Hollow Earth on Google Earth?

SHOULD BE EVIDENT ON GOOGLE EARTH!

Somebody who knows the coordinates for the Polar-openings, so one can find them on Google Earth?

I read somewhere that the opening in the North Pole is supposed to be at 84.4 N and 141 E, but shouldn´t it be at 90 N...?


So why go for Polar-expeditions when one can find the entrances to the Inner Earth on Google Earth...

Beside the fact that there is no hollow Earth, I remember a while back that a member tried to convince me that images of Antarctica proved that there was an entrance to the interior.

Here's Antarctica on Google Earth.


Here's a zoom image of the pole.


This hole is just the point where the images are knit together, and not an actual hole through the ice.

As far as the arctic is concerned, I think that is just a frozen cap of ice floating on the sea. There is not actually any land under the north pole, so it would be pretty hard to have an entrance to some fictional land.


I hope this idea of a hollow Earth dies the death it deserves.

Since the other planets in our solar-system seems to be hollow. why not the Earth?


Hollow Mars:

www.ourhollowearth.com...


Hollow Saturn:

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...



And besides, its a World Top Secret:

www.ourhollowearth.com...

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Alive again]

A question:

Is it true that the Poles are "Flat Earth" for 100s of miles?

If that is true, then there is not really any factual Northpole or Southpole...


infinity.usanethosting.com...

"Reed claims that the Poles cannot be discovered because the Earth is hollow at its Pole points, which exist in midair, due to the existence there of polar openings leading to its interior. When explorers thought they reached the Pole, they were misled by the eccentric behavior of the compass in high latitudes, north and south. Reed claims that this happened in the case of Peary and Cook, neither of whom really reached the North Pole, as we shall see in later pages..."


"...If the Earth was a solid sphere, with two poles at the end of its axis, being a magnet, its magnetic poles would coincide with its geographical poles. The fact that they do not is inexplicable on the basis of the theory that it is a solid sphere. The explanation becomes clear when we assume the existence of polar openings, with magnetic poles along the circular rim of these openings, rather than at a fixed point..."


Any arguments against this?

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Alive again]

I think your gonna need to do a lot better than that to convince me.

I'd accept any research from a credible scientist, but a single image of the Martian pole, and a polar whorl in the clouds of Saturn mean nothing.

Originally posted by Alive again

"...If the Earth was a solid sphere, with two poles at the end of its axis, being a magnet, its magnetic poles would coincide with its geographical poles. The fact that they do not is inexplicable on the basis of the theory that it is a solid sphere. The explanation becomes clear when we assume the existence of polar openings, with magnetic poles along the circular rim of these openings, rather than at a fixed point..."


Any arguments against this?

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Alive again]

the earth isn't a solid sphere!!! the earth consists of a thin crust covering a molten core, the magnetic field is produced by the molten(ie liquid) iron core, the reason the magnetic poles move about is because of the normal centrifugal forces in a spining liquid.

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
I think your gonna need to do a lot better than that to convince me.

I'd accept any research from a credible scientist, but a single image of the Martian pole, and a polar whorl in the clouds of Saturn mean nothing.

Umm I agree. While the hollow earth theory has been around for millenia I have yet to see any real proof. Anything is possible I suppose and I like to think of myself as fairly open minded but lets see a real scientific documentation. Like the above poster said, a hole in the clouds in a picture is not proof. wasnt there supposed to be some kind of expedition?

Yes there was an expedition by an Admiral Byrd who made some very out of this world claims about what he had claimed to have found.
Heres a website with his diary

If you want anymore info, just do a search for him in google.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Kr0n0s]

Originally posted by Alive again
A question:

"Reed claims that the Poles cannot be discovered because the Earth is hollow at its Pole points, which exist in midair, due to the existence there of polar openings leading to its interior. When explorers thought they reached the Pole, they were misled by the eccentric behavior of the compass in high latitudes, north and south. Reed claims that this happened in the case of Peary and Cook, neither of whom really reached the North Pole, as we shall see in later pages..."


"...If the Earth was a solid sphere, with two poles at the end of its axis, being a magnet, its magnetic poles would coincide with its geographical poles. The fact that they do not is inexplicable on the basis of the theory that it is a solid sphere. The explanation becomes clear when we assume the existence of polar openings, with magnetic poles along the circular rim of these openings, rather than at a fixed point..."

I might buy 'eccentric behavior of the compass' from Peary and Cook. On the other hand, it's *not* a good explanation for fooling the navigational systems of (among others) the USS Nautilus, USS Skate, and USS Seawolf, all of which either passed under the North Pole, or surfaced within a few dozen miles of it. Their *magnetic* compasses were acting strangely, but their gyrocompasses, INS, and even star shots were acting just fine.

