leave huge traces in geological records.
The main questions that arise are:
- When did that happen? How old are these poles?
- How long did it take for the poles to migrate to another location?
- If the ancient monuments were oriented to these different poles in vast numbers, and if they are proven to belong to the era of these poles, are they then as old as these poles?
The research that we have done to prove the age of the former poles is profound and rather complicated. In this part of our website, we progressively take you through this process and explain to you in detail why and how we know 99.999% for sure how old the poles are, and thus we can confirm that the ancient structures belong to these specific poles.
The Five Nodes or Poles That Are Mathematically Proven
The Youngest Former Pole Must be Older Than the Greek Civilization
Crustal deformations of this magnitude do not go unnoticed. Nor did they take place overnight and they did not occur only a few thousand years ago.
The youngest former pole (Pole II) was located on Greenland at a latitude of 76.1°. This pole has been mathematically proven by us with an uncertainty of only 5.59×10-19. In scientific terms: it is a 100% certainty that its location is factual and true.
It is an understatement to say that these crustal deformation processes were very destructive for most life on Earth. When the crust deforms on this scale it causes prolonged megaquakes, tsunamis of gigantic size, and massive volcanic eruptions. While the crustal deformations take place, these catastrophes continue for many millennia.
In their sagas, the ancient Greeks do not mention anything regarding a global cataclysm that might have happened during that time. We take this to indicate that these huge cataclysms occurred before their time, more than 3,500 years ago. Plato muses about the city of Atlantis that was reputedly swallowed by a raging flood. The Bible speaks in Genesis of a deluge that swept over most of the face of the Earth. Could this pervasive flood narrative be anchored in truth but was almost lost in the mist of time?
All Cultures Speak of Deluges in Their Traditions
In fact, all cultures from Africa to America, from Asia to Europe, and from Finland to Polynesia have their own myths about floods and cataclysms. For instance, the legends of the Hopi Indians speak of multiple worlds before ours – a view that we agree with. Because these sources are separated from each other by vast oceans, talking about the same topic, this should be taken very seriously, and should not be treated by academia as fairy tales only because it does not fit their distorted belief system. That is unfortunately all too often their unscientific approach to this very intriguing topic.
We are speaking of at least four consecutive deformation cycles that moved the geographic North pole from the South of Greenland all the way over the entire area of Greenland to where it is now. We have found that the pole moved over a distance of more than 4,200 km (~2,600 miles), in four distinct steps, which translates into five poles. We have found these five poles in an unambiguous mathematical way, but it has been difficult to find more ancient poles with equal precision. Therefore, we have focused our research on only five poles and four deformation cycles.
These poles are defined by the orientation clusters of ancient structures randomly spread all over the globe, thus suggesting practically worldwide deluges and cataclysms as mentioned in the Bible and by virtually all cultures around the world.
Do Deformation Cycles Look Like This?
The Ice Cores From Antarctica Are Showing First Clues
The ice cores from Antarctica showed us the first clues regarding the suspected age of the ancient poles that we have found. Why the ice cores from Antarctica? Because of these reasons:
- deformation cycles of the crust indicate radical climatic changes that scientists have identified as “ice ages”,
- the sequence between the pole distances, hence the climatic shifts, are logically expected in the same order as those shown in the glaciation graphs; the sequences are expected to be the same otherwise there would be no correlation,
- we have found five stationary positions of the poles (also called nodes), suggesting that climatic changes due to deformation cycles also have their own recuperation cycle, when the crust became stable again. That is what we indeed observe in the glaciation graphs – the graph always goes up after it went down,
- the ice cores extend over a long enough period to determine possible matching patterns. Tree rings, for example, cover too short a period of time to show a record of even one large cataclysm.
Probability That the Same Sequence Occurs Coincidentally
When we carefully examine the data of both the distances between each of the poles and the distances between the high lows in the glaciation graph of Fig. 2, we find indeed a matching sequence. To show this a little clearer, we have labeled the highs and lows as A, B, C, D, and E. The data used to generate the graph in Fig. 2 is directly retrieved from the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology (the NOAA participates in the WDCP), so we were able to analyze the highs and lows with great accuracy. Initially, we used a simple labeling system:
- pole II to pole I (A) = XL,
- pole III to pole II (B) = XS,
- pole IV to pole III (C) = S,
- pole V to pole IV (D) = L,
- pole VI to pole V (E) = M. (note: pole VI is yet unproven)
What we see here is that the sequences of the relative magnitudes are the same, i.e. the relative distances between the poles are in the same order of magnitude as the largest relative temperature jump in the glaciation graph. The probability for this sequence to match coincidentally is 1÷nn = 1÷44 = 1÷256 = 0.00391 or 0.39%. That means that we can be more than 99.6% certain that we are looking at the correct time frames of the deformation cycles. To prove that we are right we have gone even further.
Earth’s Climate Also Varies Without Crustal Deformations
It is crucial to understand that in the graph of Fig 2. there is also a “natural” temperature variation present due to varying Sun activity, slight variations in the Earth’s orbit parameters, changes of ocean currents, and variations in CO2 levels. These natural variations are expected to occur not only when the crust is stable but also when it is unstable, i.e. it is always present – a sort of “background noise”.
