Through 20 years of research, Ivan Stein has created a detailed understanding of the timeline of events leading up to these these historic times. These events include: economic depression, world war III, food & water shortage, martial law, exponential conscious evolution, earth changes, geophysical and magnetic pole shift, passing galactic equator, and entering a new ice age.
Natural Resources: Access to natural resources is essential in order to create any type of sustainable environment. Natural resources include: food, water, building materials, and any other plants or raw materials you may need to create clothing and generate power.
Off-the-grid sustainability implies that you have achieved 100% self-reliance with no more trips to stores, gas stations, or medical facilities. In order to create an environment that’s sustainable for the period after the Possible Earth Events, it’s essential that it’s running efficiently prior to these events. However, if you find yourself in a position where you don’t have access to at least food and water after these events, then no preparations prior to the events will matter.
Sustainability and survival itself depends on access to natural resources. Some storage of resources would be prudent to accommodate for possible gaps in resource access that may occur due to abrupt changes in weather, water tables, and eco-systems; unforeseen damage from earthquakes, and possible atmospheric conditions. The amount of resources that are stored would be based on an understanding of your geographic and environmental risks, the number of people in your community, the method of food production, and even whether your storage methods are above or below ground.
An ideal location would be one where natural resources are accessible all year round and not limited to seasonal fluctuations. This will increase the chances of maintaining sustainability through events that could alter the geography, weather, and eco-system. However, the big question is whether your choice of location will still have access to natural resources after the Possible Earth Events.
Many of these events could instantly change access to natural resources. Shifts in the crust and earthquakes could change water tables, submerge rivers, and drain lakes. Volcanic fallout could smother vegetation and poison water supplies. Intense heat could cause spontaneous fires and destroy vegetation. It’s challenging, at best, to consider all possibilities, but it’s also essential in order to ensure your ability to sur-thrive through these times and these events.
Recommendation: Choose a location that has a long growing season before, but more importantly a high probability after the Possible Earth Events. Maintain adequate storage of resources for emergency and other possible issues with resource access. Choose a location that has multiple water sources and maintain the ability to dig, drill, or excavate to access underground water supplies.
Continent & Equator: Between the Possible Earth Events, and Social Economic impacts, and predicted Future Maps, some consideration should be given to what continent you might choose for your community location. The choice of continent along with the actual degree of geographic pole shift will determine whether you are going to be closer to the poles or closer to the new equator.
There is no reason to mention why you don’t want to be close to the North or South Pole after the shift. If you need a refresher, just consider what happened to the mammoths in Siberia. Although many people may find it too hot to live near Earth’s equator, ultimately it will be the safest area to live after the pole shift for a variety of reasons. These reasons include: a year round growing season, ample trade winds that help clear the air of possible volcanic ash, and increased rainfall after Earth may have been scorched by solar irradiance and global drought. Obviously, you wouldn’t need to be exactly on the new equator to benefit.
Predictions on the movement in the geographic poles range from 16 degrees to 40 degrees. Unfortunately, this wide of a range in movement places continents and the equator in completely different locations. Since there is no way to determine the exact degree of movement during the geographic pole shift, below are two videos that provide different representations of the possible location for the new equator.
The following video clips illustrate the possible location of Earth’s equator after the next polar shift. Thes animated representations are based on the prophesized theory that Earth’s poles will tilt by approximately 16 to 40 degrees.
The below video is based on a 20 degree shift in the poles which provides an example of the lower range from Edgar Cacey and more recently by the Mayan Elder’s, who predict a 16 to 20 degree shift.
This next video is based on a 40 degree shift in the poles which provides an example of the upper range from Gordon Michael Scallion, who predicts a 20 to 45 degree shift.
The choice of location should also consider tectonic plate subduction that is predicted with the shift in Earth’s crust from either a magnetic or geographic pole shift. The consequences of this shifting range can only be projected based on a combination of past geological records and prophecy on the future maps of the world.
Edgar Cacey, Gordon Michael Scallion, and many other prophets and seers have described that portion of continents and, in some cases, entire continents will either emerge from the ocean or be submerged under the ocean. Unfortunately, the affect on specific continents changes dramatically depending on which future maps you look at. Of all the consideration that must be made for choice of location, choosing a specific which future map to follow is probably the most subjective.
The best way to choose a future map is to find one which resonates with your intuition, but in order to do this you should consider more than one source of possible maps before making a decision. You can also consider if other information from a map source resonates with you as well. If the future map resonates with you, but the other information does not resonate, then you may want to continue your research until you have a better intuitive match. Either way, choosing which future map you believe is most accurate can be challenging.
Recommendation: Choose a location that is conservatively near the new equator, but definitely far away from the geographic north and south poles. Choose which continent provides the best options for your specific situation, but also take into consideration the shift in Earth’s crust and possibly the future map that resonates most with your intuition.
