"And the earth used to be flat. Then, a solid ball, like a magma ball in space with a solid crust. When in fact it is a sphere which rings like a bell for weeks and months when struck by meteorites and earthquakes ... speaking of which ... time to end this introduction." - Anoyanamus Geologist

what does the The Naica Mine of Chihuahua have to do with hollow earth? dont you need to show the picture inside the the earth with the inner sun?

1. Nice to see, but mostly we never imagine there is such place at first.
2. It proves that our earth have a very very wide and deep hole which some are unexplore.
3. Ill pick a cave picture just to see how deep and far the caves go, but hey !! we have here in Malaysia.. The Great Sarawak Mulu Caves, still there are unexplore area left.

Picture of inner sun..

---

Added on September 14, 2010, 2:16 pmAdding map ..



This post has been edited by ScrewBallX: Sep 14 2010, 02:16 PM

what does cave have to do with hallow earth, you are saying there is a massive hole in the center of the earth, all the cave in the world are nothing compare with a hole that big.

how does someone came up with this hollow earth model, how does gravity work in the crust? how does some one know there is a star in the the center, where does the valcano magma come? the inner sun must be the smaller star ever found, even white dwarf are on average the size of the earth, and how does you account for the missing mass and the effect on gravity?

Adding..

NASA has discovered strange noctilucent clouds are appearing every summer over the pole down to about latitude 50 degrees. These clouds consist of tiny ice crystals 40 to 100 nanometers wide that reflect blue wave lengths of sunlight and float at the very edge of space 50 miles up. The hole you are seeing in the imagery is not the polar opening. It is a hole in the satellite imagery caused because polar orbiting satellites do not pass directly over the pole because the polar opening is located so close to the pole that if they passed over the polar opening, they would lose gravity holding them in orbit. Most likely the noctilucent clouds originate from the warm moist air coming up out of the polar opening and are pushed to the edge of space where the moisture particles freeze -- by the out flowing of air from Inner Earth. Every spring the out flow of air from the polar openings pushes the ozone layer apart at the poles also and increases the size of the atmosphere. The increase in the height of atmosphere above the Antarctic in the Antarctic spring is what Jan Lamprecht theorized in his book, Hollow Planets, caused the Skylab satellite to burn up in the atmosphere. The outflow of warm air from the earth's interior at the poles are also what causes the mirages of land seen in the arctic. The warm air rises up above the ice creating a layer of warm air that reflects the land beneath. Observers around the Arctic have sighted mirages of land all in the same direction indicating that the polar opening is located at 87.7 N 142.2 E. What they are seeing is a doubly inverted mirage of land at the inner continent located about halfway through the polar opening.

Adding paper notes ..

http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/dgriffin/..._in_Science.pdf

Interesting. Could it be that the gravity is what's holding the earth that me stand now float above the hollow earth? Then if predicted as 2012, the magentic shift changes will it distrupt the gravity and the earth we are on now crumbles in to the other earth?

the scientist that write the paper Duane Griffin do it to use hollow earth as an example of crackpot theory to teach the scientific method and history.

holy shit,
a much deviated mind.

I am doubtful of the admiral story. It does not go in hand with the subterran dwellers being driven there by another race. If they were driven there then this entry/exit should be easily located. It would not be like the admiral described.

yes it sounds like a story from a fantasy book. But if give the idea proposer the benefit of doubt maybe the idea sounds cool. COuld be our hope for 2012

Adding ..

NEWTONIAN GRAVITY REVISITED

“Newton’s Law of Gravity of one of the most useful mathematical formulae ever devised. This little formula has made space travel and the exploration of the Solar System possible. It made satellites possible.... Scientists use this little formula to gain an understanding of galaxies far away, and indeed the behavior of the universe as a whole. It is now more than 300 years since Newton devised this little formula and we still do now know what causes gravity.”

With this introduction the author then goes into a long, detailed, technical discussion of gravity. He contrasts the theories of “attraction” and “pressure”.



Euler and other scientists believed that the universe was filled with low density material called “ether” (among other things) which exert pressure on bodies of higher density, and that the attraction observed between these bodies could be caused by shielding of this pressure in the space between the bodies. Many inconsistencies with the accepted Newtonian laws are noted.

The mass of the Earth was determined by experiments by Cavendish which have been verified by others. Based on this and assuming that the Earth is a solid sphere, many scientists argue that other planets must be solid also. Dr. Tom Van Flandern, a contemporary scientist who believes in the “pressure” theory exposes contradictions between two dearly-held theories in science. Newtonian Gravity – and indeed any gravity seems to defy Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Newtonian gravity is accurately measured and proven with the bounds of the solar system. However, Newtonian gravity remains untested in other areas. All we have is a formula. This formula has been used to determine the mass of the Earth. This is based on the concept that for each mass of M inside the Earth, it exerts and attractive force of F. We do not know the valid range for Newtonian gravity.



Inside Newton’s formula is G. G is the “universal gravitational constant”. It is assumed – and assumed is the correct word here – that each mass of M exerts the same force of F regardless of where in the universe it may be placed. It is also assumed that each mass of M exerts the same force F whether it lies on the surface of the Earth or whether it be deep inside the Earth. When using the Cavendish balance to determine the mass of the Earth, it is assumed that each particle exerts a fixed force upon all others. But if Van Flandern’s ideas turn out to be right, then particles near the surface of a planet might exert a force greater than those deep down. The key to all of our gravity is the mass of the Earth. If the mass of the Earth is wrong, then so are our estimates for those of other bodies. If the mass of the Earth has been overstated, then it follows that the masses of all other bodies in the solar system have also been overstated. If the Earth is hollow, then so too is every other planet in the solar system.

Other anomalies are discussed such as,

strange gravity noted by pendulum experiments during solar eclipses

Saturn’s gravity-defying rings, gravity-defying galaxies

“inverse square break downs”

There are four basic forces which are believed to represent all physical interaction in nature. They are:

1. Electromagnetism

2. The Weak force of Particle Physics

3. The Strong force of Particle Physics

4. Gravity

A. H. Cook from the Cavendish Laboratory in England admits that gravitational experiments, even in laboratories, are fraught with danger:

“Experiments on gravitation do indeed present the experimenter with a considerable challenge. First, the forces are very small: The gravitational force between two protons is 10 to the negative 40th power of the electrical force, hence in many laboratory systems the forces are not very large compared with fundamental quantum fluctuations and mechanical disturbances... The forces of gravitation are very small... When the difficulties of determining the mass of a body weighing more than a few kilograms, and the position of its centre of mass, are considered, they effectively limit experimental studies to masses of a few kilograms and distances of about 0.5 m."

How can we be sure that the Earth really has the mass accorded it by Newtonian gravity? Is an experiment, using two lead balls really representative of the entire Earth? How can we be sure that gravity behaves 1,000 miles down in the Earth the same as it does 10 cm down in a lead ball? Scientists are convinced that electric currents flow inside the Earth. These currents almost certainly flow in the same direction. It therefore follows that they will be attractive. Does it not then follow that each mass of M deep inside the Earth might produce a greater force of F than previously considered? If so, then the Earth’s density may be much less than it has been thought of until now. Over and above this theorizing, we still have the excellent mine, borehole, ice-cap and sea bed experiments which definitely show that something is amiss. Regardless of where G was determined, the value of G increased, even at very shallow depths. All this indicates that less mass produced increased attraction. These could be the initial indications that Earth really is hollow.

---

Added on September 14, 2010, 3:34 pmadding ...

SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY


What do we really know about the Earth’s interior? And how trustworthy is our knowledge of it? Many people (mistakenly) think that the lava which pours out of volcanoes comes from a large reservoir of molten material which makes up the greater part of the Earth. Scientists have discovered that lava comes from within the Earth’s crust. The lava comes from approximately 20 miles down. The existence of lava does not affect the passage of earthquake (seismic) waves. This indicates to scientists that the crust is largely solid. So where does the heat come from which melts the rock locally? Scientists have advanced two theories.

Some say that the melting is due to high concentrations of radioactive elements in a particular area. These decaying radioactive elements generate enough heat to melt rock. Much lava is slightly radioactive and that lends support to this theory.

Other geologists have argued that shearing and faulting are adequate heat generating mechanisms.

The evidence supports both theories. Lava cannot possibly be rising from the centre of the Earth as some may be tempted to think. It would cool down and become solid on its long, slow journey upwards. Lava is therefore a surface phenomenon and does not in any way reflect what the Earth is like 50 or 100 or more miles down.

The Earth’s temperature is relatively constant. Where does this heat come from? Most scientists believe it comes from decaying radioactive materials deep inside the Earth. The Earth does not seem to be cooling down any further and this should alert us to the fact that the Earth is simply not a ball of molten material which is slowly cooling down and solidifying – as many people believe.

Since the temperatures seem to rise steadily as one goes deeper and deeper, scientists have extrapolated the temperatures and attempted to estimate the temperature of the Earth hundreds of miles beneath the surface. One has to ask oneself whether this extrapolation of temperatures is really logically justified. The extremely deep mines are still nothing but a pin-prick into the surface of the Earth. The centre of the Earth lies some 3,963 miles away. A mine 6 miles deep really does not represent a valid statistical portion of the Earth. No one has discovered a way of determining the temperature deep down. Our best estimates are that lava comes from 20-30 miles down. But what will temperatures be like 100 or 1000 miles down? It’s all guesswork – most of it derived indirectly from Newtonian gravity.

The only “reliable” method we have of knowing what goes on in the Earth beneath our feet comes from the science of Seismology. However, there are many examples of actual findings being different from what was predicted. The science of seismology contains two very broad assumptions which no one has ever been able to verify:

1. The speed of seismic waves beneath the Earth is ultimately inferred from our understanding of the structure of the Earth based on Newtonian Gravity. We have no way of being certain that these waves really are reaching these depths or traveling at these speeds.

2. We cannot be sure that speed changes are due to the changing constitution of the Earth. Our view of the inner Earth might be very skewed.

Since most of our knowledge of the Earth is obtained from those searching for gold, minerals and oil, one can’t help wondering if this skews our view of what the inner Earth may be like. We only search for these minerals in specific regions and this may be misleading us further. These holes seem to prove that much of the predicted structure changes have never turned out to be real. If we find such errors at depths of just a few kilometers, how much less can we trust our ideas when dealing with rock which is hundreds and perhaps thousands of miles beneath the surface?

The Earth is a flattened sphere. This is due to the rotation of the Earth, and the Earth being somewhat plastic. One would therefore expect the inside of the Earth to be similarly shaped. Yet there is some evidence that the Inner core may be shaped like a rugby ball. Instead of being flattened, it may be pointed at the top and bottom. The claim that the inner core is actually prolate in shape is by no means universally accepted. Even less certain than the claims of a prolate core are those for inner-core heterogeneity and, even more remarkably, hexagonal symmetry. These conflicting results in recent times, and the disputes surrounding them make one wonder just how reliable seismology is at those depths.