The Sun’s activity will vary no matter what, the ocean currents will continue to vary no matter what, the orbit parameters will have their own agenda and even the CO2 levels will periodically change. Reliable data over the last two millennia can be found by using tree ring data and ice sheet data from Greenland.
Tree Ring Data Over the Last 2,000 Years
Greenland Ice Sheet Data Over the Last 10,000 Years
Next Steps to Filter Out the Crustal Deformations
In Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 we show that the temperatures on Earth vary between a relatively small band of 2.8°C. Larger temperature variations, as they are presented in glaciation graphs, are in fact incorrect presentations because crustal deformations caused massive climatic changes that can be found as proxies in the ice cores of Antarctica.
Now that we have the correct data, filtering out the natural temperature variations is not so difficult anymore. We have to “cut off” the highs and lows with the 2.8°C that we have distilled from the glaciation graphs to find the remaining “fingerprint” of the crustal deformations. And if that results once again in matching data, we have confirmation that our proposed time frame of the poles is correct.
High-Resolution Data Over 800,000 Years From Antarctica
How to Read the Graph
In Fig. 6 we have plotted on the horizontal axis a period of 800,000 years. The data comes directly from the Dome-C ice cores on Antarctica. They are called proxies. The data values were checked and verified. The grid is divided into 20,000 years. On the vertical axis, we have plotted the temperatures.
You see that over the last 440,000 years the global temperatures looked like a rollercoaster, jumping up and down between 8 to 14°C. That’s very extreme because we have shown above that there is no evidence over the last 10,000 years that the temperatures varied more than 2.8°C. So, what made the temperatures jump up and down so much?
It is important to note that the temperature variations are related to the eccentric orbit of the Earth around the Sun as we show in Fig. 2. Tilt and precession do not play any role in the onset of ice ages, that’s one of the most commonly made mistakes. Changing eccentricity causes no annual changes in solar radiation (less than 1%) received by the Earth. When the Earth’s orbit is most elliptical, the amount of solar energy received at the perihelion would be about 30 percent more than at aphelion. But compared to a cylindrical orbit, perihelion receives 15% more energy and at aphelion, it is 15% less energy. The point is that the overall solar energy budget remains equal over one year and that eccentricity does not influence the received solar energy over long periods. And yet there is a one on one relationship between ice ages and eccentricity.
We have discovered that very elliptical orbits caused very large gravitational oscillations on the Earth’s crust. It is relatively easy to understand that these oscillations caused crustal deformations, and yet scientists haven’t figured this out for themselves. We have done all the work that the large institutions should have done. Believing in a steady sturdy planet makes it much easier for them to produce papers and to exploit a career. The truth, however, is far different.
When the last “ice age” ended (on the right side in Fig. 6) between 10,000 to 15,000 years ago, you see the blue curve jumping back up and start to stabilize. In fact, you see every time after the temperatures dove down, they jumped back up again as if the Earth has a sort of “set point”. This set point is, of course, a stable crust, the upward flanks in the graph are the recuperation phases of the biosphere after a rough cataclysmic period, and the downward flanks are the crustal deformation phases. The variations in the setpoint are caused by a not completely recuperated biosphere before the next crustal deformation started again. A good example of this is around 210,000 years ago, where we see two short recuperation cycles after yet another occurring deformation. This happens only when eccentricity is very high (see Fig. 2).
Once you grasp this, it becomes easy to understand. Providing bulletproof evidence is harder, but we have done that too.
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 Did We Prove That Glaciation Cycles Were Crustal Deformations?
We have proven that the geographic North pole moved in the latitudinal direction which clearly indicates climatic changes. Imagine your town shifting from the latitude of New York to the latitude of Miami. That would have serious consequences for the climate you are living in. Something similar happened multiple times in the past over very long periods of time.
Our concept is simple and can be readily understood: it is cold at the poles and warm at the equator, the latitudes in between are of intermediate temperatures.
For every little step that we take from one of the poles towards the equator, it gets warmer. When we step over the equator towards the other pole it starts to become colder again. However, when we travel towards the equator, the area that is involved in the temperature change (ΔT) becomes larger (ΔAr). That means that zones closer to the equator have a larger impact on the global climate. To understand the full picture, we need to cast this principle into mathematics:
- the area at the poles is small. When we travel from the North pole (90°) to a latitude of let’s say 80° just north of Greenland we have traveled over a latitudinal angle of 10°. Imagine it like a small “cap” sitting on the of the world. The surface area of this cap is quite small,
- the temperature change for the area that we have crossed is relatively large,
- the same angular surface area around the equator is large. When we travel over the same distance from just above the equator (5°) to just below the equator (-5°) we have crossed the same latitudinal angle of 10° but the climatic zone which can be imagined as a band around the equator is many times larger (11.5 times),
- the temperature change that we have crossed is relatively small.
