The Atlantis Blueprint

by Colin Wilson

  Appendix 5

  Tracing Lost Sites

  Rand Flem-Ath

  Authors of UFO books are fond of the expression ‘back-engineered’. They believe that the US government possesses at least one flying saucer and has hired experts to try to understand the underlying science of the alien crafts. This process is called ‘back-engineering’. I’m not saying that a flying saucer actually exists, tucked in a secret hangar somewhere. Indeed, all my research is based upon the assumption that the past can be understood without reference to aliens or UFOs. But I do think that the idea of ‘back-engineering’ is appropriate to our search for lost sacred sites.

  By back-engineering the Atlantis blueprint we can retrace the steps of the survivors of the flood. Hapgood’s Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings shows maps that illustrate the shape of the continents and their positions before the displacement. Refugees from the deluge realised that to make use of this critical information they would have to update the latitudes that had been dramatically changed by the displacement. Giza, for instance, had moved from 15 degrees north to 30 degrees north. By surveying the planet from key points such as Giza, the survivors could overlay their accurate maps of the pre-flood world on to the new latitudes. This took them to specific places – places that eventually became sacred sites to following generations.

  The Atlantis blueprint reveals several important sites (Copan, Quito, for example) that are linked in three ways. First, they are linked by a significant measurement to the Giza prime meridian. Copan, for example is 120 degrees west of the Great Pyramid (WGP). Second, they are located at a sacred latitude (Copan is at 15 degrees north). And third, they were also located at a sacred latitude during the Hudson Bay Pole (HBP) (Copan was at 45 degrees north). Perhaps we can extrapolate from this knowledge to find other sacred places that have remained hidden through time?

  One of the most intriguing lost sites suggested by the blueprint is at 16:11S/58:52W on the border between Bolivia and Brazil, where Colonel Fawcett believed he had found the ruins of an Atlantean city. This site is promising because it lies one-quarter the distance around the globe from the Giza prime meridian and shares its latitude with Tiahuanaco. It also follows the pattern of Rosslyn Chapel (50/50 site) and Canterbury (45/45 site) in being also located at an angle that lies at a 12/12 intersection of the current and former pole.

  Another site, in California, mirrors Fawcett’s lost Brazilian city. The blueprint has led us to megalithic structures at 100, 110, 120, 130 and 140 degrees west of the Great Pyramid (WGP), and that’s what led us to look for Brazilian sites at 90, 80 and 72 degrees WGP. If we look to the west and north we find that the 150 degrees WGP measurement cuts through southern California. The most promising latitude is the Polar Golden Section (PGS) division at 34:23N. The PGS denotes the latitude of Baalbek; Pyramid No. 6 in the Chinese province of Xi’an; Ehdin of the Kharsag epic; and one of the most sacred sites in Japan, the Shinto Temple at Ise.

  During the Hudson Bay Pole, this same Californian site was located at 55:16N, which is less than half a degree from the perfect Equatorial Golden Section (EGS) latitude of 55:37N. So the mystery site in California was a double Golden Section site, being at a PGS position today and an EGS position before the flood. And it is linked to the Great Pyramid at Giza. Moreover, Kilwinning (55:40N) and Rosslyn (55:52N) are near this latitude today. Before the flood the California site shared its latitude with a tiny island off the south coast of Florida called ‘North Bimini’ (55:41N during the HBP). North Bimini is a site favoured by Edgar Cayce for Atlantis. It is at 110 WGP, sharing that longitude with the northern Inca capital of Quito.

  When I realised this I searched a map of California for a location that was at 150 WGP at the Golden Section latitude of 34:23N. The closest city was called ‘Ojai’.

  I had never heard of it.

  I’ve since discovered that Ojai (pronounced Oh-Hi) was immortalised in Frank Capra’s classic 1937 film Lost Horizon. Capra needed the most beautiful setting that he could find to represent ‘Shangri-La’, the lost Tibetan city. In choosing Ojai for the site of his lost paradise, Capra was following in the footsteps of others who believed that the Ojai Valley was sacred. The Chumash people, who occupied large parts of southern California before the arrival of the white man, considered the Ojai Valley to be sacred. They called it the ‘Valley of the Moon’, and believed that it was ‘an entry point into the land of the spirits’. As time went by Ojai became increasingly associated with spiritualism.

