To: Hollow.Earth.List
Date:Thu, 17 Aug 1995 22:42:55 +0200
Subject:How it all began....
Jan,
Please share with the group how you became interested in the
Hollow Earth.
Thanks for doing the group .... I expect to see more contact
with our Brothers and Sisters from the Inner Surface in the
real near future.
If you have some files with good information on the Hollow
Earth, please let us know, we can find a spot for it somewhere
on our web site
Joshua Shapiro
V J Enterprises
HOLLOW EARTH WEB SITE:
Joshua,
You're welcome to take anything which you think is useful and put it
on the WWW. We've only just started. Is your WWW page about your book
or the Hollow Earth in general or what?
Re: How did I get interested?
My original interest in the Hollow Earth was sparked back in the late
1970's while I was studying the books and prophecies of T Lobsang
Rampa. The main reference is contained in a single chapter in the
book "Twighlight". In it he answers a reader's question and states
that as far as Tibetans are concerned, the Earth is Hollow and there
are people living inside. The outer crust is 800 - 1000 miles thick
and there is a hole at each pole of approximately 1,400 miles in
diameter. Inside live the REMNANTS of Atlantis, Lemuria and a couple
of other civilisations. They are ruled by a man whom the Tibetans
call: The King of the World. According to the Tibetans, the Dalai
Lama is the Outer World representative. The Inside contains more land
than sea, and the population is approximately 800 million. Their
flying saucers come out of the Poles from time to time.
I kinda freaked at the time because it seemed so unbelievable. Later,
in a library I saw that famous composite photo of the hole as seen
from above. I could find no further books on the subject and let the
entire thing rest. Mentally I simply said "There's perhaps a 10%
possibility that the earth is hollow - I'll evaluate it at some later
date". And for well over 10 years I was happy to let it rest. I
didn't REALLY believe that a hole 1,400 miles in diameter could
remain hidden for so long or go unnoticed in some way and was thus
somewhat skeptical about the whole idea of such a huge entrance.
Satellite photos gave nothing away.
My interest was rekindled late in 1993 when I was on Compuserve. I
was chatting to a fellow whom I regarded as one of my very best
friends, and in who's research I had a great deal of faith. His name
is Jeff. He actually kicked the whole subject off and we began
talking. True to form, Jeff had read lots of really OLD stuff about
the Hollow Earth, and brought forth item after item about it. I was
very impressed and that set off an obsession which has still not
ended.
What was very sad for me was that in spite of Jeff's great knowledge,
he himself actually ended up rejecting the possibility of the earth
being hollow. But his objections didn't make much sense to me. He
also suggested that I do my own thinking on the matter, but from a
mathematical perspective. He said he'd like to see whether I could
mathematically prove/disprove the theory. I accepted the challenge.
Astronomy had always been a favourite subject of mine so I began
thinking about the things I knew about astronomy. I did some reading.
Then I began to realise that there are some anomalies which would
make sense. For example, back in the 1970's two Soviet scientists
from the Soviet academy of sciences proposed the theory that the moon
was a Hollow Alien Spaceship placed in orbit around the earth.
I must digress at this point: Although Jeff rejected the idea of the
Earth being hollow, he actually accepts the Soviet proposal that the
Moon may be Hollow - even he admits that the edvidence for there
being a Hollow Moon is very strong. I had been aware of that book
myself back in the 70's and my own acceptance of the Soviet theory
had somewhat softened my idea to the fact that perhaps the Earth too
was hollow.
There has often been speculation, even amongst Astronomers and
scientists, that Phobos, one of the Moons of Mars may be Hollow. Its
strange orbit is cited as one of the reasons - plus many strange
markings on it and a "huge" crater which covers about 1/4 of its
surface area. I'd like to point out that Sitchin (12th Planet) is
quite comfortable with the idea that Phobos is a hollowed out little
moon (about 20 miles in diameter).
As I looked at the numbers I began to realise that our estimates of
mass are really relative. If all the planets were hollow we wouldn't
really know. It also occurred to me that if Planet X, from which the
asteroid belt had maybe been created, had been Hollow, then its
break-up could be all the more easily explained. For example, if a
planet like the Earth only has a crust and is Hollow Inside, then a
big whack from a large object would cause it to shatter - and pieces
would fly all over the place. If such a planet had been solid then
shattering would not likely occur. Sure a big chunk could be carved
out of it, but it wouldn't SHATTER. I had noticed too, evidence
piling up, proving beyond any doubt, that comets were merely
asteroids with ice/gas and that they were really one and the same
thing. Much of the "missing mass" of Planet X could also be accounted
for if it was hollow. Another Soviet Cometary specialist has stated
that all existing comets, are really no more than 100,000 years old.
Comets and asteroids are becoming less. Of course there may be a few
which have great orbital periods of 10 or 100 thousand years, but the
vast majority have been swallowed up by the Sun, Jupiter, etc.
Another thing worth noting is that there are some flying saucers
which travel directly from the South Pole along S.America northwards.
Some of them move as regularly as clockwork. I also heard somewhere
that Canada had a very great number of sightings per capita.
It had always bothered me too: If Atlantis had ever existed, then
where did the people go? Why would such a simple catastrophe have
wiped EVERYONE out? Surely there must be survivors? Why didn't they
just go and live somewhere else?
I also decided that seismology is a *MUST* to go and have a look at.
