I'll watch it for sure, but here's why they are all inaccurate:
The map made Gordon Michael Scallion shows the closest description to all of this- but makes it appear as if the land masses "Prune up," while other land masses bulge out of the water. He's close- but no cigar. When you say 500 feet of water along the equator, that means, all you have to do is take a regular map of the world, take the equator, and make an S out of it to determine where the 500 feet rise would be- which in all technicality- if closer to the equator would be even less of a rise because the world has a slight egg shape to it, and the water is only compensating for what WASN'T already there. This actually makes the disaster seem more violent, then the actual earth changes.
Land masses will rise and fall, but not to such a prune effect, because we're talking about bending plates now, and collapsing plates. In order to determine which ones do what, we have to determine where the biggest Earthquakes occur, and the least biggest. The bigger the Earthquake, the more likely the plates will collapse in that area- like Chile, or South Mexico for instance which have some record Earthquakes in the past. Those areas would be sensitive enough to collapse. But the whole world couldn't prune up like this, and Gordon Michael Scallion suggested that his map could only be so accurate- only time could determine it.
BUT- now that your bring all of this up, there's actually really legitimate information on how to make a REAL map that would come pretty damn close to what the world might look like after 2032. This is really significant- and could take weeks to months by hand to construct a map so accurately. If I had the type of programs Google is working to make their maps, it would be a lot easier to bend everything in such a way that the new map would appear with in hours.
The New world won't look so bad- but that doesn't mean the 500 foot Tsunami won't trash 2/3s of the worlds population. Just looking at Gordon Michael Scallions map suggests about 2 new equators when there's only suppose to be one. Anything further away from the new equator will either be exactly the same, or the land mass will pop out fo the water.
Here's the commonalities suggested by scientists and Psychics:
America under goes a lot of water- more so- the east side. The West side actually just has a buckling plate. Europe also undergoes a lot of water. Other countries don't endure so much, and it's highly suggested by many psychics and scientists that New Zealand has receding water after all of this.
Putting America and Europe in this scenario, means the up bending side of the new S equator curves like a rainbow from the bottom of texas, and the top of the bend would be close to the United Kingdom. Equally opposite to that, means the majority of water on the other side of the S Equator would topple over from the top of Egypt, curving down over India, and through Malaysia, until that Equator met with Texas again. I could see Lemuria popping out of the ocean next to what used to be california, but the souther Lemuria's northern side of the land mass would be with in the 500 ft of water, which means the man mass would be much smaller. But since that's also a common thing with New Zealand, that means that when the California plate buckles, the south end of that plate also pops up! This is a significant thing because the Pacific plate is one of the biggest and most sensitive plates in the world. I'm saying this scenario fits.
As for all the other land masses, I don't know if it makes sense that they would take on more water unless one side of their plate collapsed, giving way to the other side to rise. THIS type of shit would take a lot of time and calculation on a googlemaps type of program, OR- weeks to months drawing all over a massive world map with blue and red dry erase pens.
I'll watch your video, it will most likely correct me. But I know you've pretty much put all of that up there on some pretty authenticated ground.