SAFE ELEVATION? IS AN ELEVATION OF SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET
HIGH ENOUGH TO BE SAFE?
Lieder's ZetaTalk says several hundred feet is a high enough location to be safe from rising oceans. Over the past 7 years or so, I've researched many sources about Planet X and recently read a review of Erich von Däniken's newest book, Twilight of the Gods, and noted an interesting comment. The reviewer says, "Erich von Däniken speaks of the Bolivian archaeological site of Tiahuanaco and the platforms at Puma Punku, both located some 13,000 feet above sea level.... Despite the altitude, the Bolivian sites show strong evidence of flooding." See Twilight of the Gods. Could the flooding have been caused by rising sea levels or tsunamis caused by a prior passage of Planet X, such as we saw in the movie 2012?
While von Däniken speculates that the huge stones which pave those locations could have been used as a dam, consider the Noahic flood, which is said to have occurred during a previous Planet X passage. Noah's ark is said to have come to rest on top of a mountain as the waters receded. This mountain historically is believed to be Mt. Ararat in Turkey, which has two peaks: Greater Ararat (the tallest peak in Turkey with an elevation of 5,137 meters/16,854 feet) and Lesser Ararat (which has an elevation of 3,896 meterx/12,782 feet). That's over two miles above sea level, folks! Now factor in that some sources are indicating that the upcoming passage of the dark star is going to be worse than previous passages.
But how do we know for sure what a safe elevation will be? Well, one way to find out is to observe what those in the know are doing. For instance, the U.S. Gov't is moving its base of operations to the high peaks of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. It has been said (by John Moore, I believe) that U.S. Navy personnel in the know are relocating to the Ozark Mountains. Those examples should give you ideas of safe elevations.
Okay, so one example I gave of flooding at high altitudes might have been a dam breaking and another example was a tale of a flood of Biblical proportions. But, are there any other historical records that speak of how high the water rose?
At this link, Tsunamis and the Flood, in the Update: The Eltanin Impact, 2.15 million years ago (abbreviated mya), it is stated: "The evidence of the effects of large tsunamis, in terms of relocated rocks, is found widely. The most extreme example being in Hawaii where unconsolidated coral is found at 326 metres above sea level." That's nearly 1,000 feet above sea level! Thus, you need to get away from coastlines. How far? From what I have read, it would be prudent to be at least 200-300 miles from any coastline and well above 1,000 feet in elevation.
More recently, there was a 1,700-foot tsunami that struck Alaska's Lituya Bay in 1958. See http://coyoteprime-runningcauseicantfly.blogspot.com/2012/10/1700-foot-tidal-wave-son-its-time-to.html.
Another consideration is tsunamis. Cumbre Vieja in La Palma (Canary Islands) is undergoing earthquake swarms. A scientific study done in 2001 modeled a tsunami that could hit the East Coast of the U.S., as well as southern Europe and Africa, that could be 30 to 75 feet high.
The world's largest tsunami happened in Lituya Bay, Alaska, and was 1,720 feet high. See here. Be sure to watch the two videos. It appears that tsunamis caused by landslides make some incredibly powerful tsunamis. Given the climate ZT is contemplating... worldwide earthquakes, off the scale, the chances for earthquake- and landslide-spawned tsunamis would increase dramatically. Also consider tidal bore, how the speed and pressure of the incoming wave could make the water "climb mountains."
So, to recommend that several hundred feet in elevation is safe sounds dangerously reckless.