And that's what I did. I read up about seismology to see if there was
anything which might have been misinterpretted and which might
disclose that the earth was hollow. I then discovered why it is they
say the Earth's core is a LIQUID. The reason is because certain waves
can ONLY travel through SOLID material. These waves can not travel
through: liquids, gases or a vaccum. However, scientists simply
"assume" that the core is a liquid - they do not explore the
possibility that the core is a gas or even a vaccuum. I also
discovered that approximately 7,000 miles from an earthquake you will
find a "shadow" area where certain types of waves never appear. Could
the core/hollow be blocking out these waves? Then at about 10,000
miles or so these waves reappear. I also realised the complexity of
such waves and how they are reflected and saw that it is quite easy
to misinterpret them. Later I acquired a very good seismic modelling
program which runs under windows (and which I'll upload if anyone
wants). It is a most excellent program which shows how the waves move
through the earth PLUS, what the various monitoring stations will
actually see on their print outs. As you look at this you will see
that our methods of watching seismic waves leaves much to be desired.
When waves come up we have no idea where they were - we really can't
tell much. But look too and you will see a great many waves bouncing
off the "mantle" - we are told this is due to a change in density.
Keep in mind that a Hollow object makes the wave movements many many
times more complex because waves bounce back and forth between the
two thin crusts and this will complicate the hell out of the whole
thing. And when you look at the seismic model you will see that waves
are reflected, re-reflected, re-re-reflected and so on. The earth
sometimes "vibrates" for an hour or two after a big quake.
Probably the BIGGEST argument against the hollow earth is a
PSYCHOLOGICAL one. Most people, including myself, just can not
believe that it could possibly have been missed - or was it?
After Jeff kicked the whole thing off, another friend, Chris, managed
to help me locate a number of old books, written in 1908 and 1913 and
1920. Later I was to learn that the Hollow Earth debate has been
going on for about 200 years - but previously, prior to 1908, it was
a debate in which scientists took part. What killed the debate was
when Admiral Robert Peary claimed in 1908 to have discovered the
North Pole. That was really the death knell of the whole idea. In
1914, the Austrians were going to send an expedition to the North
Pole. As part of its mission they were to check for the Hollow
Earth's entrance. They did this on the strength of a book by an
American called: Marshall Gardner. Gardner wrote one of the best
books on the subject ever. It is a 400 page book, of which I have a
copy, which contains notes from the journals of many famous
explorers, including Amundsen, Peary, Lt Greely and many others.
Gardner has a patent registered in the USA as the "discoverer of the
Hollow Earth". Gardner pointed out the inconsistencies in Adm Peary's
own log. The fact that only he and an Eskimo are the only witnesses
that this was the North Pole. The fact that on one occassion he wrote
that you struggled like hell to even do 16-20 miles per day through
the snow, yet on the last 2 days of his journey he did a staggering
40+ miles per day.- and so on. How he left the others of his team
behind and they weren't witnesses. Peary had also made previous
claims of discovery on earlier missions and these had been DISPROVEN.
Months before Peary, another American had claimed to have reached the
Pole. His claim was refuted shortly afterwards. Peary's claim was
investigated by the US congress (in 1920 I think) and TOTALLY
REFUTED. Apparently these are public records which can be obtained.
The US Congress held a hearing and refuted Peary's claims. Yet, to
this day Peary is regarded as the discoverer of the North Pole.
Gardner's studies were detailed - but he wasn't the only one. I later
discovered that the Smithsonian Institue was originally formed in
1842 to fund an expedition by Lt Wilkes to find the entrance to the
Hollow Earth. Lt Wilkes failed.
What you must understand is this: The poles are not just flattened,
they curve inwards. Now keep in mind that all navigational methods
are based on the assumption that the earth is a sphere. Nowhere on
the face of the earth, except the poles, does the earth depart from
this shape. Thus navigation works everywhere except there. As you go
over the lip of the entrance and begin the inward descent you think
you're on the other side of the earth - you are totally unaware that
you are entering a huge hole - a hole so big that the Space shuttle
on its highest orbital level of 750 miles could comfortably fly
inside. Although you can not see the other side, there is a new
phenomenon known to all Polar explorers: The Water sky. If you look
at the sky, it acts like a mirror and you see BEYOND the horison.
This phenomenon is mentioned by all Polar explorers. Lt Greely even
noticed the shortening of the horison. He found he could never see
very far. Many many abnormalities were noted by explorers:
- Warm winds from the north<
- coloured snow containing huge amounts of pollens from unknown
plants
- animals moving NORTH for winter - polar bears moving north away
from their prey
- enormous flocks of birds numbering in the millions (coming from the
north)
- temperatures far warmer than expected.
I later discovered that a Polish scientist had calculated the
temperature of the earth taking into account latitude as the
determining factor. From 40 degrees north and south the real
temperatures begin to differ from the predicted temperatures. By the
time we get to the poles we find the poles to be a staggering 30
degrees warmer than they should be.
Also, during that initial exercise of mine, I studied geomagnetism. I
had never felt comfortable with the "dynamo-in-the-core" theory. The
idea that currents in the core could create a magnetic field. I have
many reasons for rejecting this idea. For example, in order for there
to be convection currents in the first place, there have to be
temperature differentials of a big enough degree. IOW, some magma in
the core must be a lot hotter than the other. This must also imply
some sort of cooling process or some process which keeps one part
warmer than the other. Without an adequate temperature differential
currents won't arise in the first place. We can rule out cooling,
because some scientists have found that the earth is not cooling. But
even if we do have these currents, I still don't see how magnetism is
generated. Heat is not a friend of magnetism. As a substance is
heated, so it loses its magnetism - of course that's not quite an
appropriate argument here. More appropriate is: Can a
liquid/semi-liquid generate a magnetic field? As far as I know this
has never been done. The core is also, supposedly under great
pressure and we are dealing with molten iron - so I don't think it
has much in the way of fluidity or speed. Surely, a snails-pace
movement is not adquate to generate a magnetic field which stretches
beyond the Moon? Also, why should there be a single focal point for
this magnetic field anyway? The core is rotating along with the rest
of the earth - there can't possibly be any friction (in the same way
that the atmosphere rotates with the rest of the earth. If the
atmosphere did not move along with the earth we'd have 1,000 mph
winds blowing at the equator - instead, even a 100 mph wind is a
great rarity). I wondered instead, if a nuclear sun positioned in the
core could be the source of the geomagnetic field. There seemed to be
evidence which could support this. All lava is slightly radioactive.