How Latitude Influences Temperature
How Latitude and Surface Areas Are Related
Analyzing From Pole to Pole
The next step is to “walk” from pole to pole in very small steps and to multiply the changes that we find between every latitude in both graphs of Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 with the help of calculus, the powerful mathematics used for this process. When we make a step on the X-axis, for example from 90 to 89 and then follow the graph, we note the differences that the graph makes on the Y-axis.
| ΔX1 (Fig 8) | |ΔT| (Fig 8) | ΔX2 (Fig 9) | ΔArel (Fig 9) | ∑ |ΔT|·ΔArel |
| 1° (90°→89°) | 0.2°C | 1° (90°→89°) | 0.007615% | 1.523×10-5 °C |
| 1° (89°→88°) | 0.2°C | 1° (89°→88°) | 0.022843% | 4.569×10-5 °C |
| etc. | …… | …… | …… | …… |
| 1° (1°→0°) | 0.3°C | 1° (1°→0°) | 0.87262% | 8.7262×10-5 °C |
| etc. | …… | …… | …… | …… |
| 1° (-89°→-90°) | 0.8°C | 1° (-89°→-90°) | 0.007615% | 6.092×10-5 °C |
| TOTAL | 0.576°C |
Our behind-the-scenes data processing is an immense undertaking that is only comprehensible for mathematicians. It would be intimidating and demanding to share it online. It is important to understand what the method is about. We now have found Earth’s fingerprint when the crust deforms in the latitudinal direction, i.e. what kind of information you would find if you were to take ice core samples and why they would show such large jumps.
We made ΔX1 and ΔX2 the increments smaller which increases the calculus accuracy. This is what we found:
- Cdef = ∑ |ΔT|·ΔArel = 0.576°C.
We called this the crustal deformation constant, Cdef. This number should be a holy number for every geologist. Note that ΔT (written as |ΔT|) is an absolute value; otherwise, we would end up with a value close to zero because of the nature of the temperature from pole to pole.
When the crust deforms in the latitudinal direction – which is the only logical effect because the crust behaves like a spinning top that is affected by an external force – we will find patterns or fingerprints of this movement in very old ice cores. 10 degrees of a crustal deformation in the latitudinal direction leaves a fingerprint of 5.76°C (10 * 0.576 = 5.76) in the ice sheet of Antarctica. Wild guesses circulate in the academic circles about the age of the Greenland ice sheet but they are unscientific. We have 100% proof that Greenland’s ice sheet is not older than 300,000 years.
The ice sheet on Antarctica, on the other hand, is in fact incredibly old. This knowledge is fairly reliably obtained by dating the so-called blue ice. Indeed, there is good evidence that Antarctica’s ice sheet might be older than 3 million years. This evidence lacks completely for Greenland and knowing this has profound consequences; the South pole was stable while the North pole was unstable. Antarctica did not move at all over the last 340,000 years, while Greenland was catapulted over the North pole and most of the crust was heavily deformed. That is the reason why the Antarctic ice sheet holds a precious key to our ancient history.
The Results
| Event | From | To | Angle of Shift of North Pole (Snp) | Cdef (°C) | Pseudo Glacial Effect Snp × Cdef (°C) | Sub Glacial From Ice Core (red area Fig. 7 (°C)) | Error |
| A | II | I | 14.0 | 0.576 | 8.064 | 8.00 | +0.80% |
| B | III | II | 3.8 | 0.576 | 2.189 | 2.00 | +9.45% |
| C | IV | III | 8.1 | 0.576 | 4.666 | 5.00 | -6.68% |
| D | V | IV | 11.9 | 0.576 | 6.854 | 6.86 | -0.09% |
| A-D | V | I | 37.8 | 0.576 | 21.773 | 21.86 | -0.40% |
Why is This 100% Proof?
We have here two (seemingly) independent patterns that fit one on one onto each other. It is possible to calculate the probability for these two patterns to fit coincidentally onto each other.
- The simple patterns of Fig. 2 fit onto each other, which gives us a probability of 1 to 256 that this is coincidental, hence 99.6% that it is indeed related. It is in our view not spectacular but good enough for a deeper investigation, which we did.
- The complicated patterns of Fig. 7 matches one on one onto each other, where we considered the natural temperature variation σ95 over the last 10,000 years, and the exactly matching polar movements which we multiplied with our other discovery, namely the crustal deformation constant, Cdef. The patterns match with an accuracy of less than 10%, not one time, but four times in a row. The probability for this to occur coincidentally with well-founded scientific data is 1 to 750,000, hence we have a 99.999867% certainty that our discovery is true.
We are therefore 100% certain that our time frame for the ancient poles is correct, and this has profound consequences for the age of the foundations of ancient structures. We now understand how old they really are, what happened to these ancient civilizations, why there are so many mysterious ancient sites around the world allegedly built within a few thousand years but in reality are hundreds of thousands of years old. With our method, we are able to explain one of the biggest questions of science.
© 2015 – by Mario Buildreps et al.
https://mariobuildreps.com
Proofreading and editing: J.B.
14 Responses
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…