By Martin Harris
For a while now, New Zealand has been the home-away-from-home for America's celebrities and elite. First a trickle, now more and more, and it's become front page news, with a strangely conspiracy oriented twist. Talk of bunkers, safe havens, apocalypse impending, and of course escape from Trump!
But why NZ?
Don't they know what's going on here? You want to escape the apocalypse you don't come to Earthquake Central, do you?
No, I don't think ignorance plays much part.
Antarctica. The real reason the upper echelon of the USA has such an interest in New Zealand.
Why Antarctica? I have a theory, a wild but interesting theory.
Kids. For so long they seem little babes, then one day you realise, "hey, did you grow six inches overnight?"
They have growth spurts, and sometimes it makes them a little clumsy as they adapt to their growing bodies. Sometimes they get growing pains.
My youngest boy, Caleb, is four years old as I write this.
He's always wanting to try new things, and sometimes I say to him, "you can do this when you're bigger". The next day, he comes to me and says, "Dad, I'm bigger!".
He's recently progressed from obsession with excavating and digging, to obsession with dinosaurs. Reminds me of another little red haired boy many years ago.
As any good parents would, we have utilized his obsession as a learning tool, both online and through library books. And it's amazing how our perception of dinosaurs has changed.
When I was a lad, we were taught that prehistoric reptiles were plodding, dumb brutes, and that they were so huge and heavy that they spent most of their time immersed in swamps and shallow rivers, unable to support their weight on dry land.
In subsequent years, it has become the norm to portray most Dinos as highly active land roaming creatures. And larger ones are being discovered all the time. Likewise, the aircraft sized pterodactyl were assumed to be only capable of short glides. Now they are said to have soared for considerable distances.
Something always puzzled me though....
PUZZLE PIECE ONE:
The perceived nature of prehistoric animals has changed, but how did these titanic tyrannosaurus, spinosaurs and colossal sauropods support their bulk on dry land? Indeed recently, National Geographic proposed that the mega-size predator Spinosaurus (you guessed it) lived mostly in shallow rivers and lakes because it's upper body was too bulky for land locomotion.
Is it that the experts are struggling to reconcile the logistics?
Could it be that the force of gravity was weaker millions of years ago?
PUZZLE PIECE TWO:
Then of course (so we are told) the dinosaurs were wiped out within a short space of time (or evolved into birds.... or both...?) and the mammals took centre stage. But this was the time of mammals that grew to huge size generally, compared to today's species. The Mammoth, Cave Bear, Giant Sloth, Balichotherium and such like, reined for millions of years, then, suddenly, as recently as 12000 years ago give or take, they were wiped out.
We have a clearer picture of what happened at the conclusion of the last Ice Age, and it isn't pretty. No wonder the legend of a "great flood" is imprinted in the minds of so many cultures around the globe. The smashed and battered remains of millions of animals are preserved in the permafrost of Siberia and Alaska, and even in the mud and clay of Europe and the American continent, beneath the sands of the deserts of the Middle East, and even at the bottom of the English Channel.
While the catastrophic meltdown that ended the so-called Ice Age is unquestioned, the mechanism that caused it remains disputed and uncertain. One of the most ingenious theories was proposed by Professor Charles Hapgood, who suggested that rather than the slow, uniform creep of continental drift being the sole mechanism at work on the Earth's crust, the entire outer shell of the Earth is subject to suddenly (in geological terms) sliding over the molten liquid layer beneath, so that landmasses previously located in temperate locations would be relocated to the poles, and freezing conditions.
Hapgood provided some very compelling evidence for the Earth Crust Displacement Theory, and had the support of Albert Einstein. The theory was famously resurrected by Graham Hancock in his bestseller, Fingerprints of the Gods (Hancock proposed Antarctica as the potential site of an "elder culture", an ancient lost civilisation responsible for many mysterious monuments around the world).
Einstein, however, as correspondence to Hapgood indicates, had reservations about Earth Crust Displacement. A suitable mechanism or lever was required to trigger the crustal movement. And since these bursts of extinction seemed to happen at intervals, the mechanism would have to be somehow cyclical in nature.
Both Hapgood and Hancock proposed ice as the mechanism. Gradual growth of polar ice pressed down upon the rock beneath, deforming the land. Eventually the weight of the ice reaches a point where it begins to break off in shelves, resulting in a lessening weight and 'isostatic rebound'. The uneven distribution of ice causes a wobble in the Earth's rotation, like an off balance washing machine, until, bang! things start slipping and sliding around until balance is restored.