Scientists speculate that the earth's heat is derived from radium
which decays. But hold on: Radium is the lesser brother of Uranium.
Decaying uranium becomes radium. So if there's radium then it might
we have been uranium to start with. In West Africa there can be found
a "natural nuclear reactor". A place where sufficient uranium
occurred naturally to kick off a nuclear explosion. So I surmised:
Wouldn't it be more logical, during the formation of the earth for
heavy substances like Gold, Uranium, Lead to have been in the core
instead of iron? But, you don't need much Uranium to kick off a
nuclear reaction. Also sometimes these things are self-enriching if
enough of it is around. This would explain why in prehistoric times,
huge volcanoes spewed out lava which filled entire continents. It
would explain why there is evidence of the earth expanding by 20%
(continents don't fit perfectly as continental drift theory would
have us believe, but if the earth is shrunk 20% then there is a
PERFECT fit between South America and Africa). I discovered too that
the Aurora baffles science. That particles similar to those from the
Sun are somehow appearing in the upper atmosphere of the Poles - but
there are far too many of these particles to be accounted for by the
Sun alone. So where do they come from? They come from the Inner Sun -
which is also the source of the Aurora and the light. This also
explains why the Aurora is linked to the geomagnetic field. The
geomagnetic field is not stable. In fact, it wobbles A LOT, and at a
high rate. It moves large distances within short periods of time.
This can be explained by having a central Sun wobbling around a
central point. In short, I pose this question: If scientists are
willing to accept that decaying radium causes most of the earth's
heat - then does it take much leap of the imagination to suppose that
just a little bit more radium/uranium in one point deep within the
crust could have kicked off a self-sustaining nuclear reaction? Even
a Sun of as little as 28 miles in diameter would weigh many millions
of tons. It would hollow out the earth easily and all the lava would
pour out on to the surface. Later things would cool down inside.
Gravity is an issue all by itself, but rest assured that Newtonian
gravity works like a DREAM even in the Hollow Earth scenario. I have
tested that idea to its fullest.
Eventually, I decided that the evidence, to my way of thinking, was
in favour of the Earth POSSIBLY being hollow. I could see no great
objections to the idea. It would explain many things which scientists
currently regard as anomalies and which they are HARD PUT TO EXPLAIN.
Since then I have discovered so much more.
Sadly, very very sadly, my friend Jeff just fobbed off the best
arguments I put forth. He countered with his own arguments - which to
me did not make much sense. In a nutshell, the main thrust of his
argument was this: If there's this huge hole, then why don't people
end up wandering into it and seeing the Inner world? How can two
teams, crossing the Antarctic, manage to meet at one point?
Answer to the first question:
The hole is very very big. From the Outer lip to the Inside of the
sphere you are looking at a circle (through the crust) with a
diameter of 800 - 1000 miles. To get even half way, you have to
travel about 1200 - 1300 miles in a straight line. If you wander even
slightly to one side or the other the journey will become much
longer. Also, compasses tend to go haywire so you're really in a
quandry. If you go in at a skew angle you could walk into the hole,
by several hundred mile and out again, perhaps crossing a distance of
a 1000 or more miles and never once even know that you were in the
hole. This is a feature of enormous size and larger than most
countries. If you do not consciously go looking for this hole and
taking careful bearing using the stars (until they disappear), etc
you can easily miss the mark.
Question 2: The standard procedure when your compass goes haywire is
to move away from the pole in question (north or south). When your
compass behaves normally you then carry on with your journey. The
"north/south pole" is merely 90 degrees latitude - and since we
assume the earth is a sphere we assume therefore that only one spot
in each hemisphere can give us a reading of 90 degrees latitude (by
the Sun or any other heavenly body). The manner in which 2 teams
coming from opposite sides can meet is simply because they will be
moving away from the rim whenever the compass goes crazy. It is not
to say that these expeditions met on a spot marked "X". As they
zig-zag around this rim they will (unknowingly) be moving in a circle
and it is easy to see how they will run into each other. NB: The
expeditions in question did not approach each other directly from 180
degrees, so it is easy to see that they must meet. If they approached
directly from 180 degrees, then the possibility exists that the one
team may go one way round the rim while the other goes another way
round the rim.
Jeff also posed the question: If the US base at McMurdo sound is a
mere 400 miles from the Pole then how come they didn't notice
anything? To me this was a stupid question.
Answer: The US base at the Pole is not "at the Pole". It is on the
rim of the "Area of Inaccessibility". This means that the South Pole
base is on the rim of a hole 1,400 miles in diameter and you are at
least 1,200 miles from the 1/2 way mark going inside. So you can
wander 1,000 miles on either side of the South Pole Station and see
nothing. McMurdo Sound is 400 miles further away still. There's no
way, that at a distance of 1,200+400 miles that anyone at McMurdo
sound will see/notice a thing.
You get lost at the Poles - be sure of that. Amundsen, discoverer of
the South Pole, got thoroughly lost near the north pole. Amundsen's
diaries showed that he got TOTALLY LOST FOR 6 MONTHS! He tried to go
from Franz Joseph land to Spitsbergen and got totally lost. When he
finally got back to territory he recognised, he was hundreds
of miles from where HE'D CALCULATED HIS POSITION TO BE.