Underground Structures: If you consider the Possible Earth Events, you may have decided that some form of underground structure could be useful for storage, growing, or temporary living. For this topic, we will consider the use of natural caves and mining shafts versus man made structures.
Many people have expressed that they aren’t planning for any type of underground structures due to a disbelief in many of the Possible Earth Events, but these same people often refer to the use of caves or mine shafts if or when the time comes. Others have expressed that they plan to take shelter in an existing cave or mine system rather than prepare any below ground structures. In most cases this is due to a lack of finances or the ability to plan and coordinate underground structures prior to these events.
Some people know of caves and mine systems that are currently being occupied as living quarters and make the assumption they must be safe. However, being safe under nominal conditions is quite different from the concept of being safe during the possible earthquakes and Shifts in the Earth’s Crust that could result from a pole shift. From the explanations of what might occur during such events, it would appear that people do not understand how natural structures are not created to withstand such forces.
The majority of natural caves were created by water in the form of underground rivers. Over time, the water washed away the loose sand and gravel and weaker stone, but this does not mean the remaining stone is stronger or permanent. It only means that the force and volume of water was not enough to grind down or move the remaining stone. As a result, a caves structural integrity is relative to the force and volume of water that created the cave. If you apply more force and volume of water to any cave system, more rock would collapse, be ground, and washed away, expanding the cave. The erosion from flowing water, unlike an earthquake, can also be selective as it changes directions and erodes the weaker stone first while it moves across and through the ground.
This is not the case with earthquakes. Earthquakes do not change directions and will affect everything in their path. The impact on any rock formation will depend on distance from the epicenter, the stratum, type of stone, and depth, but all formations, no matter how dense will be affected. Unlike the smooth and flowing action of water which can leave a rock formation untouched and intact, earthquakes can shake that same formation making it collapse. Water in the form of a tsunami can simulate the action of earthquakes as they are created by earthquakes and follow similar wave principles, however, tsunamis are surface phenomenon and don’t create cave system.
It is possible that some cave and mine systems are structurally sound to withstand moderate and large earthquakes, but what about extreme earthquakes. And by extreme, we are talking about the possibility of earthquake strengths which are beyond anything we have seen in our history and possibly beyond comprehension. This is especially important if you consider that caves are natural structures which are not been structurally designed to withstand a specific level of force and mines which have been designed only to withstand nominal earthquake forces.
The advantage of man made structures is that you can choose where you want to put them, how deep, and what material and reinforcement you think is necessary for your particular application. There are several manufacturers of prefabricated units that generally offer a modular design for ease of expansion. Some are designed specifically for storage while others are designed as underground living quarters.
In the case of a man made structure, you would want to consider if the construction matches with your strength considerations, as well as your environmental, sustainable, and ecological considerations. Then you would want to consider the terrain, substratum, and how deep you want to bury the structure. Ultimately there is no one answer that will satisfy everyone’s individual needs or concerns.
The best approach to purchasing, building, and burying any underground structure is to acquire the services of professional who can help you balance all of these concerns and provide a structurally sound recommendation. In order to provide such a recommendation, an engineer would need to be aware of geological terrain of the proposed location, the forces that may be relevant to the Possible Earth Events, and any environmental requirements that may influence construction materials.
Modularity is also something that you may want to consider. As the social economic impacts and possible Earth events increase in frequency, they may affect our ability to acquire resources and materials for construction and storage. A modular plan and design will enable you to make adjustments to your design if your needs change unexpectedly.
Recommendation: Choose a location where it will be relatively easy to dig, bury, or build underground storage structures. Make sure the modules are located in relation to other structures to allow for possible expansion. Choose construction material that conforms to structural safety and environmental concerns. Have any underground plan or structure engineered for safety.
Substratum: The substratum, also known as the subsoil, is the layer of earth beneath the surface soil. In this reference, we will discuss subsoil conditions and how they relate to the choosing an optimal location. For this discussion, we will consider two basic types of subsoil; solid stone such as granite and compressed stone such as sandstone. Each type of stratum has its own set of considerations and consequences as they relate to earthquakes, volcanoes, and torrential rainfall.
A stratum of solid stone is usually found in mountainous regions under the forest bed or above the tree lines. This stratum is often considered safe simply because of its solid and its density makes it feel secure, but that is not always the case. Solid stone can become brittle once the sheer factor for the stone is reached. The sheer factor is the point where the stone loses its ability to maintain its rigid form.
In other words, solid stone would be considered stable or safe under conditions with little ground movement that might result from moderate earthquake activity. However, if the ground movement is sufficient to surpass the sheer factor, then solid stone becomes brittle and can collapse, crack, or crumble in an instant. Therefore, a stratum of solid would be considered a high risk environment under large or extreme earthquake conditions.
A stratum of compressed stone or sandstone is usually found in lower elevation mountain regions, prairies, and along coastlines. This stratum is often considered unsafe due its porous nature, ease of crumbling, and fluidity of movement under extreme conditions. Compressed stone has a lower sheer factor than solid stone which means that it can crack and become brittle more quickly under earthquake conditions.