Slow Earthquakes
Earthquakes are caused when stresses build up and the rock then gives way catastrophically. And earthquake is an explosive event. It therefore cam as a surprise that there are some earthquakes which have unusually long source duration. The seismologists Professor Thorne Lay and Terry Wallace write:

“the mechanism for the slow rupture process is unknown, but in the extreme it could produce a ‘silent’ earthquake devoid of short-period body and surface waves.”

They go on to mention that G. Beroza and T. Jordan surmise the existence of “slow earthquakes": which are virtually undetectable – and that several of these may be occurring each year. These slow earthquakes suggest to me that the Earth might not be as tightly packed in some areas as we presume. Are there enormous cavities inside the Earth, perhaps caused by erosion and other forces deep, deep down? What would happen if these cavities were to be crushed? Could the forces down there be operating a lot more slowly and weakly? Could horizontal or vertical forces be operating as well? What if “slow” events prevent us from ascertaining the stranger aspects of deep seismology? Even more mysteriously, could “silent” quakes be occurring which our instruments are incapable of measuring? Could events be occurring down there which are not violent enough to be detected and we therefore have an inaccurate impression of what really is happening down there?



Deep Focus Quakes


Among the strongest evidence that the Earth is rigid all the way down to the “outer core” (where a hollow cavity exists?) comes by way of deep-focus earthquakes. Thousands of deep-focus earthquakes, making up to 22% of all earthquakes, have been recorded. Theoretically earthquakes cannot occur below 70 kilometers because the temperatures and pressures there are such that rock will flow rather than break catastrophically. The mechanism for ordinary quakes cannot therefore exist below 70 kilometers because the stresses are always relieved. Scientists hope that a suitable explanation for deep-focus quakes will be found without bending the laws of physics and chemistry, but that might not be possible. Professor Lay et al., writes:

“Deep earthquakes have long posed a problem for seismologists. Laboratory experiments indicate that the pressures at a few hundred kilometers depth should prohibit brittle fracture and frictional sliding processes. Yet earthquakes as large as (magnitude) 8.2 have occurred at 650 km. The deep seismicity has many characteristics that are similar to those of shallow earthquakes. Most important, the deep earthquakes have radiation patterns consistent with double couples, which implies shear faulting.”

(Several other observations which defy accepted scientific theory are given by the author along with attempts to explain them.) The search for deep focus quake mechanisms therefore seems to be far from over. The problem may be more fundamental than scientists have appreciated so far.

Let us now consider deep focus quakes within the Hollow Earth paradigm. The key to understanding it might lie in combining some simple concepts:

(a) A rigid hollow shell

(b) The different behavior of gravity deep beneath the Earth’s surface

© Gravity might be more variable and dynamic than science currently believes (e.g. electric currents might affect it)

If gravity varies inside the Earth, then pressure and temperature would not increase as science expects. It therefore follows that the Earth down there would be cooler and more brittle than theory currently allows for and that shear can indeed occur. It also follows that G will indeed be very different to what is currently expected at various depths. There is no reason why some of the rock might even be in a state of almost weightlessness. Density need not keep on increasing with depth. Nor would there be any reason to expect pressure to close all cavities. At these cooler temperatures we could expect water to flow and to erode deep into the Earth. This water could be one of multiple causes of deep quakes. What about dynamic gravity as a possible source of deep seismicity? What if varying electric currents inside the Earth cause gravity to increase and decrease at various times at various depths? Could this be cause of the random three dimensional distribution of after shocks which has been observed?



Hollow Planet Structure


The solid Earth, conceptually, is made up of three parts. Imagine three spheres, one within each other.

The outer sphere is the Mantle. This region is relatively solid. In it is molten material under great pressure.

Within it lies the Outer Core. The Outer Core is a liquid.

Within the Outer Core lies the Inner Core which is again solid. The Inner Core lies right at the centre of the Earth.

The author presents a technical analysis of seismic waves with several figures illustrating how waves are supposedly reflected within the Earth. He then presents his theory of seismic wave action in a Hollow Earth and says: In doing my own analysis and thinking about Hollow Planets, there was only one Hollow Planet model which could give the same results as the current scientific models. It seemed logical to me that if there was a hollow crust that somewhere in the middle, perhaps more towards the inner side, there would be an area of maximum density. The density of the crust would increase from the outer surface of the Earth to this point of maximum density. From there the density would decrease toward the inner surface of the Earth. This very simple model exhibits all the characteristics which we have learned from a century of global seismology. The P (primary) and S (secondary) waves which emanate from the epicenter of an earthquake descend into the Earth. Those which strike the hollow cavity’s surface will be refracted back to the surface of the Earth exactly in accordance with what we saw in Figure 3.9 (from “Modern Global Seismology”).

But what really interests us is the “shadow zone”.

(In a nutshell, one can characterize the general behavior of seismic waves as follows:

1. At a distance of between 7,000 miles to 10,000 miles from the epicenter of an earthquake, one finds a “shadow zone”. In this shadow zone there are very few P waves.

2. Beyond the 10,000 mile mark, there is a concentration of P waves and virtually no S waves. What S waves there are, are those which are thought to possibly have passed through the core. But this is open to dispute and most scientists think there are no S waves in this region.)

The shadow zone is now easily explained. The shadow zone is caused by the belt of maximum density in the Earth’s crust. Suppose we go down into the Earth at the epicenter. As we go deeper, the density gradually increases. It reaches a maximum at point M1. But from M1 downwards, the density decreases again until we strike the hollow cavity. Thus P waves which penetrate beyond the belt of maximum density will find themselves refracted and bent and bent downwards – so that they then travel and curve along the inside of the Hollow Planet. These waves will continue to travel like this until they again manage to penetrate and escape through the belt of maximum density. The shadow zone is thus caused by the change in density in this M-belt which naturally separates the P waves. It also explains why there are some P waves in the shadow region. All that is happening is that the waves are being bent around the Earth and being refocused on the other side.

It can be seen that the waves which are thought to be penetrating both the Outer and Inner cores may be doing nothing of the kind. These waves would simply be those which are caught by the decreasing density and bent around the hollow cavity. Note that since density decreases with depth beyond point M1, that any refraction which takes place is inwards – hugging the contours of the Inner Earth. The rest of the seismic waves bounce between the Inner and Outer surfaces as they make their progress around the Earth.

Once one is freed from Newtonian gravity, and one merely studies the seismic waves alone – not sure what path they are taking – the study of the Inner Earth becomes extremely complex and filled with all manner of unknowns. Have scientists already discovered the hollow cavity inside the Earth – in the form of the Outer liquid core? I think so. The fact that S waves don’t pass through it, and that the P wave speeds are abnormally slow makes me think that this “liquid” core is really the cavity which scientists deny the existence of . After going through this exercise I find myself wondering even more if perhaps seismologists are studying a Hollow Planet without ever having realized it was so. What do you think?

---

Added on September 14, 2010, 3:37 pmSound like a fantasy.. Yes i agreed BUT if you read your friends BLOGS in the internet. It sound like a story also, how you present it make it sound like a story. Agree?

---

Added on September 14, 2010, 3:40 pmSouth pole? You read that they mention the hole at the south is cover by ice and opened at certian times. Wheres the north pole?

---

Added on September 14, 2010, 3:43 pmAdding ..

THE INNER SUN

As I set out to test these old Hollow Earth theories, I wondered how one would know if there was a Sun inside the Earth. So I did a bit of reading and thinking about geophysics. Various facts led me to entertain thoughts of a nuclear fission Sun. My train of thought was originally triggered when I discovered that a few high level nuclear explosions could knock out all the electronics across the USA (in a nuclear war scenario, for example).



This is because a nuclear explosion creates a powerful EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) shock wave. It can knock out the sensitive electronics in computers as well as the electrical systems of almost all motor vehicles. It occurred to me that a naturally occurring nuclear reaction inside the Earth might perhaps be responsible for the Earth’s magnetic field. The strange behavior of the magnetic field seemed to confirm that it couldn’t be caused by a sluggish liquid circulating about the outer core.

In the early days of space exploration H. A. Bomke detected magnetohydrodynamic waves (electromagnetic waves) in the Earth’s outer atmosphere which were generated by high-altitude nuclear explosions. Masahisa Sugiura discovered similar waves which were generated by natural causes in the outer atmosphere of the Earth and transmitted along the lines of magnetic force to the Earth in the northern and southern auroral zones. There are also electric (telluric) currents which flow in the surface layer of the Earth’s crust. The ground is electrically conducting and its resistivity varies markedly with depth. It has been found that these currents come from the polar regions. These currents change in sympathy with magnetic disturbances and auroras.

The next realization was that matter arranged itself according to density when the Earth formed – that’s what scientists expect to happen. Denser matter at the centre of the Earth and less dense material as one moves further away from the centre and so on up through the atmosphere until one reached the edge of space. Why shouldn’t heavy metals, such as uranium for example, exist in the Earth’s core? Scientists say that uranium is a trace metal which does not occur naturally. They do not expect it to reside inside the Earth. It also decays. Let us assume that a solid Earth formed originally – that it was compact and tightly packed in the same way that scientists these days expect it to be.



No one knows what happens to matter under those conditions. I have wondered, in my own simplistic way, whether some sort of natural enriching process is kicked off automatically when matter is that tightly packed. There might be natural processes which kick in under such conditions, processes which we don’t know about yet. And we also must not forget the possibility of cold fusion either. A small amount of uranium or plutonium would be enough to start a nuclear reaction. One by one these simple facts and possibilities made me think that a naturally occurring nuclear reaction inside the Earth might be a workable proposition.

Scientists have long realized that the lava which pours from volcanoes is naturally radioactive. This is how scientists are able to date rocks – because the lava from which these rocks form is slightly radioactive. Decayed uranium turns into radium. Scientists thus theorize that radium is probably to blame. The evidence suggests that lava forms no more than 20 miles beneath the Earth’s surface due to the accumulated heat from decaying radium and uranium. There are lots of volcanically active areas on the Earth. It seems as if there is quite a lot of radium in the Earth’s crust.



The crust is of course only a small part of the Earth. Remember that this is far away from the centre of the Earth. If there is still some radium left here near the surface after some 4 billion years of Earth history, then surely, deep down in the Earth there was much much more when the Earth originally formed? Remember too, our volcanoes are probably driven by what is left after billions of years of radioactive decay. So how much do you suppose there was to begin with?

Uranium has a half-life of 710 million years under current conditions. That means that 710 million years ago there was twice as much uranium in the Earth’s crust as there is now. It seems to me that there must have been enough uranium around originally to kick off at least one natural nuclear reaction inside the Earth.



The Earth’s Heat


Richard Milton writes:

“Although it was once believed that the Earth was cooling as its molten interior lost hear, it is now known that the Earth’s overall temperature is roughly constant, since heat loss from the surface is balanced by heat generated with the crust by radioactive decay.”

But is the Earth’s temperature constant only because of the decay of radioactive materials or does the Inner Sun help in other ways to keep the climate warm?