During the BBC documentary "Pole-to-Pole" a number of people
including the BBC crew were on a small plane going across Antarctica.
As they looked out, they made some very telling remarks. One guy said
"Gee isn't it amazing how those old explorers could find their way
across this continent? Just look how flat and featureless it is, no
land marks to go by except the occassional hill. Amazing." He doesn't
know how right he may have been.
And even today its no different. That BBC reporter got his distance
from Tromso, Norway to the North Pole wrong, as did the UPI release
for the distance from Port Barrow to the north pole.
Cartographers also got it wrong. US Navy cartographers were pissed
off with US Army cartographers, because their maps didn't match.
Entire mountain ranges had to be thrown into the dustbin. Explorer
after explorer discovered islands, mountains, seas, which others
couldn't ever find again.
I am convinced though that the US Govt, the Russians and maybe a few
others know what's going on there.
The Hollow Earth thing was sad for me in a way, because Jeff and I
fought about it a great deal, and as far as I was concerned he just
wouldn't listen to reason, to independantly acquired facts or
anything else. He shot it down on the basis of a few arguments which
underestimated the navigational problems. He said, yeah, but the
earth is flattened at the Poles. Well, that just doesn't match the
facts. Go and look in any book. The earth's polar diameter is only
given as a mere 26 miles less than the equatorial diameter. 26 miles
in a distance of 7926.5 is nothing. If I were to draw a scale drawing
of the earth you wouldn't even notice that it wasn't a circle.
Anyway, scientists of old debated the existence of a POLAR BASIN -
that the entire Polar region was DEPRESSED. Some thought it was
depressed and others thought it lead to a hole inside. But that does
not explain it all. Amundsen, while in his ship, The Fram, found
himself viewing a red SUN - the "mock sun" at a time when the Sun
wasn't supposed to be above the horizon. Many explorers have had a
glimpse of the Inner sun - the "mock sun" - because it appeared in
places where the Sun could not possibly be.
In the end, this whole interest of mine probably broke up my
friendship with this guy - which to me was quite a blow.
I had another interesting episode which also harmed another close
friendship. Another guy I know, who once worked for the NSA, and who
loved photography responded when I told him about the Hollow Earth.
He said he had a photo which he'd obtained at Goddard Space flight
centre in the 1970's. This photo was of the earth. He'd borrowed some
negatives and made copies one weekend. When I remarked that I was
wondering if the earth was Hollow, he of course turned to his big
colour photo. And there on it he saw the hole - a side view- with
clouds flowing into it. He scanned part of it in black and white and
e-mailed it to me. He'd always been friendly, but warned me not to
talk too much because the NSA monitors all computer communications.
He'd always said that making a copy and mailing it to me would be no
problem. As soon as he had a chance (he was the CEO of a company) he
would mail me a copy. But suddenly he began acting weird when I
pressed him on the issue. Later he more or less disappeared and only
resurfaced at odd times. He behaved in a weird manner which others
noticed too. Some of us wondered whether he'd been "silenced".
Later, Dennis Crenshaw also told me that a similar thing had happened
to a buddy of his who was making progress with Hollow Earth research.
Dr Laslo Spengler, another researcher I recently met has warned me
too of the subversion of UFO organisations and of the BENEFITS of
going it alone - doing your research without others peeking over your
shoulders. As I will later show, the same happened to Al Bender back
in the 1950's - and you will see how Al was silenced.
I have long held the opinion, and many will hate me for saying this,
but UFOlogy IS GOING NOWHERE. People are rushing down the wrong path,
watching Area 51, chasing reptilians, looking at crop circles and
trying to catch cattle mutes. No big coverup is needed because people
are already looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing. Back in
the early days, the researchers were on even ground with the US Govt,
but once the Govt's silencing campaign, in the form of MIBs had
succeeded, the need for silencing became less and less and today they
only silence the VERY FEW who DARE go against the grain and who dare
postulate that the Earth is hollow and that an advanced civilisation
may be on our doorstep. These few are the only people who actually
stand a chance of upsetting the cart. I have no doubt that as one
gets closer to the truth, the US Govt will begin to play rough.
Finally, I have only spoken about The Hollow Earth so far. To me,
there are other issues:
1. Subteranean civilisations.
2. Hollow Planets/Moons.
(2) If the Earth is hollow naturally, then we no longer have to buy
into the theory that the Moon is hollow artificially - it could
easily be a hollow construct naturally. It opens up a whole new
field: Where are all the Aliens who claimed to come from Venus, Mars,
etc? Was Adamski a liar? Were all the others liars? Maybe NOT! Maybe
they were telling the truth, but because we believe the planets to be
devoid of life we think that the Aliens are lying. Perhaps it is that
the Aliens are telling the truth and it is we who are being lied to
by our side. Let me prioritise some Planets/Moons in order of evidence that
they may be hollow:
1. Moon.
2. Earth.
3. Phobos.
4. Mars.
5. Mercury.
6. Callisto(?) (Moon of Saturn)
7. Venus.
8. Neptune/Uranus.
If other planets are inhabited, in this Solar System, then many
things in UFOlogy (which didn't make sense before) now begin making A
LOT OF SENSE. For example, you can easily see why Hollow Earthers
would get mighty upset at the thought of 3 superpowers near the poles
having a vast number of nuclear weapons. At the ease with which
nuclear attack submarines like "Scorpion" and "Thresher" can easily
sail into their world underneath through the pack ice and sneak
around underwater being able to instantly launch nuclear missiles
which can blow up their cities.
You can see why Aliens might take a dislike to Russian and American
probes near the planet Mars. You can begin to understand WHY THE US
GOVT MUST ENGAGE IN THIS ENORMOUS COVER-UP.