Nice idea, thought Einstein, but give me some hard figures on this. The math doesn't add up.
So what mechanism caused such an extraordinary relocation of the continents?
PUZZLE PIECE THREE:
It intrigued me as a young boy, that looking at any world map, the Earth's terrestrial landmasses all seemed shaped in such a way that they fit neatly together if the oceans were taken out of the equation.
We were of course given an answer to this in the form of Continental Drift Theory. But this theory only allowed for slow, uniform change. There was no allowance for the obvious catastrophes and extinction events.
A modification called Punctuated Equilibrium went partway to an answer, but not enough.
PUZZLE PART FOUR:
After each catastrophic mass extinction event, the newly emerging dominant life forms were radically different. First we had creatures adapted mainly to life in warm shallow seas that covered much of the planet's surface, then life suddenly went either onshore, or adapted to deeper, cooler seas. Then came the age of giant reptiles, and so on. In other words, conditions on the Earth went through a series of drastic changes to which life was forced to adapt. Life does not change unless the conditions force that change upon it.
And after each change, the general trend has been towards downsizing.
As if the Earth's gravitational pull has increased over time.
PUZZLE PART FIVE:
What about the asteroids? Weren't the dinosaurs wiped out by an asteroid hitting the Earth?
Actually as we know the Earth is pockmarked with the craters of many asteroid and meteorite impacts, and what makes the dinosaur extinction tie-in is the KT layer after which no more dinosaur fossils are found.
Fossils, however, are NOT a normal state of affairs. When an animal dies, it's body decomposes, the remains are picked over by predators and the bones scattered. Fossils are a snapshot in time that indicate a catastrophe in which animals were buried and sealed off from the elements rapidly. Same goes for the frozen remains in the permafrost. Evidence of disasters that visit the planet on a disturbingly regular basis.
As for meteorites and asteroids, every impact not only creates either a localised or planetary disaster of it's own, it also contributes a little more material to the mass of the Earth.
And so it occurred to me a few years back, that looking at these puzzle pieces, the answer was actually staring us in the face.
The Earth's gravitational pull is increasing over time because the Earth is gaining mass.
There is nothing controversial about this. Two space rocks smash together and make a bigger rock, the increased mass/gravity attracts more material and so on.
And we know for a fact that the planet continues to suck up space rocks and dust. Tons of it daily. It's got to go somewhere.
I'm sure you know where this is going.
And yes, even the dinosaur mystery fits into the picture:
With the mass growing, it now explains why dinasaurs were so big. Numerous engineers have pointed out that these gigantic creatures could not have survived in today’s gravity making it impossible to pump blood, walk, or survive today. Here is a plot of the biggest creatures during life on earth and it points to a growing mass.
So how come this interesting and apparently plausible theory hasn't gained more acceptance in scientific circles then?
The answer lies with Expanding Earth's most devoted promoter, Neal Adams. He isn't a scientist. In fact his main claim to fame is as a very talented comic book artist. This may explain his exquisite animations of the planet expanding, but sadly it also explains why debunkers have such a field day with him.
And to make matters worse, Adam's explanations of the math and physics are easily attacked. Oh, and his universal view and beliefs don't help his cause either.
Please don't misunderstand me here, I think Neal's a great guy , but, from a mainstream scientist's POV.....?
So, with all due thanks and respect to Neal Adams for his tireless devotion to the cause, we need to separate the man from the theory. And what we find is a surprising amount of support from the mainstream academia.
"The Expanding Earth Hypothesis goes back to at least 1933, a time when the Continental Drift Hypothesis was accorded the same sort of ridicule. Now, Continental Drift is enthroned; and ironically many of its strongest proponents are vehemently opposed to the Expanding Earth, ignoring the lessons of history." -- William R. Corliss, physicist, 1985.
(be sure to check out this link even if you ignore the others; it's a beaut.)
Scientists measure the planet and tell us, no, the Earth isn't growing. I would amend that to, no, it wasn't growing last time we checked,
And that was apparently in 2011!
"Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties,"
See NASA's article below:
. What I'm proposing is that the planet does not grow at a steady rate, but, like my children, in a series of spurts. These growth spurts are accompanied by growing pains in the form of sharp increases in seismic activity, cracks and sinkholes, tsunamis, and ultimately, upheavals of a more drastically catastrophic nature resulting in mass extinction events, relocation of continents and a requirement for survivors to rapidly adapt and evolve. I also thing the expansion happens unevenly, resulting in some areas spreading drastically, while other areas may actually be pushed together. This may explain the constant wandering of the magnetic poles perhaps?
