<h3>No</h3>
<p>This is not evidence for anything of the sort. Just because you have an egg in your stomach after eating one, it doesn't mean you were hatched from an egg.</p>
<p>Unlike some other pseudo-scientific ideas, Crust Displacement (in the form of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_pole_shift_hypothesis" rel="nofollow noreferrer">catastrophic polar shifts</a>) is at least provably wrong.</p>
<p>(I first encountered this idea in a work that blamed it on God, arguing that a polar shift was the cause of the Biblical Flood.)</p>
<p>The evidence for plate tectonics is overwhelming, and rules out the possibility of catastrophic polar shifts. Also the evidence for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_polar_wander" rel="nofollow noreferrer">any actual polar wander</a> shows that is much more gradual than Hapgood puts forward.</p>
<p>There is a long record of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal" rel="nofollow noreferrer">geomagnetic reversal</a> in the Earth's crust. Ocean floor rocks show a pattern of north-oriented and south-oriented magnetic alignments over hundreds of millions of years.</p>
<p>Had there been catastrophic pole shifts there would be random orientations in these rocks.</p>
<p>When Hapgood's first anti-continental drift book was published in 1958, the publishers probably thought a foreword by Albert Einstein (who had been dead for 3 years) would give it cachet. But this foreword debunks Hapgood's central idea -- that polar ice could cause the crust to catastophically break loose from the inner Earth. Einstein pointed out that there wasn't enough ice, and pointed out Hapgood would have to explain why other imbalances  didn't cause similar shifts.</p>
<p>About 2/3 of Earth's land mass of the Earth is in the Northern Hemisphere, and 1/3 is in the Southern Hemisphere. This is a crustal imbalance greater than any ice cap.</p>
<p>Hapgood published a new book in 1970 where he argued the shifts were caused by some force inside the Earth.</p>
<p>I think there are two misconceptions at work:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>People conflate Earth's magnetic poles with its rotation axis, making people think a geomagnetic reversal is a physical flip of the Earth.</p>
</li>
<li><p>A basic inability to understand gravity. People can't get the association between South and Down out of their heads, even if they accept a round Earth.</p>
</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-17T07:39:12.847Z
It is true that the recent discovery provides no proof of the crustal displacement theory, and that plate tectonics is accepted science. But, the two theories are not mutually exclusive. They can both be true. And crustal displacement provides answers for some anomalies that plate tectonics cannot. Reputable scientists are still researching crustal displacement because of that, and there is considerable evidence to support the theory. Whether it will be accepted (or disproven) in our lifetimes is anyone's guess.
DaveInAZ
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-03-11T16:02:39.653Z
2023-03-11T16:20:08.147Z
2023-03-11T16:20:08.147Z
Spencer
<p>I'm no Geologist by any standard but I'm quite intrigued by what goes on below our feet.</p>
<p>I came across this article that states there's a new or (confirmed) partially melted layer in the athenosphere (upper part of the mantle)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/978653" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Scientists detect molten rock layer hidden under earth’s tectonic plates</a></p>
<p>Does this add credence to Hapgood's disproven theory on Earth Crust Displacement? Or is the rock still too thick for plates to suddenly shift?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-24T15:39:51.013Z
There is a gentlemen who puts out videos on Youtube that describe what you are referring to. His name is suspiciousobserver. Einstein agreed with crustal displacement, he didn't agree with how the crust would unlock.
user29150
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-25T20:21:02.030Z
Well Einstein wasn't necessarily a geologist ..nor was he even alive when the book was published. After doing a lot of research I found that all theories of the crust were in their infancy at the time so, realistically for the time they were both "valid" but obviously today the evidence for continental drift is utterly overwhelming
Andyhasaquestion
<geology><geophysics><crust><mantle><continental-crust>
Does this support Hapgood's Earth Crust Displacement Theory?
Andyhasaquestion
# Does this support Hapgood's Earth Crust Displacement Theory?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-03-08)

I'm no Geologist by any standard but I'm quite intrigued by what goes on below our feet.

I came across this article that states there's a new or (confirmed) partially melted layer in the athenosphere (upper part of the mantle)

[Scientists detect molten rock layer hidden under earth’s tectonic plates](https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/978653)

Does this add credence to Hapgood's disproven theory on Earth Crust Displacement? Or is the rock still too thick for plates to suddenly shift?

**Tags:** geology, geophysics, crust, mantle, continental-crust

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: There is a gentlemen who puts out videos on Youtube that describe what you are referring to. His name is suspiciousobserver. Einstein agreed with crustal displacement, he didn't agree with how the crust would unlock.  
> **username_0**: Well Einstein wasn't necessarily a geologist ..nor was he even alive when the book was published. After doing a lot of research I found that all theories of the crust were in their infancy at the time so, realistically for the time they were both "valid" but obviously today the evidence for continental drift is utterly overwhelming  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2023-03-11. Score: 3

### No

This is not evidence for anything of the sort. Just because you have an egg in your stomach after eating one, it doesn't mean you were hatched from an egg.

Unlike some other pseudo-scientific ideas, Crust Displacement (in the form of [catastrophic polar shifts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_pole_shift_hypothesis)) is at least provably wrong.

(I first encountered this idea in a work that blamed it on God, arguing that a polar shift was the cause of the Biblical Flood.)

The evidence for plate tectonics is overwhelming, and rules out the possibility of catastrophic polar shifts. Also the evidence for [any actual polar wander](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_polar_wander) shows that is much more gradual than Hapgood puts forward.

There is a long record of [geomagnetic reversal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal) in the Earth's crust. Ocean floor rocks show a pattern of north-oriented and south-oriented magnetic alignments over hundreds of millions of years.

Had there been catastrophic pole shifts there would be random orientations in these rocks.

When Hapgood's first anti-continental drift book was published in 1958, the publishers probably thought a foreword by Albert Einstein (who had been dead for 3 years) would give it cachet. But this foreword debunks Hapgood's central idea -- that polar ice could cause the crust to catastophically break loose from the inner Earth. Einstein pointed out that there wasn't enough ice, and pointed out Hapgood would have to explain why other imbalances didn't cause similar shifts.

About 2/3 of Earth's land mass of the Earth is in the Northern Hemisphere, and 1/3 is in the Southern Hemisphere. This is a crustal imbalance greater than any ice cap.

Hapgood published a new book in 1970 where he argued the shifts were caused by some force inside the Earth.

I think there are two misconceptions at work:

* People conflate Earth's magnetic poles with its rotation axis, making people think a geomagnetic reversal is a physical flip of the Earth.
* A basic inability to understand gravity. People can't get the association between South and Down out of their heads, even if they accept a round Earth.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: It is true that the recent discovery provides no proof of the crustal displacement theory, and that plate tectonics is accepted science. But, the two theories are not mutually exclusive. They can both be true. And crustal displacement provides answers for some anomalies that plate tectonics cannot. Reputable scientists are still researching crustal displacement because of that, and there is considerable evidence to support the theory. Whether it will be accepted (or disproven) in our lifetimes is anyone's guess.  

---