It opens up a line of thinking and questioning which people have been
ignoring for DECADES.
Re: Subteranean civilisations....
I see Subteranean civilisations as a whole different kettle of fish,
and as a much more difficult subject. It is a subject which does not
sit comfortably with me. I have read of Richard Shavers, Teros(?) and
Deros and I do not take it seriously at all. Legends of Leprechauns,
etc may be based on truth, but no real accounts exist of these
things (that I know of).
If you'd asked me about subteranean civilisations 3 months ago I'd
have basically told you to go to hell. As far as I was concerned
there was no evidence whatsoever of even the faintest kind, that such
a group of people could exist. The problems are even worse for them.
No sun, no water - what do you eat, drink, etc? I just couldn't see
it as a viable option. The Hollow Earth is a different concept.
There's sunlight, equatorial temperatures globally, safe from comets,
etc. Great stuff. Its the ideal place to live. Subteranean
civilisation - bah humbug.
However, I acquired a very old book: The Coming
Race, written in 1871, by the Rt Hon Lord Lytton. Lytton's story is
so amazing that I can't believe that UFOlogists haven't dug into it
in detail. Here is a man describing something akin to nuclear power;
and giving commentaries on a wipe out of the surface civilisations -
and all this happened back in 1871. There is just so much in that
book. But, worse still, while combing through anomalies I *DO* find
evidence that indeed Lord Lytton may well be telling the truth.
And so I am prepared to consider that some races do have
little underground villages in which they live and come out from -
from time to time. The people Lord Lytton met are known to us today
as "The Mothmen". He predicted that they would come out and begin
looking around - and they did. The earliest Mothmen sightings I could
find were in 1877 - and they have been seen even in the 1960's.
Lytton's book is another which I'd like to discuss and go
through with all of you. I regard Richard Shaver type stuff as
rubbish. Lord Lytton's book is something else altogether!
Page Index
Jan's Definition of the Hollow Earth
From: "Jan Lamprecht"
To: Subteranean.List
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 23:24:44 +0200
Subject: 1# What do I mean by "Hollow Earth?"
Reply-to: pbs@iafrica.com
Hey Jan.
BTW, could you very briefly tell just what you mean by "hollow Earth"? I'm
not too familiar with the concept and having hard time getting the over all
picture. Personally, I think it's very possible that there is a subteranean
civilization (probably Atlantis-related)... but, are you basically saying that
all planets are literally hollow?
GORO
Hi Goro,
Yes, I'm basically thinking along the lines of ALL/MOST planets/moons
actually being hollow - like a tennis ball. You could say that I'm
"testing" this hypothesis by looking around at literature, anomalies,
doing some thinking, etc.
I'm still examining the evidence, thinking about the various aspects
and just pondering the whole issue. I like to take my time and think
things through. Sometimes I dawdle on like this for years. Don't be
fooled into thinking that I haven't had a look at seismology or
geology or gravity or other issues. I have.
The basic postulate is simply that the entire Earth is hollowed out. That
most of what we see resembles a tennis ball. There's a hard/flexible outer
shell which can take meteor impacts - up to a certain size. But at the
Poles there are 2 gigantic holes somewhere from 800 - 1200 miles in
diameter (at their widest point). These huge holes can be entered and
you can sail or fly or walk all the way into the interior. Gravity
still works as normal, but it holds you "up" the other way. The holes
are so big, that you don't even know they're there (except from
space).
Thus a ship would sail as normal.
Winds would blow and so on. The atmosphere
flows in as well. The atmosphere isn't very thick. 99% of the
atmosphere is contained in the first 30 miles. So if you will
consider a hole perhaps 1200 miles wide, curving gently inside,
through a crust of 900 miles in thickness, then at the NARROWEST part
you will have a gap of about 300 miles or so. It is quite possible
therefore that in the middle of this hole is a pure vacuum. That
"space" as we know it, exists in the middle of this hole and that as
this hole once again widens on to the inside, that we find ourselves
in a vaccuum in the centre of the earth. Inside the earth, like on
the outside, will be oceans, mountains, rivers, continents and
atmosphere. But that atmosphere, like on the outside will be 30 miles
high. Now if the Earth's crust is say 900 miles thick, then we find
that beyond the inner atmosphere is a vaccuum of:
7900 - 900 - 900 - 30 - 30 = 6040 miles in diameter. That would be big enough
to fit the Moon into it. The Moon being only 2160 miles in diameter.
But no, there's no moon inside. Although a fellow by the name of
Symmes, postulated that inside the Earth was another Earth and
another (5 or 8 levels within each other). But Symmes was somewhat
different. What I'm talking about is much simpler - the same thing
that Olaf Jansen says he saw and the same thing the Tibetans talk of.
That inside we have a world which is exactly the same as on the
outside. In this Inner vaccuum, is a little Sun. A small nuclear
powered sun - possibly powered by nuclear fission rather than fusion
as stars are. A tiny sun about 30 - 300 miles in diameter (a guess)
would weight many millions of tons and would give forth light. This
little Sun would wobble around in the centre of this vaccuum. Being
nuclear in nature it would generate a magnetic field - as does our
Sun. This magnetic field would flow out of the Earth through its
holes. As this little Sun wobbled around, so would the magnetic
field. This magnetic current would flow out of say the South pole
across the surface of the earth and in through the North pole. A
compass on a ship on the outside would point towards the North. As
you get closer to the hole, the compass would begin pointing DOWN. If
you don't physically adjust your compass down then it might begin
spinning around. As you go deeper into the hole and reach the inner
surface you would find your compass returning to normal again. It
would still point "north" but that would now be south.