  One of the most fascinating philosophers of the twentieth century was closely linked to the city. Born in India in May 1895, when he was eleven years old he was ‘discovered’ by a member of the Theosophical Society, who brought the boy to the attention of Annie Besant, a well-known leader of the Theosophical Society. She brought the boy to England and educated him there. His name was Jisshu Krishnamurti and he became a spokesperson for a radical free school of thought that advocated eliminating eventually all organised religion. His motto became ‘Truth is a pathless land’.

  In 1922, Krishnamurti made a visit to Ojai and fell in love with the valley, making it his life-long home. In an interview published in the Ojai Valley News, Krishnamurti said, ‘The feeling you have is of a sacred place…’ And ‘in India, in Greece and other civilizations, when they find a beautiful spot like this, they put up a temple’.

  Although there are no megalithic structures here, Ojai joins a select number of sites around the world that are linked by Golden Section divisions of the earth’s dimensions (see table opposite).

  Golden Section latitudes today, during the Hudson Bay Pole and during the Yukon Pole

  * = Giza Prime Meridian Site

  ** = City of Atlantis (see Chapter 10)

  Lost sacred sites linked simultaneously to the Giza prime meridian (GPM), the current and the former position of the earth’s crust/mantle

  * EGS = Equatorial Golden Section or 55:37N

  ** 10 phi = 10 phi or 16:11N

  Appendix 6

  Spending Time and Wasting Space: How Ice Core Dating Went Wrong

  Rand Flem-Ath

  Imagine that you have just returned from a visit to Disney World in Florida where you purchased a ticket in the state lottery. You get a phone call and are told that you have won $3,000,000! Your life has just changed. But wait, there is a problem. When you go to collect they tell you that the real figure is $400,000. Okay – it’s a disappointment, but you really can’t be too sad. Finally the cheque arrives in the mail and it reads $122,000. What would your reaction be? Wouldn’t you want to investigate?

  I tell this brief story for a serious purpose. Over the past couple of years ‘experts’ in ice core dating have claimed that the ice sheet on Lesser Antarctica is at least 3,000,000,1 or 400,000,2 or 122,0003 years old, and therefore the theory of earth crust displacement has been falsified. People could never have lived in Lesser Antarctica a mere 12,000 years ago. But which date is the correct one? Something is very wrong here.

  To find out what it is we must begin with a basic logical tool discovered by the Greek philosopher Pythagoras (circa 600 BC). He is generally regarded as the first European to claim that the earth is round and that it can be divided into climatic zones (polar, temperate and equatorial). He also introduced the notion of ‘antipodes’ – that people could live on the opposite side of the earth. The Greek word for ‘feet’ is ‘pode’ and so Pythagoras called land in the southern hemisphere antipodes because the feet of the people living there were pointing in a direction that was counter to the northern hemisphere. ‘Antipodes’ means ‘counter-footed’. This notion of antipodes is a fundamental logical tool for evaluating the reliability of the ice dating method.

  Geologists almost never tire of repeating the phrase first coined by James Hutton that ‘the present is the key to the past’. It remains a central concept in geology. If we wish to understand the past we must first understand the present. This is good advice and provided we remember that rates of change can vary without v
iolating physical laws, it is advice that we need to take seriously. Today we do not find ice sheets accumulating in temperate zones (except in mountain ranges), nor do we find temperate-adapted animals living in polar zones. What we find instead is ice accumulating at the poles and only a small range of polar-adapted animals living within the polar zones.