Natural Fission Reactors


The main evidence for the past presence of natural fission reactors comes in the form of uranium ores that are depleted in uranium-235. The main site lies at Oklo in Gabon. In June 1972 a team was working under the direction of Dr. H. V. Bouzigues at the CEA service laboratory in France. They noticed an anomaly in the abundance of the uranium-235 isotope. Some time later, much larger depletions of this isotope were discovered in uranium samples from this source. They traced this back to the Oklo deposit. This was the first positive proof of the hypothesis that a natural chain reaction was responsible for the depletion. A report in “Nature” about an international symposium held in Gabon in 1975 states:

“It was pointed out that at the time of the reaction the natural abundance of the relatively fast-decaying uranium-235 isotope was more than 3%. This natural ‘enrichment’, helped by the moderation of the fission neutrons by the water content of the soil which enhanced their fission efficiency, and possibly by the relative absence of neutron-absorbing elements in the surroundings, allowed a nuclear chain reaction to develop…”

To summarize, our interest lies in the feasibility of there being natural nuclear reactors – even here on the surface of the Earth. Add to this the possibility of there having existed far more uranium-235 concentrations in the past. All of this taken together should clearly indicate that the idea of the Earth (and other planets) having been hollowed out by enormous nuclear reactions might not be that far fetched. Even such a small site as Oklo is estimated to have sustained a nuclear reaction which lasted anything 500,000 years to several million years.



The loss of 5 tons of uranium-235 attests to the power of this reaction. What puzzled the scientists was how low grade uranium ore naturally enriched and started a fission process? Yet the evidence shows that it did indeed happen – right here on the surface. That this little nuclear reaction could produce temperatures of 400 degrees C. and run for several million years would seem to support the idea of a natural nuclear process occurring in nature right here on or in the Earth.



Inner Sun: Cold Fusion?


The subject of cold fusion doesn’t seem to enjoy much credibility in the USA. Some scientists regard cold fusion as a pseudo-science. Yet many countries in the world are pouring enormous sums of money into hard scientific research on the matter. Some scientists have already discussed the possibility of cold fusion occurring inside the Earth. P. Palmer, a geophysicist has already suggested this. Helium-3 emanating from inside the Earth has been regarded by some as an indication that cold fusion might be taking place deep down inside the Earth.



Inner Earth Nuclear Processes


When physicists installed nuclear particle detectors deep in a mine in the Kolar Gold Fields in India, they hoped to measure particle created by highly penetrating neutrinos arriving from the cosmos. They found instead immense showers of nuclear particles coming, not from above as expected, but from the sides and even below! These huge showers of 1,000 or more different particles are called ‘anomalous cascades’. Neutrinos are the only known particles capable of penetrating the entire Earth to create the upwardly directed showers, but ordinary neutrinos do not seem to have enough energy to give birth to the anomalous cascades. The Sun creates neutrinos.



But most neutrinos are not expected to have enough energy to move through a solid Earth. Yet here were neutrinos passing through the Earth from all sides – and even from below. These scientists found these anomalous cascades to be too energetic to be caused by normal neutrinos. This raises two possibilities about the structure of the Earth:

1) What if the Earth’s crust is thinner than scientists expect with their current solid Earth models? If the Earth is hollow, then neutrinos would be able to penetrate the Earth more easily and therefore produce the results which the scientists found.

2) Could the Inner Sun also be a producer of some of the neutrinos which are rising from the core of the Earth.

Since those experiments scientists have made plans to build ‘telescopes’ which are pointed downwards and which detect these particles coming from below. Many European nations as well as the USA have been building such ‘telescopes’ which are located in the Mediterranean. The largest however will be located deep in the ice of the Antarctic continent. These neutrinos point to some kind of radioactive/nuclear process going on inside the Earth. Could it be an Inner Sun?



When The Inner Sun Shines


Sometimes the Earth crosses directly between the Moon and the Sun. At such times the Earth cuts off the light going to the Moon. The Earth’s atmosphere however refracts the Sun’s light thereby ensuring that the Moon rarely disappears from view. If the Earth did not have an atmosphere, then the Moon would disappear completely. At the time of these eclipses the Earth’s night side is in full view, and apart from the light streaming around the edges of the Earth, there is no other light shining on the Moon. It is at this point that a mystery surfaces.



Astronomers have noted that these eclipses of the Moon are variable in brightness. Sometimes they are dark. At other times they are extremely bright. If the Earth’s atmosphere is dust laden, then the eclipses of the Moon are very dark – sometimes the Moon disappears totally. But then there are times when the Moon is exceedingly bright. Far too bright. Can the aurora (which can only produce a shadow on the Earth under exceptional conditions) really light up an object the size of the Moon 238,000 miles away? Or are there times when light from inside the Earth is refracted and bent through the cold polar air so that direct inner sunlight can fall on the surface of the Moon?

The condensed testimony of several European observers for an event on 19th March, 1848:

“I wish to call your attention to the fact, which I have clearly ascertained, that during the whole of the late lunar eclipse of March 19, the shaded surface presented a luminosity quite unusual, probably about three times the intensity of the mean illumination of an eclipsed lunar disc. The light was of a deep-red color. During the totality of the eclipse the light and dark places on the face of the Moon could be almost as well made out as in an ordinary dull moonlight night; and the deep-red color, where the sky was clearest, was very remarkable from the contrasted whiteness of the stars. The Consul at Ghent, who did not know that there was an eclipse, wrote to me for an explanation of the deep red color of the Moon at 9 o’clock.”

An observation from Ireland notes that before the eclipse ended, the light had stopped lighting up the Moon. It is as if we have a ‘search-light’ effect. Could it be that refracted light from the Inner Sun lit up the Moon for a short while and then left the Moon in total darkness again? Sunsets are red. This is because the red light can travel longer distances through the atmosphere whereas other wavelengths of light cannot. The deep red color in the above observations is therefore of extreme interest. It implies that the light traveled a great distance through the atmosphere before falling on the Moon. Could this light have traveled all the way out of the Inner Earth to be refracted and to then fall upon the Moon?

There is a mysterious brightening of the Jovian moon Io sometimes when Io has been behind Jupiter – in its shadow. Scientists have picked up that Io is sometimes anomalously bright when it comes out from behind Jupiter. Scientists have never thought of correlating this with a time when Io is above the Great Red Spot! I have wondered if some anomalous radiation from the Great Red Spot is the cause of the mysterious brightening of Io? The Earth’s Moon is therefore not the only object in the solar system which undergoes such an effect. Io is the closes of the Galilean moons to Jupiter. On Saturn a bright spot appears on the ring systems. This extremely bright spot is the cause of many a Saturnian mystery. These three different phenomena may all have a very similar origin – in that light emanates from inside planets.



Direct Light on the Moon?


Could an Inner Sun really shine direct light on to the Moon? One wouldn’t expect that to be the case. However, there are many factors involved in this, and it’s quite a complex issue. The following ingredients affect this issue:

1) The Moon’s orbit takes it approximately 27 degrees north and south of the equator

2) The Earth is inclined by 23.5 degrees

3) The width of a possible polar entrance

4) The position of the Inner Sun inside the Earth at the time. Perhaps an Inner Sun wobbles around inside the Earth?

5) The temperature of the atmosphere inside the Earth

6) The refractivity of the Earth’s atmosphere in the Arctic. The most favorable conditions will therefore be when the Moon is 27 degrees north of the equator during the northern winter (when the Arctic is inclined towards the Full Moon)

Light could never fall directly on the Moon’s surface if it originates from inside the Earth, traveling out via the polar regions. The main factor which might make this possible is the refractivity of the atmosphere in the arctic. Since we do not know the temperature inside the Earth, it is hard to say how the light would behave. But assuming it to be warmer than the polar regions, perhaps light could be refracted enough to fall on the Moon. Since the light from inside the Earth would be traveling a considerable distance through the inner atmosphere and then into the outer atmosphere, it is possible that considerable bending of light might just take place.



I would suspect that if such an event would take place, it would probably be extremely rare. I have only found one possible example of this occurring. I feel it is important to mention the vague possibility that light from the Inner Sun might light up the Moon either at Full Moon or at New Moon – for the simple reason that perhaps someone might one day be in a position to study these possibilities. I have found one fascinating eclipse which might satisfy the criteria I have mentioned above.

Captain G. Brown was in charge of the S.S. Pacific Importer which was sailing from Cristobal to London. The following report was made by Mr. T. M. Sims, 3rd Officer, on during the night of 29-30 January 1953:

“2305 to 0140 G.M.T. The commencement of the eclipse was not observed owing to almost stationary Cu(mulus) covering the Moon. During totality a small white patch of light of low brilliancy moved round the North Pole of the Moon until that phase came to an end at 0030. From that time the white patch increased in area until the end of the eclipse at 0140. During the total phase the face of the Moon appeared to be colored in bands of blue, green, yellow and orange as in the sketch, and stars were visible with the unaided eye within 2 or 3 degrees of the Moon.”

What is particularly interesting about this account is that the light which is shining on the Moon appears to be refracted and split into the different components of white light. Furthermore, the light around the Moon’s North Pole seems to be direct light. This event, seen by observers on 6 different ships, suggests that a cone of pure white light was shining somewhere north of the Moon’s North Pole. Some of this light just barely managed to fall upon the Moon’s North Pole. The remaining colors falling on the rest of the Moon suggest that this highly refracted light.



This post has been edited by ScrewBallX: Sep 14 2010, 03:43 PM

Reading your post is like reading a book. I curious where you get all those information? Can guess you damn into this topic

Adding ..

THE AURORA



In the polar regions explorers, scientists and the inhabitants are often treated to phenomenal displays of light darting across the sky. This is the Aurora Borealis. The aurora is one of natures most beautiful and mysterious phenomena. Most people have been taught at school that the aurora is the result of charged particles expelled from the Sun. These particles, racing through space strike the Earth in the polar regions.



Most of these particles are expelled by solar flares and various storms on the surface of the Sun. These charged particles,



The photograph above shows that the light of the aurora forms an oval shape high above and surrounding Earth's magnetic poles.

upon striking the Earth’s atmosphere cause the aurora. Some people are aware that the Earth’s aurora, and that of other planets (like Jupiter for example) appears as a ring-like structure when photographed from space.


The aurora used to mystify the early polar explorers. Sir Edmund Halley was the first to speculate that it might be caused by ‘luminous material’ escaping form his Hollow Earth. This was seized upon by Hollow Earthers ever since and has become an integral part of the idea. Marshall Gardner tried to demonstrate that the aurora was caused by rays of light shining out of the Hollow Earth.



He thought the aurora might be due to rays from a central Sun shining out of the Earth. However, we now know so much more about its exact behavior. Gardner’s idea, as well as Halley’s ideas are definitely invalid. I was nevertheless fascinated by the possibility of a nuclear reaction within the Earth and so I spent several months familiarizing myself with the technical detail of the aurora. I wish to call the Reader’s attention to something much more subtle – to a phenomenon known as the ‘pulsating aurora’.



Charged Particles From Where?