As for the second paragraph I quoted, it's unfortunately typical of the entire 'supporting essay'. "If the Earth were solid, then (insert condition here) would happen, but it doesn't, so the Earth must be hollow!" is the template. Unfortunately, there's never an explanation of why any of the conditions should be true...for example, no proof is offered that the magnetic and geographic poles would coincide if the Earth were solid. Another claim is that the Earth's mass is a certain figure...but if it were solid, it would be much heavier. Again, while proof, or at least supporting data, would seem to be in order, none is presented.

In short, from what I read, this is nothing more than a very long and badly written self-referencing argument...it boils down to 'the Earth is hollow because we say it is, and we aren't going to admit as genuine any proof that it isn't."

Complaints about the essay aside, there are a huge number of practical problems with a hollow Earth, but I'm running low on character count, so I'll save those for later.

Originally posted by pieman

The earth isn't a solid sphere!!! the earth consists of a thin crust covering a molten core, the magnetic field is produced by the molten(ie liquid) iron core, the reason the magnetic poles move about is because of the normal centrifugal forces in a spining liquid.

The core is SOLID (according to the modern belief), not molten:

en.wikipedia.org...

"The Earth has a solid inner core."


[edit on 22-3-2007 by Alive again]

If people are ignorant enough to believe this preposterous theory, Humanity is in big trouble.

Why not just write a fiction novel, instead of pushing this ludicrous story as fact.

Originally posted by Smack
If people are ignorant enough to believe this preposterous theory, Humanity is in big trouble.

Why not just write a fiction novel, instead of pushing this ludicrous story as fact.

But is it really proved that there is no Holes on the Poles?

I think there's more proof that there aren't holes on the poles than that there are.

There's no reason that magnetic and geographic poles should coincide.. Magnetism is a property of the material itself and the electrons within it. The geographic poles are simply the axis on which the earth rotates.

Originally posted by Alive again

But is it really proved that there is no Holes on the Poles?

Well, it's fairly well documented that at least three US Navy submarines crossed under the ice at or near the North pole. Then again, all three crews could be in on the massive cover-up.

There's the fact that a hole at (or even near) the North pole would be at the bottom of a very large ocean. I'd expect to see at least *some* disturbance in the surface if all that water was busy flowing down into the 'hollow interior'.

There's no discontinuity in the Earth's shape at the poles, either. If there's a hole leading to the hollow interior, particularly a hole several miles, or several hundred miles across, there should be a visible flattning of the generally spherical surface.

On the other hand, it's not really possible to prove a negative...so why not trot out some evidence for the positive? Where is the proof that there *are* 'holes at the poles'?

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Originally posted by Alive again

But is it really proved that there is no Holes on the Poles?

Well, it's fairly well documented that at least three US Navy submarines crossed under the ice at or near the North pole. Then again, all three crews could be in on the massive cover-up.

There's the fact that a hole at (or even near) the North pole would be at the bottom of a very large ocean. I'd expect to see at least *some* disturbance in the surface if all that water was busy flowing down into the 'hollow interior'.

There's no discontinuity in the Earth's shape at the poles, either. If there's a hole leading to the hollow interior, particularly a hole several miles, or several hundred miles across, there should be a visible flattning of the generally spherical surface.

On the other hand, it's not really possible to prove a negative...so why not trot out some evidence for the positive? Where is the proof that there *are* 'holes at the poles'?

But the Earth IS in fact flattened at the Poles!

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Alive again]

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Alive again]

Originally posted by Alive again


But the Earth IS in fact flattened at the Poles!

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Alive again]

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Alive again]

Really?
I've seen some Apollo-era images that might give that impression, due to image quality (I guess those folks in the government sound stages should've done a better job faking the orbital images!), but take a look at a decent quality image


www.spacetoday.org...

or

w3.uniroma1.it...

You're right...the flat spots at the poles are *very* obvious. How could I have missed them?

Bloody heck...where's the [sarcasm] tag when I need it?

I'm also still waiting to hear about the massive dam that keeps the entire ocean from draining through the north polar opening, unless you're also going to try to sell me on the idea that gravity on the inside of the hollow earth pushes things up against what we would call the bottom of the Earth's crust.

Once we get past the lack of optical evidence, the utter disregard for the laws of physics, the lack of seismic evidence (wave propagation studies don't show any support at all for the 'hollow earth'), and the lack of any physical evidence (no doubt all hidden by the Great Government Coverup Agency that also handles chemtrails, psychic super-warriors, and deep underground military bases), there's no reason not to believe that the Earth is hollow. I guess since I'm smothered by the mass of evidence supporting your position, I'll have to graciously cede the point.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Brother Stormhammer]