  When we look at Lesser Antarctica through the lens of ice core dating we get one set of ‘facts’, but when we compare these results with the evidence of the antipodes to Lesser Antarctica then other, contradictory facts emerge. What we find from the ice core dating is that Lesser Antarctica has been covered in ice for at least 122,000 years, if not more. But when we shift our attention to the opposite side of the globe and look at Siberia, Beringia and Alaska, we do not find equivalent ice sheets. Instead we find evidence of many large mammals such as horses, bison and rhinoceros swarming over grasslands. How can one part of the globe be under ice for at least 122,000 years while the exact opposite of the globe has no ice and large mammals (dating from 11,000 to 70,000 carbon-14 years ago)? This does not compute. Either the evidence from the north is wrong, or the evidence from the south is wrong.

  What the ‘ice core experts’ are proposing is something for which we have no experience in the present: they claim that at one time, one side of the globe was under ice, while simultaneously, on the exact opposite side of the globe, large mammals were roaming on ice-free grasslands. Where on earth today can we find such a combination? We can’t. If Siberia/Beringia/Alaska demonstrates evidence from a wide variety of dating methods and they all point to this area being much warmer before 9,600 BC, then we have every right to assume that the same must have been the case on Lesser Antarctica. It is simple logic as old as Pythagoras.

  But the real problem that I have with those who cite ice core dating as the final word on the age of the Lesser Antarctic ice sheet is that these same people have nothing whatsoever to say about how the ice got there in the first place. They think that ice ages are simply about time and temperature changes and so they ignore the simple facts about where the ice formed and where it is today. What explanation do they offer for the fact that central Greenland and Greater Antarctica, which together hold more than 90 per cent of the world’s ice, are situated in polar deserts?

  The quest to solve the mystery of the ice ages has been one of the longest unsolved problems in science. Geology had been the darling of scientists in the nineteenth century, when giants such as James Hutton and Charles Lyell threw back the curtain of the earth’s past to reveal time scales that staggered the public’s imagination and shocked representatives of the Church. By challenging the Church’s blind faith in the story of the flood and by stretching the time scale beyond the rigid confines of a world supposedly created in 4,004 BC, the uniformitarian geologists made a dramatic and lasting impact upon human consciousness.

  During this time there was no challenge like geology. It was science’s vanguard. Upon its foundations the likes of Charles Darwin built his radical theory of evolution. These were geology’s heady days, but now the very science that once challenged the past with relentless observation and merciless logic has lost its way.

  When Louis Agassiz first proposed the idea that the world had once experienced an ice age, the geological establishment laughed. Today there is no doubt that ice sheets have covered huge tracts of Europe and more than half of North America. But despite the fact that this theory is now entrenched in academic halls and is referred to daily by professors of geology, the actual cause of the ice ages remains an unsolved mystery.

  Each year we are assured that this rather embarrassing state of affairs will be rectified and geology will be rid of its most persistent problem. But no one has yet been able to account for all the significant facts. When a problem such as this persists it often requires an entirely new perspective to initiate change. We believe that the problem of the ice ages has remained such a thorn in the side of geologists because it has been misconceived ever since Lyell took it over from Agassiz and transformed it into a uniformitarian theory.

  Uniformitarianism is a research tradition in geology that continues to hold sway despite the fact that its logical inconsistencies were exposed in 1965. In that year, Stephen Jay Gould wrote one of his earliest published papers, entitled ‘Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?’. Gould applied logic to the problem and was able to show that this idea was actually two ideas parading as one.

  The early uniformitarians, like Hutton and Lyell, argued that science must not rely upon the assumption that changes of the earth could be explained through the actions of supernatural forces. They put forward a very important principle that became one of the key foundations of modern science: the idea that physical laws are invariant. What this means is that the laws of gravity, the dynamics of physics, are constant in the universe and do not change through time or space. The principle of invariance became one of the pillars not only for geology but also for science itself. It is an act of faith to believe that physical laws do not vary through time and space, but it is an act of faith that seems entirely reasonable to most scientists. We also support this notion but the problem arises when the second of uniformitarianism’s dual ideas is brought into the equation.