Scientists state that the charged particles which drive the aurora all come from the Sun. But is this really so? As a general statement, I have no problem with the concept that most of the charged particles do indeed originate from the Sun. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that 90% of the charged particles which drive the aurora probably emanate from the Sun. But as will be seen later, there are some, notably those which cause the pulsating aurora, which seem to hint strongly at a terrestrial origin. Prof. Davis writes:

“…these (charged) particles drift outward in the solar wind so slowly (1000 times slower than the sunlight) that the journey takes several days. Once the charged particles enter the magnetosphere, they undergo acceleration to speeds near one-fifth that of the speed of light. They then are capable of penetrating into the atmosphere to a depth of approximately 100 Km above the Earth’s surface.”

This fact is of crucial importance. The charged particles which arrive here from the Sun have far too little energy to actually create the aurora. So how are they accelerated? Scientists don’t know either.



The Aurora’s Pulse


The Sun might well feed some charged particles to the Earth, but the Earth somehow controls the aurora. Many mysteries abound which we shall visit. The pulsating aurora is normally seen after the magnificent auroral break-up. It pulsates quietly in the night sky for hours on end. The pulsating auroral forms undergo periodic or semi-periodic variations in brightness. The periods range from 0.1 sec to more than 20 sec. Prof. Davis writes:

“Pulsating aurora is spectacular, but it lacks the brightness, color and fast motions typical of the discrete aurora. In the over-all scheme of things, pulsating aurora is important because it is widespread and therefore represents the end effect of a substantial portion of the energy carried into the global auroral atmosphere by incoming fast particles. Some observations suggest that the ‘on’ phase of a pulse is associated with an increase in energy of the responsible incoming particles because the altitude of the lower border during the ‘on’ phase is lower than the altitude of nearby diffuse non-pulsating background aurora that may accompany the pulsating forms.”

Inherent in much of the aurora is this distinctive pulsation, this variation in its strength. Since these discrete auroras are caused by incoming streams of electrons, the implication is that something is in control of the incoming streams of electrons. What could be pumping these electrons into the polar skies – sometimes with a burst-like structure? The Reader should note that in all the examples given this flickering pulsating and flaming is taking place in the midnight sector of the Earth where the Sun has no effect at all.



Due South


There is another pre-condition for auroras which may strike the Reader as strange and unexpected – the Sun’s magnetic field must point south. Prof. Davis explains:

“…the largest magnetic storms and the greatest auroral displays occur only when the solar magnetic field points nearly directly south – and also when the solar wind is moving most rapidly, and when the strength of the magnetic field at the magnetosphere boundary is at its strongest. Major auroral displays and major magnetic storms apparently never occur unless the solar magnetic field at the magnetosphere boundary is pointed primarily south.”

It is strange that the Sun’s magnetic field must point in a north-south direction before the particles can enter the Earth’s magnetic field. Could it be that the Earth’s magnetic field is ‘weakest’ at a point in line with a possible Polar Hole in the Earth’s crust? Consider this mystery: The scientists are not quite sure where the charged particles are entering the magnetosphere – because it repels the charged particles – 98% of them. There has to be some weakness in the magnetosphere which allows the particles to enter. They surmise that the particles are entering from behind the Earth. But what if there is a ‘hole’ in the magnetosphere? A ‘hole’ which is a direct consequence of a hole in the crust of the planet? Could this be why the particles must be moving southward before they can then penetrate the magnetosphere and then cause the aurora?

So the charged particles have entered the magnetosphere. What then? The following sentence, penned by Davis is very telling:

“What happens there is not know, but one view is that the kinetic energy carried by the particles becomes temporarily stored as magnetic energy which then releases suddenly during substorms and causes the acceleration of auroral primaries.”

It is clear from the above that some uncertainty exists regarding the sequence of events once these charged particles enter the Earth’s magnetic field. How are the ‘stored’? How are they accelerated?



Auroral Conjugacy


Back in 1733 the French scientist Jean Jacques d’Ortous de Mairan thought that auroras might occur in the southern hemisphere as well. He suspected that the aurora was caused by the Sun, and he therefore expected the aurora to be identical in both hemispheres. The term ‘auroral conjugacy’ is even more specific. It means that the aurora in one hemisphere is the mirror image of the aurora in the other hemisphere. Prof. Davis took part in a set of experiments which as far as I know have never again been repeated. They devised a computer algorithm to determine the exact conjugate point for a magnetic line of force originating from Fairbanks, Alaska.



They determined this point to lie in the Pacific Ocean about 1500 Km south of Christchurch and 600 Km east of Macquarie Island. To test their ideas they conducted 18 paired flights between 1967 and 1971. They made use of long-range military versions of the Boeing 707. These aircraft were equipped with various cameras and sensitive auroral television cameras. One aircraft would take off from Anchorage, Alaska, while the other would take off from Christchurch, New Zealand. These two aircraft then flew along carefully prescribed paths which allowed them to reach the calculated geomagnetic conjugate points simultaneously. Their routes took them towards the poles and back to their launching sites.

They discovered that auroral displays in the different hemispheres were almost mirror images of each other. This was especially true at the equatorward boundaries of the aurora. They also discovered that auroras in the northern hemisphere tended to be brighter than those in the southern hemisphere. There were some instances of exact conjugates occurring, but there were also instances where the conjugacy failed altogether. It is interesting that conjugacy tended to fail at the higher latitudes. The original idea regarding conjugacy related to the idea that charged particles from the Sun were striking the Earth’s polar regions simultaneously.



Since the Sun is almost 100 times the diameter of the Earth, one would expect the particles from a solar flare to engulf the Earth and for the aurora to be almost identical at all times. However, as the Reader now understands, this is not the case. The particles which strike the Earth are possible coming from ‘above’ (the North or South Poles), and possibly from behind the Earth. The brightest aurora is on the night side of the Earth, away from the direct line of sight of the Sun. Also, the particles are traveling too slowly when they reach the Earth. Something is accelerating them. And yet, in spite of all this manipulation of these particles from the Sun, they retain some form of conjugacy. But they do more than that. Is something inside the Earth controlling the aurora’s behavior?

Prof. Davis discovered:

“The use of television systems on the aircraft led to one rather startling result. The systems detected pulsating auroras that were exactly synchronous; that is, the pulsating forms varied in brightness at exactly the same times in the two hemispheres within a tiny fraction of a second.”

The pulsations, great and small, match each other in intensity tens of thousands of miles apart from each other. Remember too that the pulsating aurora continues for hours and hours, and that these streams of electrons increase and decrease in intensity for hours on end, across large parts of the sky. Most amazing of all, in spite of this variability, these pulsations match each other exactly at opposite ends of the Earth. And where are these variable amounts of charged particles coming from? Are they all ‘stored’ from the Sun?



The explanation that two ends of a magnetic bottle open up simultaneously, allowing only some electrons to escape, seems highly improbable to me. It calls for a system of micro-management of the geomagnetic field at both ends of the Earth simultaneously. By what means could this occur if the Earth were solid? But what if these electrons originated from inside the Earth? What if an Inner Sun produced a variable stream of electrons? And what if an Inner Sun pulsated in some way?



These streams of electrons might exit the Polar Holes, follow the magnetic lines of force and cause an aurora in the opposite hemisphere. An electron stream originating from Antarctica would therefore cause an aurora in Alaska for example. These quasi-periodic, semi-random pulsations might then match in both hemispheres simply because they come from the same source. They might also match each other in intensity – more or less.



Traveling at tremendous speed, they would strike the atmosphere in two hemispheres almost virtually simultaneously. Prof. Davis confirmed:

“When we were able to detect corresponding pulsating auroras in the two hemispheres, they were always exactly in phase, right down to a few milliseconds… No, we never saw any that were shifted at all. We really expected to find them bouncing out of phase just like a tennis ball going across the net and being hit back by racquets on either court, but that definitely was not the way it was…. Whatever the cause it would seem that the triggering of the pulses must occur in the equatorial plane.”

But there’s a problem in postulating the equator as the source of the pulsating aurora. The magnetic field at the equator is approximately half as strong as in the polar regions – the magnetic field is at maximum strength in the polar regions and is controlled from there. There is no known mechanism at the equator which has any effect on the magnetic field. Remember too that the pulsating aurora occurs at night, and therefore the Sun cannot be the direct cause of these pulsations.

Let me attempt a Hollow Planet explanation of the Earth’s aurora – and judge for yourself whether this scenario makes any sense. A solar flare erupts on the surface of the Sun, sending charged particles racing outwards towards the planets. Most of the particles are repelled by the Earth’s atmosphere except for those occasions when the Sun’s magnetic field points southwards. Only these particles can slip through a weakness or a hole in the Earth’s magnetosphere. (A hole which has yet to be discovered, I might add.)



These southward moving particles are then channeled by magnetic lines of force into a hole in the crust of the Earth. This happens to them because the Earth’s magnetic field originates from this point. They follow the magnetic lines of force through the Inner Earth and exit at a south polar entrance. Under normal circumstances they would continue to encircle the Earth forming a doughnut-shaped belt which we call the Van Allen belt. Under normal conditions these particles possibly continue orbiting into and out of the Earth for days and weeks on end. They are constantly traveling in this circular motion. Could this be how these particles are gradually accelerated?

A stream of electrons produced by the Inner Sun might exit the Earth via its south Polar Hole and then be guided by the magnetic lines of force. These electrons would then go around the outside of the Earth and enter the Earth again. In this manner these electrons would continuously circuit the Earth without there being any indication whatsoever of their presence. There may be other streams of charged particles which move in the opposite direction by exiting via the north Polar Hole and entering through the south Polar Hole. These two opposing streams of charged particles would be encircling the Earth in opposite directions – endlessly. This might be the cause of the Van Allen belt – which surrounds the Earth.

Remember the possible connection between a south pointing solar magnetic field and auroral storms? Prof. Davis and most other scientists in Europe, America and Russia are residing in the northern hemisphere. For them it is probably true that a south pointing solar magnetic field triggers auroral storms in the northern hemisphere. What if a north pointing solar magnetic field were the cause of auroral storms in the southern hemisphere? This seems to me to be a logical conclusion to draw. Hence I’m suggesting that perhaps there are two opposing streams of charged particles circling the Earth.

Let’s suppose that these streams continue circling around and through the Earth for days and weeks on end. Then a ‘magnetic storm’ is triggered by the Central Sun. The Central Sun may then bend the magnetic lines of force causing them to now strike the Earth’s atmosphere thereby causing the aurora quite a considerable distance away from the polar entrance. As the Central Sun’s activity intensifies, it perhaps bends the magnetic lines of force even more so that the auroral oval widens and the aurora moves southwards. It seems from the evidence that most of the particles do indeed originate from the Sun. However, there may be a small percentage contributed by a tiny Central Sun inside the Earth.