The Earth's motion through space is not perfectly constant. In fact
the Earth speeds up and slows down in its motion. Thus our little
inner sun would wobble around (like a passenger in a bus).
But how would the Inner sun stay in the centre and not crash to the
side? Well, this is where I can point to a most "bizarre" connection
with that book "My contact with Flying Saucers". (Its not about the
Hollow Earth, but its about physics - Alien style). The Alien
Captain tells us about the repulsion of light. What is interesting is
that the theory of gravity alone would be unable to account for a
central sun holding its position. The central sun would move -
inevitably - because of the earth changing its speed and direction.
Gravity as we know it would cause the central Sun to crash into the
side of the Earth. The moment the central Sun moved even a little to
one side, gravity from the closest side would draw it to the wall and
the central Sun would crash into the side. But, the Alien Captain
explained a great deal about the pressure of light. Since this
central Sun emits light, the light would of course push against the
Earth. So let's say the Earth slows down a little. The central Sun
should come crashing into the side. Well, in this case as it comes
closer to one side, the pressure of light - due to its nearness,
would push harder on the earth and impart a bit more momentum to it.
This is negligible really. More importantly, the light of the Sun
would be reflected back onto the Sun itself thereby pushing it back.
The central Sun would thus wobble back and forth and move around in
sympathy to changes in the speed and direction of the motion of the
Earth.
Light from the Inner earth would shine out through the holes. But
since the holes are really very tiny, it would not happen often. Note
the Maedler phenomenon I mentioned with regard to Venus? That only on
2 occassions so far: 1686 and 1833, have astronomers observered light
shining out of both Venus's poles. At other times, the light shining
out would be indirect light and it would form the Aurora.
The Aurora chops and changes and to a certain extent moves and
behaves in sympathy with the Earth's magnetic field and the emissions
from the central Sun. Science knows very well that there's a link
between the Aurora and the Magnetic field. The problem is, that they
reckon it is due to emissions from the Sun. The Alien Captain tells
us some other things about "Alien Physics" - like, the fact that
Stars only shine when in a magnetic field. In this case therefore we
can arrive at another explanation for the apparent link between the
Aurora, magnetic field and the central sun. It goes thus:
When the Sun begins acting up and generating more emissions (at all
wave lengths), it may also be generating a stronger magnetic field.
This in turn causes the central Sun to shine more brightly and to
emit more light.
While digging through texts on the Aurora, I came across mention of
calculations done by scientists. The problem they found was that the
Sun could NOT be the cause of the Aurora. The problem being that we
do not receive enough particles from the Sun in the upper atmosphere
of the Earth to cause the Aurora. Their calculations show that there
are more "sun-like" particles up there in the atmosphere at the Poles
than there should be by the action of the Sun alone. So they are
stumped. But, if you look at Hollow Earth theory, you'll have no
problem accounting for this. There will be enough reflected light and
emissions coming out from the hole (depending on the position of the
central Sun). These particles are ALSO sun-like and they, plus the
particles from the Sun cause the aurora.
One could ask oneself many questions about conventional Aurora
theory. Like: Why are auroras only around the poles? Surely there
should be MORE particles arriving from the sun at other places on the
Earth than at the poles - which are so oblique. Why aren't there more
auroras all over the place? Why only the poles? (Proximity to the
magnetic poles is the current explanation).
The Earth's magnetic field - IMHO - could be caused entirely by the
central Sun. I have come to wonder whether perhaps magnetic fields
are ONLY caused by "Suns" - and NEVER by normal matter as we know it
- except when specially magnetised. If so, then any planetary body
with a magnetic field must therefore have a central Sun. Now this is
an interesting conjecture because time and again we find magnetic
fields on "cold bodies" where our scientists have calculated that
that body can not have a heated central core.
That central Sun also produces heat. And if we have winds blowing in
and out from the Inner earth to the Outer earth, then we should have
some sort of heat exchange. The same is true of water. Note those
Antarctic pollyanas I spoke about.
In the early days of Arctic exploration scientists calculated the
expected temperatures for the latitudes as explorers moved north.
Invariably they found that northern latitudes were far warmer than
they should be if heat from the Sun alone was the source. I have come
across calculations done a few decades ago by a Polish scientist in
this regard. His calculations of the Earth's temperature show that
the temperatures at the poles are 30 degrees warmer than they should
be. So our scientists then say that it is warm equatorial air warming
the poles. But does that really make sense? Is there really enough
equatorial air going far enough to the poles and retaining its heat
long enough to keep them 30 degrees warmer?
I often wonder if air exchange may cause havoc with all those
super-computers which are calculating next week's weather!
Where on the earth would you expect to find the most fish? Believe it
or not, the Polar regions have a greater density of fish life than
the equator and warmer areas. Fish have a type of anti-freeze in
their blood. But that does not explain why they should thrive more in
such regions. Or is it that fish from the Inner earth - where the
people do not fish as much as we do - spill over and swim out of the
holes?
The same is true of bird life. There are accounts too of bears and
other creatures in the Arctic going NORTH for winter.
There really are a lot of issues to look at. But there are enough
strange things which makes one wonder. The pattern which I have
stumbled across - and only really appreciated fully recently - is
that most types of Fortean phenomenon are related to the Hollow
Earth/planets or Subteranean issues in one way or another. It seems
to me that Forteana - if nothing else - is pointing the way. I never
expected this.