  That is the notion of gradual change. This is a theory of the earth, not a general principle of science, but uniformitarians often didn’t appreciate the distinction. For them, anyone who challenges the idea of gradual change must also be challenging the notion of the invariance of physical laws. By separating the geological theory of gradualism from the scientific principle of invariance, Gould showed that uniformitarianism was ill conceived from the outset. His argument can be summarised by saying that ‘invariance is true but gradualism is false’.

  We need to go back to 1837 when the ice ages were first proposed by Agassiz to see how his idea was transformed into the uniformitarian theory that it is today. This historical review can help us see how ice core dating is ultimately flawed.

  From the outset, Agassiz envisioned the ice ages as events that were suddenly thrust upon the earth:

  A sudden intense winter, that was to last for ages, fell upon our globe; it spread over the very countries where these tropical animals had their homes, and so suddenly did it come upon them that they were embalmed beneath masses of snow and ice, without time even for the decay which follows death.

  Agassiz believed that the ice ages fanned out from the North and South Poles and engulfed the globe. This raised a troublesome problem. If the overall temperature of the earth had suddenly dropped, then how could the tropical animals have survived to the present day? Agassiz could not answer this question with logic, so he made a fatal error. He adopted the idea of ‘special creation’, which is the notion that after each catastrophic ice age God intervened in the process of evolution by repopulating the world with fresh tropical animals. By accepting the idea of ‘special creation’ Agassiz violated the prized principle of invariance.

  Science simply would not have it.

  And science was right.

  As time went on, Agassiz’s theory of sudden ice ages followed by special creations was replaced by Lyell’s slow, gradual ice ages, which simply ignored the problem of tropical animals. This proved to be the better tactic and as a result Agassiz’s catastrophic theory was absorbed into uniformitarian geology.

  The problem of tropical animals is one that is still with us. And there is the equally troublesome problem of evaporation. In order to have snowfall you must first have moisture in the air and this in turn is dependent upon evaporation in the tropics. If the overall temperature of the earth falls with each ice age then the tropics also should be cooler. But if the tropics are cooler then this means there is less evaporation, and less evaporation ultimately means less snowfall. The creation of ice sheets requires substantial evaporation in the tropics. So what we really need is a theory that can provide evaporation in the tropics at the same time as snow is accumulating as ice sheets. A mantle displacement can explain these pro
blems by replacing the simple presupposition of stable latitudes with the notion of variable latitudes. By treating the climatic zones (polar, temperate, tropical) as constants and the earth’s mantle as the variable, the issue of the survival of tropical animals and the problem of evaporation in the tropics, during so-called ice ages, is resolved.

  So why didn’t the tropical animals disappear? And how did the snow form in the first place if the tropics were cooler? These are two simple questions that have never been properly answered by proponents of the theory that the ice ages are the result of an overall drop in the earth’s temperature.

  The unsolved problem is the basic unit of science, yet geology continues to ignore these two problems. For the past couple of decades scientists have repeatedly relied upon ice core dating as a tool to gauge the temperature changes that they insist must have happened to cause the ice ages. But their logic is fundamentally flawed.

  The ice ages are not only about time and temperature.

  They are also about space. It is really rather shocking to note that in all the discussion about the age of the ice sheets and the temperatures of the past, there is nothing said about where the ice sheets formed. It’s as if this question has no bearing upon the problem. This is a ludicrous state of affairs. PhDs parading around the globe, attending conference after conference and presenting ice core evidence, all ignore the simple fact that central Greenland and eastern Antarctica, where over 90 per cent of the world’s ice resides, are both polar deserts! It simply doesn’t snow where the ice is! This emperor definitely has no clothes.

  Some have likened ice core dating to the rings of a tree that can be counted one by one to arrive at a history of the past. There are similarities, but there are also significant differences. As each new layer of ice is laid down it adds its weight to those beneath. This does not happen with tree rings, which respond to light. Ice cores are the result of falling snow. Light is a very regular feature, unlike snowfall, which is unpredictable. The weight of each new layer of ice adds pressure to the layers beneath. This results in distortions and melting of evidence. Ice at the bottom of the ice sheet is squeezed outwards and disappears.