02.04.2013 Views

The Earth's Shifting Crust by Charles Hapgood - wire of information

The Earth's Shifting Crust by Charles Hapgood - wire of information

The Earth's Shifting Crust by Charles Hapgood - wire of information

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

2i8 EARTH'S SHIFTING CRUST<br />

course, have been the same in all parts <strong>of</strong> the world (allowing<br />

some differences, perhaps, for vertical movements <strong>of</strong> the<br />

land locally).<br />

It should have been universal that is, the evi-<br />

dences should be observable everywhere, on all the conti-<br />

nents. <strong>The</strong>re is, however, strong evidence in conflict with<br />

each <strong>of</strong> these propositions.<br />

<strong>The</strong> maximum rise in sea level that can be ascribed to the<br />

melting <strong>of</strong> the Pleistocene ice sheets (assuming that the Ant-<br />

arctic icecap existed contemporaneously with them) is about<br />

300 feet. This is a liberal estimate. Yet, in a recent study,<br />

Fisk and McFarlan show that the sea level during the Wisconsin<br />

glaciation (on American coasts) was 450 feet below<br />

the present level (153:294-96). Moreover, according to them,<br />

this is a minimum estimate, and the probabilities favor a<br />

greater lowering <strong>of</strong> the sea level in the late Pleistocene. Still<br />

more interesting, they give a chart showing that the lowest<br />

sea level was earlier than 28,000 years ago, or considerably<br />

before the maximum <strong>of</strong> the Wisconsin ice sheet. This date<br />

was established <strong>by</strong> radiocarbon (153:281). It can only mean<br />

that the low sea level must be attributed to a cause other<br />

than the withdrawal <strong>of</strong> water from the ocean to form that<br />

ice sheet.<br />

Furthermore, Fisk and McFarlan show that the sea was<br />

rising 20,000 years ago, before the completion <strong>of</strong> the massive<br />

Tazewell Advance that carried the Wisconsin icecap to its<br />

maximum size (153:298). Surely, if the sea level were con-<br />

trolled <strong>by</strong> the glaciers, it should have been falling. Finally,<br />

Fisk and McFarlan show that the sea level had risen to<br />

within 100 feet <strong>of</strong> its present level <strong>by</strong> 10,000 years ago. Yet<br />

we know that <strong>by</strong> that time the Wisconsin glaciation was a<br />

mere shadow <strong>of</strong> its former self, while the Scandinavian had<br />

virtually ceased to exist. Is it likely that the remnants <strong>of</strong> these<br />

ice sheets could later have raised the ocean level 100 feet?<br />

<strong>The</strong> question is rendered even more doubtful <strong>by</strong> a news<br />

item that comes to me while I write these lines. It is a dis-<br />

patch to the New York Times <strong>by</strong> John Hilla<strong>by</strong>, dated from<br />

Sheffield, England, September 2, 1956, giving an account <strong>of</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!