The Dynamo Link


The idea that most aspects of the aurora may be linked to events at the core of a Hollow Planet may well seem absurd, so let me offer some evidence. The pulsations of the pulsating aurora definitely seems to have an earthly origin and to be related to whatever ‘dynamo’ it is which creates the Earth’s magnetic field:

“Pulsating auroras are usually accompanied by geomagnetic pulsations, and very rarely by faint whistling sounds. They also appear to generate 3000Mc radio waves.”

Or is it that whatever generates the 3000Mc radio waves also generates the geomagnetic pulses as well as the pulsating aurora?

It turns out that the night sky pulsates of its own accord. An interesting study resulted in the discovery of atmospheric brightness pulsations lasting about one millisecond, consisting of damped oscillations at a frequency of approximately 10 Kilohertz. These flickers are hard to explain in terms of terrestrial atmospheric physics. Could it be that the flickers in the night sky and the pulsations and radiowaves of the pulsating aurora are all caused by an Inner Sun?

becareful... lol

Studying, debunking and finding out require to read tons and tons of material gather from past to present and thinking require. Same as you study about life on earth surface. All i can do is link to the people who made the same question as you.

Dude, you need a job. But I respect your hobby. Also I don't read posts as long as an essay. And I doubt anyone will so try make some short bursts of crisp and interesting arguments rather than copy pasta'ing a whole slab of text and expect us to read it. Get real.

Now explain to me why haven't any oil rigs accidentally punctured the outer layer and into the world inside and start drilling like .. nothing.

Maybe explain the molten lava layer between the crust and the core. And from there explain the phenomenon of a volcano.

Oh, just to add in. It must suck to have day time forever in that world.

This post has been edited by daccorn: Sep 14 2010, 04:32 PM

Adding History ...

THE HOLE THROUGH THE EARTH

Dr. Frederick A. Cook is the most discredited explorer in all of Arctic history. Cook was so thoroughly discredited that I never once thought of even looking into the issues regarding his claim to have reached the North Pole before Peary. It was only while paging through Wally Herbert’s “Noose of Laurels” that I saw Cook’s map of his attempt on the North Pole.



As I looked at this map I noted the proximity of two large pieces of land which can no longer be found on any map: Crocker Land and Bradley Land. My curiosity revolved around the proximity of these two pieces of land which were independently ‘discovered’ by the most prominent polar explorers of the time. Was this just an accident or was there more to this apparent coincidence than met the eye?


(The author gives an extensive biography of Dr. Cook detailing the attempts to discredit his claims to have climbed Mt. McKinley and to have been the first to reach the North Pole. He describes the attacks on Cook’s character, but also gives character references to show that Cook was not the type of person his critics tried to portray him as. Besides being discredited, he was imprisoned for mail fraud at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary.)



Cook’s Human Relations


So far we have discussed Cook’s abilities as an explorer. But in pondering his fights with Peary, it is worth considering him as a human-being. He was trained as a medical doctor. What was his attitude towards his fellow creatures? Was he the type of person disposed to lying and taking advantage of them? Peary and his supporters have made the case for decades that Cook is a liar and a fraud. They portray him as a bumbling fool, intent on the most childish sort of cheating. History portrays Cook as a con-man who perpetrated one great fraud on the heels of another. Cook is depicted as a man without standards, without any shame, without any decency whatsoever. Is this a correct assessment of him?

Prof. Ralph Myerson kindly sent me information regarding Dr. Cook’s contributions to medicine. Cook was often brave and innovative. It is worth considering his actions and some of his deeper thoughts. Here is some of what Prof. Myerson sent:

“During the Belgian Antarctic Expedition, Dr. Cook made important innovations in the construction of tents, light-weight sledges, protective clothing, and sun glasses. He was also instrumental in freeing the ice-bound ‘Belgice’ by suggesting and supervising the construction of channels in the ice leading to open water. Roald Amundsen, the first mate aboard the ‘Belgica’, regarded Dr. Cook as his mentor and developed a firm, life-long friendship that endured during Dr. Cook’s later trials and tribulations. In 1901 Dr. Cook sailed to Belgium where he and the rest of the ‘Bellgica’ officers received several awards including the coveted Order of Leopold.”

“Later in 1901 he responded to a request from the Peary Arctic Club to join a relief party to Greenland and perform a physical examination on Peary. There was concern because Peary had been in the Arctic for four years and hadn’t been heard from in two years. Although a rift had already developed between the two men, Cook agreed and performed a remarkably thorough and accurate examination on Peary at Etah. He is said to have made the diagnosis of pernicious anemia, the ultimate cause of Peary’s death and recommended that Peary eat a large amount liver. This was 20 years before Minot and Murphy were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for recommending liver as a treatment for pernicious anemia.”

“During his incarceration at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary, Dr. Cook rendered valuable medical care to his fellow inmates, about a third of whom were drug addicts… Cook wrote: ‘I was led to believe that modern civilization is going under the cloud of a plague, more destructive in its economic strain than that of all the wars in history. The opium blight, if not checked, will eventually sap the life blood of half of mankind.’ Dr. Cook developed a treatment plan for the addicts which was based on non-specific supportive measures of water, exercise, sunlight and fresh foods plus a program of lectures and assistance aimed at rehabilitation. It may well have been one of the first such programs… Despite the controversy that surrounded Cook during his later life, even his critics and detractors are ready to recognize the above contributions made by him."

The Cook-Peary enmity contrasts strongly with the deep friendship which existed between Cook and Amundsen. Amundsen even came to visit him in prison. Amundsen was always a loyal friend and never forgot his mentor. That someone of the caliber of Amundsen should remain friends with Cook through thick and thin, to the bitter end, speaks volumes. If Cook was the bumbling childish cheat which Peary’s supporters claime he was, then surely Amundsen would have seen this and agreed with it? Yet Amundsen always believed to the end that Dr. Cook had indeed reached the North Pole first. Amundsen once remarked that Dr. Cook was: “The most extraordinary explorer I have ever met.”



Did Cook Reach the North Pole?


A few years before Dr. Cook died he wrote the following:

“I have been humiliated and seriously hurt. But that doesn’t matter any more. I’m getting old, and what does matter to me is that I want you to believe that I told the truth. I state emphatically that I, Frederick A. Cook, discovered the North Pole.”

(In pondering what I had seen in Herbert’s book) I was stunned by the realization that Cook had in fact been much closer to Crocker Land than Peary had been. Not only that, but Cook had marked new islands on his map. Stranger still, he had photographed Bradley Land! Cook later said that he had looked for Crocker Land, but that it did not exist at the location given by Peary. However, Cook had seen, photographed and pinpointed the location of Bradley Land. Neither Crocker Land nor Bradley Land can be found on any maps of the Arctic today. I posed this question to myself: Had Peary, Cook and MacMillan all told the truth back then?



Their testimonies are amazingly consistent and definitely complimentary. In reviewing the evidence, I came to the conclusion that the only instance of lying seems to me to have been when Peary, with the connivance of MacMillan, set out to discredit Dr. Cook’s claims to the Pole. It is possible that both Cook and Peary did indeed reach the North Pole.

Having studied their accounts, I am of the firm opinion that there is missing land up in that region of the Arctic. I further suggest that Bradley Land may be distantly related to Crocker Land. The rediscovery of Bradley Land may go a long way to t racking the Crocker Land mirage back to its roots. This should also lead us to finding out why these lands have been kept secret for so long. I believe we will find that we have discovered a Polar Hole.

Let us examine a detailed paper produced by Sheldon Shackelford Randolph Cook, who is historian of the Cook Society. In March 1998 he produced a paper entitled “Frederick Albert Cook, Discoverer of the North Pole. April 21, 1908 A Statement of the Evidence.” He wrote:

“Historically, the strongest supporting evidence, the proof, t he final confirmation of an explorer’s claim to discovery has lain in the verification of his descriptions of the geographical area first seen, reached and traversed by him by later exploration. If his first and original descriptions of this region are confirmed and verified by later exploration, then his claim to discovery is validated and established; if not, then his claim is disproved or rendered questionable… Frederick Albert Cook’s first and original descriptions of physical conditions and natural features at the North Pole and in the region of the Central Arctic Basin through which he sledged have been confirmed and substantiated by later exploration in detail after detail,…”

Sheldon then provides supporting evidence on a point by point basis. The description above is critical when considering whether Cook was the first to reach the North Pole. How could he have reported these conditions if he had never been there? Remember, no one else had been there either and conditions were different to what had been expected. Cook was unable to return to Greenland before winter set in and he was forced to spend the winter in Canada unable to reach his food caches. He and his Eskimos nearly perished that winter. Nevertheless, with incredible courage and ingenuity he survived. His attempt on the North Pole had thus taken much longer and been far more dangerous than the conditions encountered by Peary. This makes Cook’s assault on the Pole all the more amazing.



Renewed Support for Cook


(Statements of several people are given showing increasing acceptance of Cook’s claims both to having climbed Mt. McKinley and been the first to reach the North Pole.)

Bradley Land
That three different teams of explorers (led by Peary, Cook and MacMillan) should report land in virtually the same region seems to defy coincidence. Ever since I looked at Herbert’s book “Noose of Laurels” I wondered if there was a connection between Crocker Land and Bradley Land. Initially, I wondered if Bradley Land was an outlying island not far from the continental land mass of Crocker Land.



I have also wondered if Bradley Land and Crocker Land might perhaps be one and the same. (Much discussions follows concerning the reality of Crocker Land and Bradley Land and of the authenticity and implications of the photograph which Dr. Cook took of Bradley Land. Statements are given as to whether the photo was taken in the location claimed and whether it depicts actual land or an ice island. Problems of distances and shapes are also analyzed.)

The Bradley Land photograph contrasts strongly with another feature which Dr. Cook called the ‘submerged island’. This is glacial ice floating on the sea very close to the North Pole. Photographs of the ‘submerged island’ and Bradley Land exist and they are two very different features. The Bradley Land photograph shows hills of considerable size whereas the ‘submerged island’ is nothing more than glacial ice at sea-level. Dr. Cook thought this ice was resting on a submerged piece of land, hence he called it the ‘submerged island’.

Just when you thought there could not be any more twists to the story, let me add one more. Wally Herbert uses the ‘fact’ that there is no land up in the Arctic as the cornerstone for his arguments against Dr. Cook. In his book he has a photograph of the ‘submerged island’ of glacial ice at sea-level. He then goes on to claim that Dr. Cook did not print the entire plate in his book. He claims that when this original plate is reproduced fully, one then sees a chunk of land on the right-hand side. He reproduces this fuller version of the photograph in his book.



Herbert then states that this clearly shows the ‘submerged island’ to be a glacier resting on dry land! In this version of the photograph one can indeed see an enormous piece of dark rock which is many times taller than Cook’s companions. Judging by the slope of the rock, it seems as if this is the edge of a much higher hill of great size. Since there is no land close to the North Pole, Herbert then claims that Dr. Cook was a liar. But wait.