So let's take a look at the evidence of the fossil record that may give some credence to this theory.
For an example we could examine the numerous fossils in a location known as The Red Sandstone, an area covering half of Scotland. Observers have described this region as an aquatic graveyard with thousands of different localities disclosing the same scene of destruction. The red sandstone deposit, that covers and area of approximately 10,000 square miles and over 150 feet in thickness screams with the evidence of a wide-scale catastrophe. Fossilized fish are found there contorted into abnormal shapes. Others died suddenly in swimming positions.
The identical picture can be found in northern Italy. Evidence there would indicate vast quantities of fish also perished suddenly. Fossilized skeletons of fish are found by the thousands in slate. In most case the fossils are packed together. Many of the fossils have been preserved with traces of the color of their skin impregnated into the surrounding material indicting that deposition had occurred before decomposition of the tissues
Moving much further forward in time:
"There is evidence that Titicaca was once a saltwater sea. Its shoreline is littered with millions of fossilized seashells. The marine fishes and seahorses in the lake are all oceanic types found only in salt water.
Researchers are convinced that these 3 miles high ruins once lay at sea level. Therefore, an incredibly devastating earthquake could have torn the city asunder, lifting Tiwanaku and the lake to where they are now.....
What was Titicaca at one time? Has it always been just a freshwater lake with saltwater fauna? Or was it a great and sacred river flowing at nearly sea level, and leading to the sea?"
"Titicaca and Poopo, lake and salt-bed of Coipasa, salt beds of Uyuni———several of these lakes and salt—beds have chemical compositions similar to those of the ocean. He pointed out that Lake Titicaca is.. . . full of characteristic [saltwater] molluscs, such as Palude— strina and Ancylus, which shows that it is, geologically speaking, of relatively modern origin.
Hans S. Bellamy, who gave the problem of the salinity of this region very considerable thought, had the following to say:
The region in which the feeders of Lake Titicaca rise consist almost exclusively of old crystalline, and younger volcanic rocks; Triassic formations, from which salt is usually derived through extraction, are markedly absent.
Hence the presence of so much salt in the Bolivian Tableland can only be accounted for by postulating a former connection of the great lacustrine basin with the Ocean, and by assuming the eventual evaporation of this body of water when the connection with the Ocean was at last severed."(source, blog.world link below)
Note the land raised in stages in this image from NZ. Growth spurts?
Isn't it logical, that life on earth began in the oceans and moved onto land, because originally most of the planet was covered in warm shallow oceans?
Something else that's growing: Antarctica. Or more specifically, the Antarctic Ice sheet. Meanwhile, the Arctic ice is actually diminishing.
What does that mean? Take a look at the graphic at the start of this blog. Everything is moving outwards from Antarctica, like a balloon expanding.
"Take Antarctica for example. There is no subduction around Antarctica and yet it is expanding. It can’t get smaller. What to do? There is no answer from plate tectonics. Also, the mainstream admits they need 70% more subduction for the earth’s radius to remain constant. Truly a very big big problem.....
One complaint about earth expansion from plate tectonics is that they say you can’t have subduction with earth expansion or growth. Yes you can. And the reason is because the earth is not expanding equally all over. In fact, the it is expanding much more in the southern hemisphere than in the upper. Look at the map below. Look at the expansion below and the land mass in the lower hemisphere. There you find less land mass, and more expansion.
This makes the expansion in the northern hemisphere strained. Take a look at the area in the blue oval. That is the western coastline of the United States and Canada. There, the earth is expanding, but unevenly given the expansion in the southern hemisphere is much greater. This causes some subduction by forming almost a hinge at the bottom of Alaska. There is subduction, but not in a way or in enough quantity to keep the earth at a fixed radius."
Antarctica is an island of stability, and loaded with mineral resources. While oil and gas reserves are uncertain, coal, ore and metals are plentiful:
And speaking of oil and gas reserves:
"The same mechanism that is causing the earth to expand and grow, is creating methane, oil, gas, and water. Oil is not from squashed dinosaurs. It is abiotic (not from fossils). Water didn’t come from comets. It is also coming from within the earth, pouring through the expanding fissures in the deep oceans. And lately, how are we be finding more and more oil and gas so far down all over the world like in the Bakken in North Dakota, the Utica in Ohio, and many other new fields. All this is being manufactured inside the earth. This is not far-fetched given mainstream science says that atoms are made in the core of the sun. The earth’s core is most likely much like the sun. There you go."