However, the fluidity of compressed stone also offers some advantages under certain conditions. Because of its porous nature, stratum comprised of compressed stone can move more freely with shock waves. In other words, there is a higher probability that pieces may break loose, but when two pieces vibrate together, the sandstone grinds to sand and creates a form of lubricant so the two pieces can slide across each other. This reduces the rigidity of motion and instead of the brittle crumbling of solid stone; you get cracking and sliding with compressed stone.
Due to the rigidity of solid stone, the waves move upwards until they create sheering or reach a point where weaknesses in the stone allows the energy to be released. In other words, cracking and crumbing of solid stone generally occurs in a vertical direction with most of the energy being released in the top levels. This buildup and movement of the energy until it reaches a surface weakness can cause actual explosions to occur at the point of energy release.
On the other hand, due to the porous and fluid nature of compressed sandstone, more shock wave energy is absorbed in the lower levels with sheering and cracking occurring along the path of the wave. The affect is that more of the shock wave energy is dampened before actually reaching the top or surface layer. The result is a greater degree of cushioning from a shock wave as it moves through sandstone.
In either case, you wouldn’t want to be anywhere near a rock ledge made of either stratum during a large or extreme earthquake event. Landslides of mud create a large enough concern, but a landslide of rock boulders creates an even more extreme scenario.
Recommendation: A location with a compressed stone stratum would be recommended over a solid stone stratum. The compressed stone stratum will absorb some of the shock waves from earthquake activity and could minimize damage to above or below ground structures.
Fire Hazards: The ongoing and accelerating affects of global warming continue to create drought conditions across the planet. Although this phenomenon may not be affecting every country or every continent at this time, conditions are predicted to become even more extreme before they flip and everything starts getting cooler as Earth enters a new ice age.
For reasons outlined in the Possible Earth Events, the Sun appears to be going through a transformation of its own and may be playing a major role in the coming cosmic and geophysical events. It’s predicted that the Sun will likely go through some huge events that affect the global drought, worldwide famine, conscious shift, and possibly the scorching of Earth; all of which are mentioned in prophecy.
Ancient cultures describe a great heat (the conflagration) that evaporated all moisture and set grass, trees, and buildings on fire. The heat was so intense that part of planet Earth was reportedly scorched during the process. Ancient documents describe people jumping into lakes and rivers to get cool, but unfortunately the heat was so intense that these lakes and rivers actually boiled and the people did not survive.
As you may know, many people who are planning some form of community have decided that the mountains offer the best locations for safety and sustainability. Proposed mountain locations have been reported across the planet and include areas of Canada, US, Asia, Europe, South America, and Africa.
The risk of fire is increasing across the planet even today as global warming is reportedly causing rising temperatures, drier conditions, more lightning from stronger storms, and a longer fire season. On August 14, 2008, the National Wildlife Federation climate scientist Amanda Staudt said the number of wildfires has increased fourfold each year since the mid-1980s. This means that every year since the 1980’s, there have been four times more fires globally than the previous year. The risk from fire is rapidly becoming one of the greatest natural threats to mankind.
If you’ve been paying attention to the Project TriStar research and material, you may realize the conditions that support the risk of fire are projected to get much worse before they get better. One such condition is the projected increase in solar irradiance (emissions) over the next few years.
The reality is that anywhere you have mountains; you will generally have dense forests with lots of brush and trees. Fire is always a risk, but that risk is relative to the amount of fuel that is available to support a fire and with most fires that fuel is natural vegetation. As the global risk from fires increase, the risk of fire in areas with heavy vegetation also increases.
There’s a reason why you hardly ever hear of a destructive fire burning through prairie country. The obvious reason is there is very little fuel to support a fire in these regions. When you hear of destructive fires, they are generally in areas with thick brush and forests. If you read up on any recent fires where people have either not been able to leave their home or have been trapped in a forest, you find a rare occasions where those people actually survive to talk about their experience.
The risk of fire must also be considered whether you’re considering either above ground or below ground structures. Depending on the construction, an above ground structure can become fuel for a raging fire. Below ground structures can also be at risk if a fire becomes so hot that the heat penetrates deep into the ground. In either case, the main consideration is to choose a location that has little or no risk from the destructive power of fire. In general, this would mean a location with light to moderate ground vegetation. And this doesn’t mean to just clear a fire break around your location in a forest. If anyone is familiar with forest fires, it’s not simply the fire itself that is of concern. It’s a known fact that a forest fire can generate enough heat to be fatal even without direct contact to burning debris.
Recommendation: Choose a location with light or moderate ground vegetation. If you are choosing a mountain location, it’s recommended to be outside the main forest tree line rather than within the forest itself. Distances from brush and tree lines will be unique in each location and Project TriStar suggests consulting a fire prevention specialist to provide a professional recommendation.