Dr. Cook said the ‘submerged island’ was ice which rested on submerged land a mere 120 miles from the North Pole. Could it be that there really is some rock jutting out above sea-level there? Could this be part of a shallow continental shelf related to land which really exists some distance away? To tell the truth, I don’t really believe this myself. I think something funny is going on. The piece of rock in that photograph is very large – perhaps 30 ft high, maybe more. It’s very hard to tell. But it is very large and must weigh many tons. It appears to be part of a much larger feature.



I find it inconceivable that Dr. Cook would spend so much time talking about glacial ice when he could have marked this piece of land on his map as well. His sledges were a few hundred meters away from it, and he could have walked upon it. His testimony contradicts what is in this ‘full’ photograph. He referred to the ‘submerged island’ – believing that the glacial ice rested on land beneath sea-level. Now if some land actually stood out, he would surely have drawn attention to it, especially if it was this large. But he did not. He did not remark upon the northernmost island on the face of the Earth. Strange.

I am suspicious of this photograph. Wally Herbert claims he found this photograph in the Library of Congress collection of Dr. Cook’s material. As will be seen later, Herbert also discovered that key photographic plates were missing from the Cook collection. Who took them? Dr. Cook’s photograph of Bradley Land was missing, as well as the photograph taken at the North Pole. Could it be that the US government itself has been fiddling with Dr. Cook’s polar material in the Library of Congress? I am highly suspicious of this piece of rock in the ‘full’ ‘submerged island’ photograph.



Could it be that this photograph has itself been manipulated by someone in a sophisticated attempt at further discrediting Dr. Cook? If there really had been land at that latitude, then why did Dr. Cook not mention it? We could always fall back on the ‘fake photo’ theory, but to do so would be to ignore the much greater evidence to the contrary. Is it possible that someone could actually produce a faked plate and place it in the Library of Congress, while removing the original? Who on Earth would have the scientific capability to produce a specially manipulated plate like this?



Unless someone in the US government and US military has gone to great lengths to attempt to discredit Dr. Cook – in an attempt to hide Bradley Land and the drifting glacial ice of questionable origin. These people may feel it better to encourage researchers to look towards Axel Heiberg Island where these photographs were supposedly faked than to have potential explorers flying and traversing the Arctic Ocean where Crocker Land and Bradley Land might exist.

It is strange that the Cook Society puts itself squarely behind Dr. Cook and then suddenly makes an about turn on the above point refusing to accept his estimates and conclusions regarding Bradley Land. If he was the competent explorer they claim him to be, then why are they abandoning him on this point? The photograph of Bradley Land poses serious problems for the Cook Society. Much as they would like to believe him, they are faced with the ‘fact’ that land does not exist at the location given. This puts Sheldon Cook in a tough spot and he clearly recognizes that he might be faced with a losing battle. So he tries to hedge his bets both ways:

“If glaciologists should eventually determine that the photograph of Bradley Land in Cook’s book in fact depicts ice-sheathed land rather than an ice island, it must be concluded that Cook simply used a photograph of a feature which as nearly as possible approximated what he had seen west of his line of march for the purpose of illustrating his book…”

I think Sheldon is undermining his entire position by proposing that Dr. Cook started taking photographs to ‘represent’ things he had really seen. I know of no rule of exploration which allows one to do this. If Cook ever did this, then the onus would have been on him to state so openly in his book. He claimed these things were fact and stood by his claims until he died. Bradley Land and the submerged island are the two most important physical features he saw during his assault on the North Pole.



For key Cook supporters to begin using this type of logic is highly dangerous. If Cook used photographs to represent physical features, how can we then trust his photographs taken at the North Pole? Sheldon is opening up a Pandora’s box filled with problems for Dr. Cook by following this line of reasoning. In a sense, his reasoning leads almost to a direct admission that Dr. Cook was making things up as he went along.



And yet, there is so much evidence to the contrary. As Sheldon acknowledges, making up evidence is a highly dangerous undertaking because other explorers will be checking up on it. For example, Cook’s photographs show the enormous hills of Bradley Land. Now what if someone were to go there and find a different configuration? What then? Such things would not go unnoticed, and Dr. Cook would be called upon to explain this discrepancy. In fact, one of the ‘rules’ of exploration is that later explorers must check upon and confirm the discoveries of those who went before. Photographs, maps and written descriptions are therefore taken very seriously by geographers and later explorers.

The photograph (Plate 31 in the book) may provide us with the answer to the problem. Take a look at the hills shown in this photograph. The hills cover most of the horizon, except for a region in line with the first sledge. At this point there appears to be a gap in the line of hills. When Dr. Cook plotted the coastline of Bradley Land, he drew it as two separate, distinct pieces of land, separated by a gap of several miles. That gap seems to be evident right there in that very photograph. Would you have me believe that he went looking for a feature of the right size, with just such a gap, elsewhere, for photographic purposes? Why should this photograph seem to reflect, exactly, the facts as he plotted them on a map?

Wally Herbert mentions another interesting point:

“The search for ‘Bradley Land’ is made even harder since the only picture available is the one in his book, the original plate is missing from the Cook Collection in the Library of Congress, as are also the plates of the two other crucial pictures: those of his ‘North Pole’ camp and his ‘summit picture’ of Mt. McKinley.”

I find it very interesting that all the original plates in support of Dr. Cook’s claims are now missing. All we have left are the photographs which are in his books. Now why would all these originals ‘go missing’? Or has someone deliberately removed them to undermine Dr. Cook’s position? Did Peary’s supporters remove these photographs? Or did military officials go to the Library of Congress to remove these originals at a later date? Or was this sanctions by the US Government itself?

What do we make of the ‘full’ ‘submerged island’ photograph? Why did Dr. Cook not reproduce this? Or was this plate produced and placed in the Library of Congress in recent years by a US Government which is intent on hiding something in the Arctic? From day one, the US Military had it in for Dr. Cook. Peary, MacMillan and all their military supporters set out to destroy Dr. Cook. Did they do this merely from jealousy or were they, back then, already aware that something untoward might exist in the Arctic?



There was much Hollow Earth discussion going on in the decades prior to the discovery of the North Pole. Were the US Government and the US Military back then already interested in the subject? For more than a century prior to the discovery of the North Pole, there had indeed been much said and written about a possible entrance into an Inner World via a hole in the Arctic. Many people had attempted to bring this to the attention of various governments, especially the US Government.



These governments never put much stock in these bizarre theories. However, they must certainly have been aware of these ideas. I follows therefore, that if any credible evidence were to later surface, these governments might very quickly have realized the true significance of what was going on and taken action immediately. The issues regarding Crocker Land and Bradley Land at first might not have meant much to anybody.



Peary and MacMillan were probably motivated by jealousy alone and nothing more. However, much later, perhaps during the Cold War, the true importance of these discoveries might have become apparent. This may have required that further action be taken to ensure that no one ever looks seriously into these issues. This might explain the strange happenings to Dr. Cook’s material in the Library of Congress. It might have required that a more subtle and sophisticated attempt be made to ensure that Dr. Cook remained discredited for the time being – perhaps while the governments concerned try to find out what is really going on inside the Earth.

What conclusion can we draw regarding Dr. Cook’s journey to the North Pole? (The author reviews and speculates on the information recorded by Cook, Peary, and MacMillan concerning Crocker Land and Bradley Land.) Remember that Peary and MacMillan saw Crocker Land to the North West? And Cook saw Bradley Land due West. If one draws their line-of-sight on a map it then results in these lines meeting at a single spot some distance west of both Crocker Land and Bradley Land. Is this where Crocker Land and Bradley Land physically exist. Maybe. The thought that Crocker Land and Bradley Land may be one and the same, and that they lie further west of their supposed positions is tantalizing. This could explain why Bradley Land has also not been found yet – at least by civilian explorers. Perhaps the key to the whole problem is to travel further west of the positions given for these lands?



The Map Evidence


While I was looking for old maps, Billy Baty happened upon an old map in a text book. Unfortunately we could not discover the origins of this map. Nevertheless, it had some interesting notation on it. Up in the region directly north of the Bering Strait, but falling short of the North Pole, it had the notation “This sea is probably never completely closed”. This notation was in the region where Lt. DeLong would have expected to find his Polar continent. One can’t help wondering what caused the map-maker to reach this conclusion, but it has overtones of the Open Polar sea.

Let us also hark back to earlier chapters such as the one on meteorology. In the chapter it will be remembered we discussed the origin of strange clouds which seemed to somehow be related to the Earth’s magnetic poles. The direction in which these clouds moved, depending from where they were spotted, seemed to suggest that they originated from the Earth’s magnetic or geomagnetic poles. These same clouds, when seen from the USA, did not seem to have that orientation. This is understandable if their real point of origin lay somewhere between the North Magnetic and the Geomagnetic North Poles.



Crocker Land and Bradley Land lie at a spot equidistant – almost – from these points as well. Could it be that these lands lie near a Polar Hole? If so, could it be that these strange clouds really originate from a point close to Crocker Land and Bradley Land and that depending on one’s longitude, one would mistakenly think these clouds are aligned with the magnetic poles?



The Reader has probably wondered about the relationship between a Polar Hole and the Earth’s magnetic field. Should a Polar Hole not coincide with either the North Magnetic Pole or the Geomagnetic Pole? This is a question which I have wondered about many times myself. Strictly speaking, if the Earth’s magnetic field originates from inside the Earth, then the magnetic lines of force should direct us straight to a Polar Hole. By this definition one should find a Polar Hole exactly at the Geomagnetic Pole. The Geomagnetic Pole lies between Canada and Greenland.



The aurora and the Earth’s entire magnetic field are centered upon this point, and this is the logical place where one should find a Polar Hole. The North Magnetic Pole lies closer to the Beaufort Sea – and it moves considerably. The Russians believed for a long time that another magnetic pole lay in Siberia as well, and that magnetic lines of force bunched together across the Arctic between the Siberian and Canadian Magnetic Poles. These lines of force come very close to mystery sediments which lie very close to Bradley Land and Crocker Land. Larry Newitt, the Canadian scientist who has determined the position of the North Magnetic Pole in the Queen Elizabeth Islands near the Beaufort Sea, told me that the Russians later dropped their theory of the Russian/Siberian Magnetic Pole. He stated that they believed in it right up to the 1980s.

As was mentioned earlier, since the Earth’s crust is essentially rigid, it is highly likely that large quantities of ore are down there. This ore very probably distorts the Earth’s magnetic field thereby creating a situation where the North Magnetic Pole is a considerable distance from the Geomagnetic Pole. Strictly speaking, the North Magnetic Pole should also be at the Geomagnetic Pole. And both of them should actually be at the North Pole because that is the axis about which the Earth spins. The mere fact that the North Magnetic Pole lies a considerable distance from the Geomagnetic Pole is itself anomalous. This clearly indicates that a considerable distortion of the Earth’s magnetic field occurs near the surface. This being the case, it is to be expected that the geomagnetic field is so distorted that the Geomagnetic Pole does not coincide with position of a Polar Hole.



