Unfortunately, I haven’t come across the book by Andrey Sklyarov, and I am only getting acquainted with his work now.
Andrew drew conclusions based on the study of the Egyptian pyramids and the pyramids of the Teotihuacan complex, which determined his finding of the past pole in the Greenland region. This conclusion is at odds with our version, which places the pole before last in Greenland, while the past was in the Nebraska region.
His alternative history version attributed the time of the pyramids to more ancient times, and our pyramids are thousands of years younger. This also applies to the chronology of the poles. There are other discrepancies as well. But what matters is where our conclusions agree.
The coordinates of the location of the pole in Greenland change accordingly the coordinates of the South Pole and in Antarctica “a significant part … was free of ice (as mentioned earlier), and rivers flowed there and life flourished. Let there were no tropics, but something like modern Siberia and Alaska could well be …"
Here is the chapter "Clarifying the Pole Offset" in a significant reduction.
So, let's turn our gaze to the famous Egyptian pyramids on the Giza plateau, which are famous not only for their antiquity and enormous size, but also (which will be important for us in this case) for their precise orientation to the cardinal points. The largest of those standing on the plateau, the Great Pyramid, is especially oriented to the cardinal points.
Let's move now to another - western - hemisphere. Here, in the territory of modern Mexico, near its capital Mexico City, there is another ancient complex called Teotihuacan. The Teotihuacan complex also includes three pyramids - the Pyramid of the Sun, the Pyramid of the Moon and the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl.
Between the two complexes - on the Giza plateau and in Teotihuacan - there is a close similarity that Graham Hancock noted.
So the three pyramids of Teotihuacan in their arrangement resemble the position of the stars in the Orion belt. Not exactly reproduced, but still very similar. However, the three main pyramids of Giza have a similar location - the third pyramid deviates slightly from the straight line connecting the other two.
The second similarity is in the geometric proportions of the largest pyramids, which are clearly associated with the number pi.
There is a third similarity, which relates to the metric system used by the builders. Analyzing the dimensions of various structures and the distance between them, the American engineer Harleston calculated a certain "standard unit of measurement", which was used by the builders of the Teotihuacan complex. It was equal to 1.059 meters, which Harleston called "hunab".
If we take into account that "hunab" may not be a "standard unit of measurement", but its doubled value (which is quite possible in this kind of calculations), then we get that the builders of the complex on the Giza plateau in Egypt and the builders of the Teotihuacan complex in Mexico used one and the same system of measures !!!
All this indicates that, with a very high degree of probability, the two complexes were erected, if not by the same builders, then by representatives of the same civilization - no matter how shocking the historians who attribute Teotihuacan to the 1st-2nd millenniums of our era.
During the excavations of Teotihuacan, a very strange detail was discovered - houses and temples were "covered" with earth. Moreover, the nature of this "backfill" did not correspond to the simple accumulation of soil over time. In this regard, historians even put forward a version that once the inhabitants of the city left it, before that they carefully covered its houses with earth so that some “conquerors” could not use them.
For some reason, the authors of this version were not embarrassed by the strangeness of such a decision, which has no analogues at all in history. In addition, the amount of work required for such a "backfill" corresponds to the labor costs of building another pyramid of the Sun. How many years before the "conquerors" do the inhabitants have to foresee their coming ?!
But if we assume that local legends are right, and the pyramids (which are part of the complex) were here already before the Flood, then it cannot be ruled out that the Flood was the culprit for burying houses and temples under a layer of soil. More precisely: the most powerful tsunami that reached here from the ocean.
Indirectly, the validity of this version is confirmed by another pyramid, which is located in the small town of Cholula, ten kilometers from Pueblo, a large administrative center of Mexico, and in terms of its volume even exceeds the Great Pyramid on the Giza plateau in Egypt. Nowadays, the Cholul pyramid looks more like a simple hill, on top of which there is a Catholic church - the Church of the Blessed Virgin of the Comforter, which was erected here in 1666. But the pyramid not only "looks" like a hill, it actually is a hill, since the pyramid itself is hidden under a thick layer of clay.