One thing which I found interesting was that scientists have
attempted to find the "centre" of the Earth's magnetic field. They
found it was 82 miles off centre. But that's not the whole story. The
Earth's magnetic field does not just gradually move westwards as we
are told. From what I've read, the Earth's magnetic field actually
moves in a jagged orbit of approximately 30 miles PER DAY. IOW, as
the Earth rotates daily, and the Inner sun wobbles, this wobble is
traced out as a jagged ellipse DAILY. This - if nothing else -
should clearly show that this could not possibly be caused by
currents. It shows that at any one moment, the position of the centre
of the magnetic field is at a certain spot INDEPENDANT of the Earth's
physical position. I have many problems with ALL convection current
theories in the earth. I do not believe any of them. I have a
particular argument dealing with convection currents in the core,
plus the fact that gravity will grow less and less as you get closer
to the centre of the earth (assuming its solid).
I have tried to get more data regarding the motion of the Earth's
magnetic field. But, because I'm not in the USA I do not have access
to the USGS magnetic data BBS. However I think it is worth studying.
If one could study the correlation between the movement of the earth in
space, its rotation and that magnetic centre - you might just be able
to prove that the Earth's magnetic field is being generated by a
specific body.
Did you know that when atom bombs are exploded - that there is an
aurora in that area for several days afterwards? That proves two things:
(a) An aurora can be produced in latitudes other than the poles.
(b) Nuclear FISSION can produce the particles which create an aurora.
This brings us to the formation of the Earth. Geologists have
discovered that the Earth is not really cooling down, but that it
generates its own heat. This is attributed to the decay of radium.
But all radium is merely decayed URANIUM. Is it not possible
therefore that when the Earth originally formed, that the heavier
elements (as expected) would descend to the centre. Since the very
heavy elements are unstable - all we would need is somewhere down
there to be enough uranium to reach critical mass, and then we have a
self-igniting naturally occuring nuclear reaction (like happened in
Gabon in West Africa). Immediately it would melt the surrounding
rock, produce enormous temperatures and soon immense quakes would
shake the earth and enormous volcanoes would spew forth lava. Huge
amounts which would form the first continents. As it melts everything
around it, eventually, this wobbling nuclear reaction would hollow
out the earth. Perhaps more than one such reaction begins and
eventually all the nuclear reactions would end up in the middle of
this space and amalgamate and form the central Sun. This would leave
the entire Earth's crust honeycombed with large caverns and tunnels -
in which subteranean life could exist at a future time. Later when
things cool down, and a vaccum forms inside, water and air could be
sucked inside. This is all very hypothetical and scanty. I can not
for example think of a good reason why two holes should form. Perhaps
weaker material will exist in those areas, or perhaps some
north-south motion will cause the Inner Sun to wobble greatly between
two points. Of course, those holes need not always be at the poles.
It is truly a fascinating subject, and the mere thought of Hollow
worlds is quite exciting.
Was the "Garden of Eden" inside the Earth? Well, Olaf Jansen - who
claims to have gone there emphatically says Yes!
Could it be that "normal" life is actually intended INSIDE worlds.
Could we be the "abnormal?" I say this because if one overcomes the
idea of a central Sun - then you immediately see many advantages in
that sort of idea. I have done some basic calculations and a central
Sun of 28 miles in diameter would present the same size in the sky as
our Sun does. If its luminosity is in similar proportion, then that
would be enough to light up and warm up such a world. Even such a
tiny sun would weigh many millions of tons. Or, it could be bigger,
but not so bright - in which case it would weigh many many more
millions of tons.
Now think about this: Comets and meteors can destroy life. But, they
can not harm any life at all which exists below the crust. The impact
of even a small object 100 miles across could probably destroy all
life on Earth. And an object 100 miles across - in space - is nothing
- its like a spec of dust. Yet, even such an impact would have almost
no effect on life on the Inside. It might produce an earthquake at
best. Think too of climate. Here we live on the outside.
Latitude=temperature. Go a little north and you get cold. Go to the
equator and you get warm. Then you have day and night too. But,
inside a globe, ALL POINTS are equidistant from that Sun. You could
have an entire world with all of it having a tropical climate. Isn't
this more sensible? Isn't this more conducive to life perhaps?
There is an interesting idea which the Buddhists have. They believe
in cycles. In regular Earth changes, quakes - the ends of Ages. They
believe that the Earth is a special place, a school.
Just a few weeks ago I mentioned that other book about UFO contact
from Under the sea. There, Aliens also spoke of regular pole shifts
and Alien peoples coming from far and wide to watch, study and help
us through this catastrophic thing. But wait a minute! What about
THEM? If they live as we do, then surely it should be happening to
them too (since many of them are human and live under similar
conditions). Why don't THEY have Pole shifts? Why aren't they
afflicted by Earth changes? WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT US
THAT EVERYONE SEES US AS A SORT OF EXCEPTION?
I have an idea - its a bizarre idea - but could it be that WE are
among the very few who live on the OUTSIDE of our world? That our
world is special - not because it has life - but because it has life
on the Inside AND the Outside. Could that be the secret?
Have a look around. Whether you read about spiritulism,
reincarnation, buddhism, UFOs...whatever. There is ONE THEME that
keeps coming back to us over and over. It goes thus:
(a) There is life on many many planets. Many are Earth like.
(b) Earth is a SCHOOL, Earth is DIFFERENT from other planets.
(c) Life on Earth gets wiped out regularly.
(d) Why are there so many civilisations out there which do NOT seem
to be wiped out regularly?
The question I keep asking is: Why? What should make Earth different
from other places? This bizarre answer is most intruiging. Could it
be that *WE* have our entire point of view REVERSED from the NORM in
the Universe, because we live on the Outside? Thus when we go
searching for life, we look only on the outside. So we see bare
worlds - deserts and we say to ourselves that *WE* are the only life.
YET, perhaps these same desert worlds have great civilisations inside
their hollowed out interiors. But we just don't recognise it?