(same source as previous link)
I doubt anyone would want to live permanently in Antarctica, (although it may not be as inhospitable as one might think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x40A0sBL34 an underground "ark" would be a good safe haven until the planet settles down again. We may not be the first to take safe refuge in Antarctica if Hapgood, Hancock and co. are correct.
It is true that millions of years ago Antarctica was a virtual paradise, and portions may have been ice free until relatively recently.
So, are the elite justified in making their home-away-from-home in the "Stepping stone to Antarctica" right now? I think so.
We know more or less the time frame in which mass extinctions occur, and we are due. Some would say justifiably that it has begun. Earthquakes are on the increase (even allowing for the artificially triggered ones). Sinkholes and great gaping cracks in the earth are on the news almost daily. And cosmic rays are increasing steadily.
Take a look at what happened in Kaikoura.
"Much of the northeastern coast of the South Island was uplifted during the 14th of November 2016 earthquake. We know this from photos of rock platforms covered in seaweed and marine animals such as crayfish and paua stranded above tide levels. Our records measured the tide gauge at Kaikoura was lifted up by 1 m, and continuous GPS monitoring sites at Kaikoura and Cape Campbell were also raised by 0.7-0.9 m. At this stage we can estimate that the coast was raised between 0.5 m and 2 m from about 20 km south of Kaikoura all the way north to Cape Campbell. Scientists plan to find out more about this coastal uplift." (source, GNS).
Now take a look at these images, and remember the fossil fish earlier in this blog?
But, other than the obvious closeness to Antarctica, why NZ?
Let's recap a Few points:
Most of the expansion occurs in the southern hemisphere.
As the earth grows, more "real estate" becomes available.
Logically, most of this new land will be at certain locations in the southern hemisphere. Witness what is happening in NZ especially Kaikoura.
New Zealand has been reported by the Oil Industry as "The Texas of the South.... literally leaking gas and oil".
Metals, water and uranium from Antarctica, and oil and gas from New Zealand. An elitist-survivalist paradise?
Is it any wonder Christchurch was demolished to be rebuilt as a resilient Agenda 30 prototype city of the future?
(Ben Vigden, via email)
SO ALL THESE EARTHQUAKES ARE NATURAL THEN?
WHAT ABOUT HAARP AND GEO-ENGINEERING?
Here's how I think HAARP technology fits into the big picture.
I touched earlier in this blog about questions regarding the true source of oil, that it may in fact be virtually limitless.
HAARP is capable of looking down into the earth's crust and locating potential sources of oil and gas. It could surely also locate voids and fractures. HAARP also looks up at the ionosphere, and as we now know, in conjunction with satellites, we can detect ionospheric disturbances that are precursors to potential earthquakes.
Nature can be very fickle and unpredictable, so HAARP takes the uncertainty out of the equation, triggering (not generating) seismic activity in a targeted area that's already under stress. Rather than waiting to see if nature does the job, they're ensuring it happens.
They are trying to coax the earth into releasing it's hidden reserves of oil. This is where the seismic exploration vessels are brought into play, to confirm wether or not the operation has succeeded. If it hasn't, they keep it up until they get what they're after.
What they are doing is not simply looking for undiscovered oil fields. They are attempting create new ones by shattering the crust.
Oil companies seeking permits in NZ have described this country as " the Texas of the South" and "literally leaking oil and gas".
This is all in the name of perpetuating the oil industry. It's all about the money.
AND THE HOARD OF STASHED WEALTH IS ALSO GETTING BIGGER.
WHAT'S ALL THAT MONEY FOR?
Trillions of dollars in tax havens. New Zealand it seems, is one of those havens. What the hell are the elite going to do with all those trillions? It's dead money that could be put to good use. One could solve the world's problems several times over. Unless, that is, the elite believe that the world as we know it can't be saved from an impending extinction event.
It has happened many times before. The evidence is plain to see. It happens at regular intervals. Asteroid collisions can't account for all these successive extinction events, and a mechanism for earth crustal displacement has never been found. Only an expanding earth explains the sudden extinction and subsequent geological and climatic changes.
This blog has demonstrated that, if this theory is correct, the Antarctic is probably the safest place to be, and New Zealand is seen by the elite as their gateway to that continent if the shit hits the fan.
The reader may be interested in the relevant links below.
As always, remember a big dose of speculation is involved here, and it's all open to question and constructive criticism. Think For Yourself, and do your research with an open and discerning mind.
Hope you enjoyed the blog and thanks for taking the time to read it.
Add a Comment