Talk:Charles Hapgood

Age at death
(May 17, 1904 – December 21, 1982) [...] At the age of 72 Hapgood was struck by an automobile in Fitchburg, Massachusetts and died in hospital three days later There's something wrong. --AlexanderFreud (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Maps
Surley the source for the USAF support of his claims is a primary source (his own book).Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to read and . Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

South America/ Queens Maudland
Hapgood clearly distinguishes what S.America is on the Piri Reis map and the point he makes is he believes the southern tip is Queens Maudland which is incorrectly attached because of the omission of ocean, a conclusion supported by the Air Force team. He is by no means "mistaking" S.America as a whole as "some continent that closely resembles Antarctica", like he is some idiot who can't tell the difference, and talks about the features of S.America continent on the map step by step leading to the end which he gives reason why he thinks that part alone is Queen's Maudland. I don't know if you don't understand what Hapgood is saying or are only repeating a generalization of some other critical author, but not only is this exactly what Hapgood is saying, this is also perfectly clear to the Air Force as well. AGAIN-see pages 4-35, 242 of Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings.Thanos5150 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, he apparently was "some idiot who can't tell the difference": that area has since been shown to be South America. I have no problem with noting that Hapgood says this, nor that he reports that the Air Force confirmed it (note we only have his word for that, in WP:primary sources), but I do object to simply stating that it was a separate land mass when it's generally accepted that it wasn't. — kwami (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do I keep having to repeat myself? What you are trying to say is something Hapgood doesn't say. At all. In fact, it is actually the opposite of what he says-only you are saying he thought all of S.America was Antarctica. And the edit clearly says that despite his opinion, it is generally considered to be S. America-so what is your problem? You are engaging in as edit war and arguing over nothing. I fail to see how you actually understand not only what Hapgood has said, but what the argument here is. DougWeller has already directed others to other sources than the primary source which apparently you ignore. Do not revert this edit again until you get consensus that you are right, which it is obvious you are not.Thanos5150 (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever it is, can it be expressed less clumsily than "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings included the Piri Reis Map among its archival maps which Hapgood proposed that a land mass in the most southern area connected to South America was representative of the area know as "Queen Maudland", located in the central northern region of Antarctica, a section of the map generally thought to show only South America"? It's a huge run-on sentence that can be split up and made more readable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My problem is with is that he proposed "that a land mass in the most southern area connected to South America" was Anarctica. There is no such land mass in anybody's estimation but his own. That would be like saying about the Nemesis hypothesis, "X proposed that the companion star of the Sun caused periodic mass extinctions", when no-one but X believes there is a companion star, not just that they disagree about it causing extinctions. It's not just that people disagree that the land mass south of South America is Antarctica, they dispute the proposal that there even is such a land mass on the map. — kwami (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanos, I don't have time to report you for 3RR right now. Please self-revert your contested edits, or I will report you when I get back. — kwami (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit
I made the "Air Force" section a bit clearer. It read as if the entire Air Force agreed with everything Hapgood wrote in 'Sea Kings', which wasn't the case. I also did a general copyedit for readability and added some sourced material encapsulating Hapgood's conclusions and their lack of traction within scientific orthodoxy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about 'validating' as that reads as though Wikipedia is saying that. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How 'bout "supporting Hapgood's findings"? Or maybe "agreeing with Hapgood's speculation"? Much ado is made of the Air Force letter on various conspiracy websites ("astounding knowledge being suppressed", etc.), so I agree we need to avoid sensationalism here. Also, a small thing, but "theory" implies a well-established principle, and is not an appropriate term for Hapgood's various hypothesis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a few hours ago I saw somewhere else someone suggesting 'theory' be replaced with 'hypthesis'. As for the Air Force letter, we can say that the letter supported his hypothesis, or agreed with it, just not 'validated'. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a good amount of reliable data about Hapgood from The Hapgood Collection at Yale. I'll correlate and make any corrections to the article as time permits. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Literature learns about Hapgood?
leading Hapgood to investigate possible ways that massive earth changes could occur and exposing him to the literature of Hugh Auchincloss Brown.

Shouldn't this say that he was "exposed to the literature' rather than as written. As written it leaves the impression the literature benefited from hearing about him rather than the other way around. WithGLEE (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism?
Hapgood was not a scientist, and gave no reason why a dramatic shift in the earth's axis of rotation would occur. The axis does wobble very slightly because of shifts in surface features caused by, e.g. earthquakes, polar ice melting unevenly, etc., but these are minute changes in the axis. The conservation of angular momentum would prevent the radical shifts he talks about. Anyone who's ever owned a gyroscope knows that changing the axis causes violent lurching, and the earth would break up under a major axis shift. There is no mechanism to generate the shift. It sounds like a crank theory, despite Einstein writing an intro. Einstein was friends with a few "out there" people, e.g. Velikofsky, and his name being associated doesn't make it true. So surely Hapgood's work would have had a mixed reaction, which the article fails to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77Mike77 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Hapgood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716074653/http://www.diegocuoghi.it/Piri_Reis/McIntosh/McIntosh_PiriReis.htm to http://www.diegocuoghi.it/Piri_Reis/McIntosh/McIntosh_PiriReis.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Acceptance of continental drift
The article as it reads today states that Hapgood book The Earth's Shifting Crust, published in 1958, "denied the existence of continental drift". In fairness, the theory of continental drift had enjoyed no mainstream support since Wegener proposed it in 1912, nor was it accepted until the mid-60s (according to that article). I'm adding a few words to that effect to the article. The article states that Hapgood's hypotheses 'were never accepted as valid competing scientific hypotheses'. The same thing happened to Wegener, before overwhelming evidence brought him into favor... a day he did not live to see. Today, there is continually mounting evidence that something massively important has been missed during the holocene, and Hapgood should not be overly faulted for his birthdate. Twang (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hapgood is not "faulted for his birthdate" or for anything else. His ideas were and are not accepted by science. That is just a fact, and your "continually mounting evidence" is nothing but the usual "I will be vindicated in the future" rhetorics pseudoscientists and their fans use. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * wow, thats a little harsh. the article should reflect the mans word in the context of its time.  Otherwise its historicism bias. 72.128.128.227 (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia. See WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)