However, a Polar Hole cannot lie too far away from the Geomagnetic Pole. I drew a triangle between the Geomagnetic Pole, the North Magnetic Pole, and the site of the ‘Russian Magnetic Pole’. One would expect a Polar Hole to lie either within, or close to this triangle. The evidence suggest to me that the line connecting the North Magnetic Pole and the ‘Russian Magnetic Pole’ is the place to start looking. In Figure 17.2 we see Keenan Land marked near the coast of Alaska. Note too, the Eskimo sightings of land from Camden and Harrison Bays in Alaska. Could it be that these Eskimos were really seeing a ‘telescopic’ mirage of land which lies much further north? Could Capt. Keenan’s sighting of land actually be a sighting of that same land? Perhaps. If so, the suggestion is that land must lie somewhere up in the Beaufort Sea. And what of the Eskimos who actually traveled to this land and found other Eskimos living there?

My information regarding Sannikov Land is scant. I had wondered if Sannikov Land might simply be the Crocker Land mirage seen from the other side of the Earth. However, that does not seem to be the case because the Russians saw it to the north and north-west. Sannikov Land might be a problem similar to Bradley Land, but from the Russian point of view. Sannikov Land might simply be land lying in the far north, not far from a Polar Hole. Its existence might be covered up for the same reasons that Bradley Land’s existence is denied. It might simply be too close to a Polar Hole for comfort to allow civilians to wander in its vicinity.

When all these sightings of land and the meteorology are taken into consideration, we find ourselves contemplating the existence of land and a possible Polar Hole somewhere due north, or slightly NNE of Alaska, falling short of the North Pole by approximately 5 degrees. Many people will of course say this is totally impossible. What of those, such as Wally Herbert, who traveled up there in the 1960s? This make me wonder. I have pondered Wally Herbert’s motives for doing such a nasty hatchet job on both Dr. Cook and Peary. Could it be that some of these expeditions across the Arctic have been staged so as to make us think people have been in a certain region when in fact they have not?



Wally Herbert was well aware of the slow speed at which his expedition traveled. This has subsequently been highlighted by comparisons with Peary and with Will Steger’s 1986 expedition. Herbert accounted for this by saying that he had to make a considerable number of detours around pressure ridges with his heavy sledges. Really? Or was Herbert making a detour around something else? A Polar Hole maybe? One should not exclude the possibility of sophisticated deception. If something is of critical importance, then clever people, in positions of power, might well go to great lengths to cloud the issues to ensure that these things are not discovered by accident. These are probably patriotic people who are convinced of the correctness of their actions.

Could Wally Herbert’s vicious attacks on Dr. Cook and Peary have the deeper motives of discrediting their testimony of Crocker Land and Bradley Land? Consider his theory that Peary lied about Crocker Land simply to ensure that he could raise money for future expeditions of his own. MacMillan’s first-hand testimony of Crocker Land makes nonsense of that idea. Scientists, to this day, recognize that something is not quite right with the problem of Crocker Land, and no one has come up with a truly satisfactory explanation for it. Since Cook had been thoroughly discredited, the possible existence of Bradley Land was never taken seriously. But, even the Bradley Land mystery is slowly coming to the fore again as people take a renewed interest in Dr. Cook.

There is visual evidence which suggests that a certain region of the Arctic, slightly off-set from the North Pole (by about 5 degrees) is open to suspicion. Strange, off-beat things have been seen here by famous explorers. None of these things, including the strange meteorology we have discussed, seem to make much sense within the bounds of our science. So far we have only concentrated on Cook, Peary and MacMillan. But, has anyone else seen any indication of land up in this part of the Arctic? Take a look at this introductory e-mail which I received from Prof. Myerson on 17 June 1998:

“Allow me to introduce myself as Ralph Myerson, MD, Vice-President of the Frederick A. Cook Society. Russ Gibbons has furnished me with a copy of your correspondence… I have no expertise in your research; my interest lies mainly in the area of Dr. Cook’s medical talents and the many incontrovertible contributions he made to polar medicine. I do recall, however, that when Amundsen visited Cook when the latter was serving time in Leavenworth Federal prison (another sad story of a travesty of justice), he (Amundsen) expressed some belief in the existence of Bradley Land and stated that when he flew over the area of its location, he saw land birds in the region, too far for them to have come from the Canadian archipelago.”



Soil From Inside the Earth?


Consider the following scientific evidence from the magazine “Discovery”:

“How did sand and gravel, typical of sea-shores and river beds respectively, reach the deep ocean bottom of the Arctic hundreds of miles from the nearest land? This has been the puzzle facing the American researchers who have been analyzing ocean-bottom samples dredged up in the Central Arctic Basin not far from the North Pole from the IGY drifting station Alpha, a temporarily occupied ice floe which circulated in the region between 84 and 85 degrees N, 138 to 152 degrees W during eighteen months of 1957-58.”

The article in “Discovery” went on to say that this analysis was the most comprehensive ever undertaken in this ‘inaccessible region’ of the Arctic. The scientists thought the mysterious sand and gravel were a ‘most remarkable feature’ of this part of the Arctic Ocean. They wanted to know where these sands and gravels originated from. They concluded that the sand was not carried there by water because the particles showed very little ‘rounding’. Experience had shown that even a journey of less than 500 meters through water increases the roundness of particles by several factors.



Yet, the gravel must have traveled several hundred kilometers at the very least, in a straight line, to have originated from one of the existing landmasses. Considering that the water in the Arctic Ocean travels in a circular fashion, this translates into a journey of at least ‘thousands of kilometers’. The scientists went on to suggest that the soil got there by ‘ice rafting’. The problem with this suggestion is that there would have to be ocean currents capable of transporting large quantities of sand and gravel towards the North Pole. But from which rivers did these sands and gravels originate?

Let us take a closer look at the transport problem. Firstly, there are no currents which flow directly towards this spot. The entire ocean in this region tends to flow in a circular fashion. At first glance the Reader might think that these sands and gravels originated from the Canadian Islands. However, the problem here is that there are no rivers on these frozen islands of the far north. The most likely rivers which could have provided the gravel are actually in Alaska.



But for the soil to have been transported from Alaska (or even Canada) would require it to travel a considerable distance along a circular route out into the Arctic Ocean. Unless the soil was transported on top of the ice, the soil would have been rounded by traveling through water. Life in the distant Arctic seems almost impossible to consider. And yet, the sub-Arctic, in Canada for example, is much colder than it is out there in the middle of the Arctic Ocean. Do these sediments originate from Crocker Land or Bradley Land? Do rivers flow there? Are there perhaps hot springs up there which make the climate milder thereby enabling some Eskimos, birds and other animals to live up there?



Winds From Nowhere


Dr. Cook mentioned the considerable haze which was present during his trip to the North Pole. He described it as a bluish haze. Consider the following strange information from “Mosaic” in 1978.



Every year, in March and April, a strange haze descends upon the clear pristine air of Alaska. This haze lies at an altitude of 10,000 ft and gives the sky a whitish, diffuse look. When seen from an airplane, it causes the horizon to disappear completely. Scientist studied the haze to try to determine its origin. They discover it was largely made up of:

(a) Dust

(b) Sulphuric acid droplets

Scientists concluded that the dust and sulphuric acid,

“… must be imported because there are no sources of such materials in the Arctic.”

They theorized that violent wind storms in the Gobi Desert might be responsible for the dust. However, the sulphuric acid was a greater mystery. They speculated that perhaps the sulphuric acid droplets were produced by Japanese factories and that it was then carried to Alaska by strong winds. However, they were not sure if this was really the correct answer. They concluded that:

“These are speculation, though, and no one is sure where this haze comes from or how far it extends beyond Alaska into the stable, stagnant air over the Arctic Ocean.”

Do you remember the presence of sulphuric acid droplets in large quantities in the polar atmosphere of Venus? Could there be a link between such sulphuric acid mist and the Inner Earth? “Mosaic” stated that the haze actually extends far out into the Arctic, north of Alaska. Does this haze really come from Japan? Japan lies south west of Alaska. We know from Dr. Cook that a haze did indeed extend all the way up to the North Pole. Does this haze originate from somewhere near the North Pole? To the best of my knowledge, Peary never mentioned this haze while on his journey to the North Pole.



Could it be that this haze emanates from the region where Crocker Land and Bradley Land exist? Is there a link between this strange haze and Goesta Wollin’s discoveries, and the other strange meteorological phenomena mentioned in earlier chapters? Does this haze provide a natural camouflage for Bradley Land and Crocker Land, making their discovery very difficult? Could this haze and mist be related to large numbers of hot springs on an unknown landmass in the Arctic?



Polar Holes


I just cannot see how a sizable piece of land up in the Arctic could have remained undiscovered to this day. I have thus speculated on whether some of this land really belongs to the outer surface of our world as we know it, or whether it lies inside a Polar Hole of some kind. And how big could such a hole be? When I originally began this study, I had been driven by the idea of a tiny Polar Hole – perhaps as small as 50 miles across. But as I reach the conclusion of this study, I can’t help wondering if it’s much larger – perhaps 100 or 200 miles across. It still falls considerably short of the figure proposed by Marshall Gardner and others, of a hole 1,400 miles across.



Nevertheless, it could be hundreds of miles across. Such a feature would definitely have some effect on our weather and would help to explain some of the strange meteorological phenomena noticed by scientists. The eye-witness accounts of missing lands and continents of considerable size in the Arctic leave me wondering about the size of a Polar Hole and any land in or around it. It seems as if we are dealing with a landmass which is very large. It may be that the accompanying Polar Hole is also quite large.

The mirage theory seems to work quite well as an explanation for the strange mirage called Crocker Land. But the same does not quite seem to be true of Bradley Land. Does Crocker Land therefore technically belong to the Inner Earth while Bradley Land is some kind of outlier which belongs to the outer surface? Perhaps. If so, then why is Bradley Land not on any map? Could it be because it lies near a Polar Hole?

But is there any other way of determining whether there is a hole right through the Earth? In an earlier chapter I speculated about the rising and falling atmosphere of the Earth. I have wondered whether some scientists have perhaps already discovered a hole through the Earth without realizing it. In the early 1980s, while browsing through the Pretoria Public Library, I came upon a book which discussed the effects of a nuclear war. It was a well-researched book, and I read it. Since the major powers of the world are located in the northern hemisphere, and since a nuclear exchange is more likely to place in the northern hemisphere, the author made a point which surprised me.



Scientists had concluded that very little radioactive fallout from the northern hemisphere would reach the southern hemisphere. The accuracy of this statement has been confirmed by other people who are knowledgeable in this field. Meteorology teaches us that winds tend to blow from the equator to the poles and back. Hence radioactive material blowing from the north towards the equator is very likely to be caught up by poleward winds and circulated back to the north. This will happen before the radioactive fallout manages to cross the equator into the southern hemisphere. The same is true for air moving from the South Pole to the equator - the air will be circulated back to the south.