I want to point you to a bizarre coincidence which occurred in our
group (the UFO/Prophecy group) many weeks ago. The significance of it
will not have struck either you or Lew or most of the others at that
time. So let me refresh your memory.
Remember "Tarabich" the Serbian prophet? Remember what Sever Jura
told us about Tarabich's prophecies? Well, Tarabich had predicted
(over 100 years ago) that we would go into space and all we would
find were DESERT WORLDS. We would search but find no life. Then, much
later, we would FIND LIFE on those same worlds, because we would
understand something which we didn't understand before.
I didn't know about Tarabich. It was Lew who came across the guy and
then we looked at his prophecies. But aren't those just the darndest
statements? Was Tarabich predicting HOLLOW WORLDS?
It's worth thinking about.
BTW, Goro - I'm wondering if I ever sent you my original postings
like the one "How it all began" and such like.
I welcome questions if there are any aspects which trouble you. It is
truly a most difficult and most bizarre subject - the entire concept.
Oh yes, I nearly forgot something. You mentioned "remnants of
Atlantis" living underground. This brings me to another interesting
point. Imagine a continent/island of very advanced people with space
ships, etc. Quakes rock the place. Now what's stopping them from
evacuating and going to live ELSEWHERE on the Earth? Why should most
of those people die from something as innocuous as some quakes? Why
can't there be enough SURVIVORS? Why shouldn't there have been enough
survivors to start new cities elsewhere? Not even in a nuclear war
will you find EVERYONE dying.
Apart from them flying to another planet (which would seem pretty
much an OVERREACTION wouldn't you say to something as simple as some
quakes) - wouldn't it seem more likely that they found a much nicer
place to live? Why live in underground tunnels and caverns when you
can live on the surface in the sunshine? Why didn't they pick out the
most beautiful place on the rest of the Earth and MOVE THERE? There
must have been plenty of places to go. Or is it, that they knew of a
place which IS nicer than anywhere on the surface and that they DID
go there? And that may be where they are living today - in the Inner
Earth - along with survivors from Lemuria, Mu and all the other
civilisation?
Life on Earth thus works like this:
(a) New colonies of humans/beings are seeded on the surface after a
Pole shift.
(b) If they develop enough and survive long enough to see it through
to the next pole shift and all their cities are destroyed, then they
move inside the Earth where things are much safer. If they have
figured out that the Earth is hollow and they have the
technology to move.
(c) Go back to (a) for the next Class.
This is a "conspiracy" on the part of higher beings/Gods and this is
what "graduation" from the School of Planet Earth is all about. We
get stuck here on the Outer Earth and we have to figure things out
for ourselves. We begin as barbarians and savages and see if we can
make it to eventually qualify for membership of a greater order in
the Universe.
Kinda weird eh?
There's something which I think you might not have come across and
that is the series of books written by Don Wilson. He wrote a book
about a theory postulated by Soviet Scientists in the mid 1970's
wherein they reckoned that our Moon was hollowed out - a spaceship in
fact. There's actually tons of evidence for that. The Moon is a very
strange place. It was not always there. The Soviets showed that the
Moon has a very tough outer skin and all craters are very shallow
REGARDLESS of the width of the meteor which struck and formed them.
The *ONLY* exception is this newly photographed crater at the Moon's
South Pole. It is much deeper than any of the other craters. The
average density of the Moon is the same as aluminium and you know how
light that is. There are all sorts of funny things which have
happened on the Moon. Clouds of water vapour have been seen and
measured by astronomers. All sorts of funny clouds have come out from
the Moon. Many of the anomalies on the Moon have been documented by
astronomers and are known as TLPs. I found the arguments for the
Hollow Moon to be extremely strong. I can't see how anyone can think
otherwise once you've gone through the data. The seismic data is
extremely impressive too because it had scientists literally falling
off their chairs when the first seismic information was in. There was
also an analysis done by a scientist at NASA in 1962 wherein he
concluded that the Moon must be hollow.
What is interesting - and you should keep this in mind - is that if
one object is hollow, then it is likely that most everything else
might be too. In Astronomy, MASS is dealt with on the basis of
RELATIVE masses. So if the Moon is Hollow, then so could the
Earth and everything else be - because GRAVITY (our gravity) is based
on masses - relative masses and distances. If only one object was
Hollow, then it would stand out like a sore thumb. But what if they
all were?
Did you see my e-mail about Polar anomalies on different planets in
the Solar System? Did you see that ZIP file of photos?
Cheers,
Jan
Page Index
How to Subscribe to Hollow Earth List
From: "Jan Lamprecht"
To: rshapiro@interaccess.com (Richard L. Shapiro)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 22:42:50 +0200
Subject: Re: subscribe hollow
Reply-to: pbs@iafrica.com
Hi,
Thank you for joining my Hollow Earth List Service!
I hope you enjoy it. You are encouraged to talk to the others and
to chat. No flaming will be tolerated. Just good old chit chat
about the Hollow Earth and any other related phenomenon.
If you don't like it - or you think *I* should have my head examined,
then just unsubscribe!
PLEASE NOTE:
When you want to send a message to the group you MUST put the word:
HOLL:
- or -
holl:
somewhere in the BODY of the message so that my mail reader can
reroute it to the necessary group of people. If you don't do this
then it will assume it to be a private message meant for me only.
To unsubscribe, simply send a blank message with the Subject
being:
unsubscribe hollow (the words must be in lower case)
If you later want to rejoin, the simply subscribe again by sending
the message:
subscribe hollow
Cheers,
Jan.
* Hell was full so I came back...
* In the beginning there was nothing...then it exploded...
(The Big Bang Theory)
* A man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client
* Happiness is the planet Earth in your rear view mirror...
Page Index