The Teotihuacan complex was clearly lined up according to a single plan - along the so-called Road of the Dead, which has a strange orientation. It deviates from the north-east direction by 15.5 degrees.
Determination of the antediluvian position of the North Pole
Taking into account the rigid tie of the Giza pyramids to the modern North Pole and the obvious connection between the two complexes of structures, it is logical to state the following hypothesis: Teotihuacan was also oriented towards the “antediluvian” North Pole, just as the pyramids of Giza are now oriented towards the modern North Pole. Only a change in the position of the geographic poles during the catastrophic events of the 11th millennium BC led Teotihuacan to its "ridiculous" modern binding to an angle of 15.5 degrees east of the direction to the north.
And more than that. If both complexes were so rigidly tied to the geographic grid and both are so similar, it is logical to assume that Teotihuacan was located before the Flood at the same latitude as the Giza complex is now (in relation to the modern North Pole).
Then, measuring in the direction of those same 15.5 degrees from Teotihuacan the same distance at which Giza is removed from the modern North Pole, we get a point with approximate coordinates 51o west longitude and 71o north latitude - a point on the southwestern coast of Greenland. That is, we get the coordinates of the location of the "antediluvian" North Pole, which turns out to be exactly in the area obtained earlier for climatological reasons.
Automatically we get from here the coordinates of the "antediluvian" South Pole - 129 ° east longitude and 71 ° south latitude - the point is no longer in the center of Antarctica, but near its east coast (the one that faces Australia).
The resulting pole shift in the course of catastrophic events, so "unusual" for the modern scientific community, turns out to be about 2100 kilometers.
For example, for the Northern Hemisphere, the current relatively “warm” regime of the Arctic Ocean is largely provided by the warm Atlantic current, the Gulf Stream, which penetrates far to the north. And if it weren't for the Gulf Stream, which brings water heated at the equator to the polar latitudes, the climate - not only on the coast of the Arctic Ocean, but also in Europe and North America - would be much colder.
The location of the North Pole in the Greenland region (in the region of the calculated coordinates) sets a completely different temperature regime for the northern part of the Atlantic, which could well have resulted in either a different direction of the current itself or its temperature.
And even more than that, now - with references to the results of the latest empirical studies - the idea is expressed that the Gulf Stream in general as such was formed about 12 thousand years ago - just in the time period of interest to us!.. That is, the "launch" of the Gulf Stream may well be direct and a direct consequence of catastrophic events that caused a change in the position of the geographic poles …
One of the particular consequences of these events was a significant climate change in North Africa, which has been fairly well researched and which is quite often recalled when applied to questions of ancient history. It's about the origin of the Sahara.
Before the catastrophic events of the 11th millennium BC, North Africa, as follows from the resulting picture of the change in the position of the poles, was located much further north - that is, much closer to the antediluvian North Pole (in comparison with the position of North Africa relative to the modern North Pole). Accordingly, the climate here was cooler, and there was no huge Sahara desert - its place was occupied by a vast savannah.
For the southern hemisphere, we have just the opposite picture.
The modern cold climate of Antarctica is provided, in particular, by the fact that around the continent in the ocean there is, as it were, a closed ring of cold currents, which prevent the penetration of warm equatorial waters to the south.
The "antediluvian" position of the South Pole (on that edge of the Antarctic continent, which faces Australia) sets a completely different heating regime, providing at the same time a different regime of ocean currents - without a closed ring of cold waters, which now actually isolate Antarctica from the influx external heat and largely predetermine the harsh cold conditions on the mainland.
The absence of this ring from cold currents could well ensure that a significant part of Antarctica was free of ice (as mentioned earlier), and rivers flowed there and life flourished. Let there were no tropics, but something like modern Siberia and Alaska could well be …
This work is important, as it prepares the consciousness for the realization)) that the familiar is not always accurate. Obviously, such an interpretation of the pole shift by Andrey Sklyarov will not cause serious objections among the followers of history, unless "for the sake of order".