On 26 April 1986 the worst peace-time accident to date occurred. Fires and explosions were caused by an unauthorized experiment at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Russia. Thirty-one people died in the immediate aftermath and 135,000 were evacuated from areas around Chernobyl. Some areas were rendered uninhabitable and significant quantities of nuclear material were spread around Europe by the prevailing winds. Being aware of the virtual impossibility of nuclear fallout reaching the southern hemisphere, you can imagine my surprise on learning that scientists suddenly discovered radioactive fallout from Chernobyl – at the South Pole.



This was reported in “Science News” in May 1990. Jack E. Dibb, a geochemist from the University of New Hampshire, collected samples from a snow pit about 38 Km from the South Pole. In the deeper portion of the pit he and his colleagues found radioactive layers corresponding to the years 1955 – 1974. Above ground nuclear testing was at its peak during those years.



They also found a radiation ‘spike’ which was approximately 20 – 30 times greater than the normal background radiation levels. They found this ‘spike’ in the snow deposited near the top of the pit. This snow had fallen some time between late 1987 and early 1988. More specifically, they found that the radioactivity came from caesium-137 which does not occur naturally. Caesium-137 only comes from nuclear reactors or nuclear explosions. Scientists have discovered that it takes approximately 20 months for radioactive fallout from nuclear test in the northern hemisphere to reach the South Pole. The radioactive deposits from Chernobyl also took 20 months to reach the South Pole.



Based on the discoveries of Jack Dibb et al, we can be absolutely certain that the radioactive fallout from nuclear tests and nuclear accidents in the northern hemisphere are indeed reaching the South Pole. But how? In a letter to “Nature”, dated 3 May, Dibb’s team proposed that the radioactive material rose high into the stratosphere, crossed the equator and then fell in central Antarctica. As can be appreciated, atmospheric scientists, who know how winds behave, were very skeptical of this explanation. These atmospheric scientists doubted whether significant amounts of Chernobyl fallout could ever cross the equator and be deposited at the South Pole.

The problem becomes even more mysterious because it turns out that there is no evidence whatsoever that the radioactive material ever crossed the equator to begin with. Radioactive material would have been detected at various places en route to the South Pole, and in other parts of Antarctica. But there was none. Furthermore, as the radioactive material continued its journey, there would have been less and less of it as it approached the South Pole. Instead, it turns out that there is a high concentration of this material at this one spot in Antarctica. Dibb tried to explain it by way of

“… special wind patterns above the Antarctic might explain why the South Pole is the only spot in the southern hemisphere where scientists have detected excess caesium-137 following the Chernobyl event.”

The mystery grows. But the atmospheric scientists disputed Dibb’s explanation. It’s one thing dealing with above-ground nuclear tests where perhaps some of the fallout did rise high into the sky and some of it did perhaps manage to get across the equator. But, they point out that none of this is true for Chernobyl. The radioactivity from Chernobyl never reached high altitudes as happens with the super-heated air in an atomic explosion.



The Chernobyl material lay at a much lower level in the atmosphere. So how could it get from latitude 51 degrees N in Russia to the other side of the Earth? Jerry Malman from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton also disputed Dibb’s explanation. He maintained that water condensation in the rising air would have washed the caesium out. He could not conceive how any significant amount of matter could have crossed the equator. Malman’s criticism is very valid, especially with respect to the humid air found at the equator.

So the mystery remains. How did low lying radioactive air from Chernobyl in Russia end up in a single spot at the other end of the Earth, along with other high-level radioactivity? Let’s go back to Lt. Col. William E. Molett who told me that he had flown more often to the North Pole than anyone else. Lt. Col. Molett was the navigator on board of the modified bombers which were sent by the USAF in the 1950s to collect radioactive fallout at the North Pole. Molett flew 91 classified missions to the North Pole. Molett told me telephonically that the purpose of the missions at the time was to obtain air samples from the air above the North Pole. Why?



Because the radioactive fallout from Russian nuclear tests were blown northwards and were concentrated at the North Pole by natural wind patterns. Over a period of almost five years, Molett continued with these regular flights to obtain air samples from the North Pole. These would be analyzed by American scientists to determine if the Russians had been conducting secret nuclear tests.

We now know that air currents will concentrate radioactive fallout in and around the North Pole. The conclusions of the atmospheric scientists who disputed Dibb’s theory are therefore well-founded. So how then does this concentration reach the South Pole? Many Russian nuclear tests are conducted far north. I stand to be corrected, but I think the Russians conduct some nuclear tests on the Kola Peninsula which lies at the northernmost point in Russia. I am not sure if they ever conduct above-ground nuclear tests there.

What if there is a hole which goes all the way through the Earth? That is an option which scientists have obviously not considered. What if air sometimes gets sucked into this hole and is sometimes blown out of it due to changing air pressures and the changing seasons on the outside of the Earth? The atmospheric conditions inside a Hollow Planet, regardless of what they are, should be relatively stagnant compared to the outer surface.



Any Inner Sun which may be there will remain relatively fixed in position and the surface will suffer from the same level of heat or cold, light or darkness throughout. Hence, there is no reason why atmospheric pressure inside a Hollow Planet should change much except when the Inner Sun itself becomes more active. The major meteorological driving force must therefore lie on the outside of the planet. It is the changing angle of the Earth with respect to the Sun which determines the seasons on the outside of the Earth. When it is winter at the North Pole, it is summer at the South Pole. I seems probably to me that when air is being sucked in through one Polar Hole, it must be blown out of the other.



This does of course imply that there must be a slight interchange of hemispheric air at the equator to balance this scenario. It follows that some air may be sucked in one Polar Hole, and over time it might end up being blown out of the other. As an aside, let me add that the atmosphere inside the Earth might be modified slightly by the conditions which are present there. Various chemical and other changes might be made to it while inside the Earth. A scientific study of air entering and leaving the Polar Holes might therefore teach us something about conditions inside the Earth.

Let us return to the Chernobyl problem. If a Polar Hole is located near the North Pole, it then follow that it would suck in the air with the greatest concentration of radioactivity in all of the northern hemisphere. On time some of this air would travel right through the Earth and end up being deposited somewhere near the South Pole. We can therefore infer that the entrances to this hole through the Earth lie somewhere near, but no exactly at, the North and South Poles. There are of course no Polar Holes marked on any maps, but one could consider trying to find them by way of weather balloon experiments.



If one has the patience, one could try seeing if weather balloons can be sucked into the Earth at one Pole and then spewed out 20 months later at the other Pole. By tracking these balloons, one could establish with absolute certainty whether they traveled along the outside of the Earth or whether they entered the Earth. By noting the points at which they disappeared and reappeared one could then determine exactly where these Polar Holes are. The mere fact that the low-level Chernobyl radioactive fallout was concentrated in a small area near the South Pole is, to me, highly suggestive of the existence of a South Polar Hole not far away.

We can do one better than merely guessing at the existence of Polar Holes. We can try to find them. In my research I tried to see if I could narrow down the possible location of a North Polar Hole. The Antarctic has a small population of only 3,000 people and information about it is more scant than for the Arctic. I therefore concentrated my efforts on the Arctic because the chances of success seemed higher. It is also far easier and cheaper to travel into the Arctic to find such a thing. The Arctic has been more thoroughly traveled and studied than the Antarctic. Consequently, there is more data to go on. It is also highly probably, if not a virtual certainty, that the North Polar Hole was discovered first, and therefore one might pick up clues from Arctic exploration since the original discovery would have happened unexpectedly. Hence my interest in Crocker Land and Bradley Land and in the early, uncensored testimony of Arctic explorers.



Conclusion


This effectively brings to a close my years of incessant research into the matter of Hollow Planets. It is now four and a half years since the issue was first raised, and I look forward to some rest from this obsession of mine. You can take a look at any map in any atlas, in any country. Look in the vicinity of Crocker Land and Bradley Land and you will find nothing by ocean. The seafloor in these regions has supposedly been mapped too. There is nothing you will find in any literature in geography to indicate the existence of land at these points, or to suggest the existence of Polar Holes anywhere.

In testing this centuries-old idea, I set out to find a hole which might lead into the Earth. There is no scientifically accepted evidence that planets are hollow. It is a taboo subject which only crackpots like myself can entertain. But what if it’s true? What if Dr. Cook and Commander Peary, in their attempts to reach the North Pole, stumbled upon the outskirts of a vast land sitting up in the Arctic, near/in a Polar Hole? What if the full extent of the problem only became clear to the governments of Russia, Canada, and the USA when the Cold War started after World War II? What if, at the height of the Cold War (when military secrecy was at its greatest) it was discovered that the Earth was hollow?

What of MacMillan’s conclusions that Crocker Land was a mirage? The science of optics has come a long way, and what MacMillan saw could only have been based on something else. Peary saw Crocker Land from two different angles days apart. MacMillan, Green and the others saw it at least three times through field-glasses and even with the naked-eye, close-up. Peary said it was enormous. MacMillan did too. Then we have Dr. Cook’s strange photograph of Bradley Land. Amundsen’s tale of the land birds flying towards Bradley Land, and Wilkins’ altimeter story. Is Bradley Land real as well? And what of Capt. Keenan, and the Alaskan Eskimos and the land which lies north of Alaska? What of Sannikov Land which was also seen three times in eighty years by experienced Russian explorers?

There is no normal reason whatsoever for a government to lie about the existence of land in the Arctic. However, if that land is connected to something awesome, something amazing, which frightens our governments, then perhaps they might try to hide its existence. I believe therefore, that if there is land up there, it must, in one way or another, be connected to the existence of a hole which goes deep into the crust of the Earth. Maps are exceptionally accurate these days. Is the sea bed in the vicinity of Crocker Land and Bradley Land really as they say it is? Or is it, perhaps, that such things were concocted so that no one would suspect the existence of such a secret? The only way to know for certain is for several private expeditions to go up there and to take a good look close-up. A search must be conducted for Bradley Land and Crocker Land. If any new land is found up there in the Arctic Ocean, then we must know that indeed a hole in the Earth can’t be far away.

I have made countless suggestions in this book for further experimentation in all manner of fields, including astronomy and polar exploration. I have made these suggestions seriously and I encourage those with the necessary skills to please look into this. I am making a serious suggestion hoping that someone can travel into the Arctic to engage in a serious investigation and to search for these lands which we are told do not exist.

If planets are hollow, then I feel we have a right to know. If there is something inside our world – no matter what it is - then I believe everyone should know about it. This problem of Hollow Planets can easily be solved. All it will take is a little resolve, some intelligence and a bit of hard work. Within a few short years we should be able to answer many of these questions properly. We need not sit back and wait until some government tells us this is or is not so. If they have lied before, what is to stop them from lying again? Christopher Columbus was an unreasonable man who challenged the erroneous beliefs of his time. He made many mistakes, but by his determination he found a New World. The New World he found may be as nothing compared to the Inner World which might exist right inside this Earth. Are you ready to be the next Columbus?

I think that can be constituted as spam rather than an attempt to raise a discussion.

what?

u mean u didnt read all of them?

I did read all of them. In order to raise a discussion. You need to understand it first. This is not a spam.. if it was i would be typing nonsense and force you all to say it is true and no dispute.

So what do you all think about it? or you need more infomation?