Hollow Earth : The NASA Proof

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I post this here because of Simon Gray's thread Traveler to the Interior of the Hollow Earth linking the Hollow Earth Theory to the Area51 Hypothesis.




The above image as the videos linked below were issued by the IMAGE satellite ("Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration") described as so by its conceptors at Lockheed Martin :


The IMAGE mission, launched on March 25, 2000, is providing scientists the first opportunity to image magnetospheric regions on a global scale. The magnetosphere is the region of space controlled by the Earth's magnetic field. IMAGE uses three-dimensional imaging techniques to study the global response of the magnetosphere to variations in the solar wind (the supersonic stream of charged particles flowing out from the Sun). IMAGE was one of the first two science missions selected by NASA's Office of Space Science for its Medium-Class Explorer (MIDEX) program.


source

This given, here are the two composite videos which clearly shows :

A/ A large opening (obviously not far from US Eights Station...)
B/ The compelling streaming of the aurora particles toward (outward?
) that very hole




Time to launch an ATS mission... Who's in ?





posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel
 


ummm... no... you don't see a hole... you see a point of attraction...

"The magnetosphere is the region of space controlled by the Earth's magnetic field"

you are seeing an effect caused by the attraction of solar wind charged particles to an area ABOVE the earth dictated by the magnetic field of the earth (the same one that makes compasses work...)

en.wikipedia.org...

its a fascinating thing, but it has squat to do with a hollow earth!



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by rat256
 


Thanks for this coherent mainstream explanation.


But... The same sciencifikillistical theoretism explains for years that if every satellite map doesn't plainly shows the pole (you know, that famous black spot on almost every sat imaging...), that IS because satellites can NOT take pictures of it as they can NOT fly by such polar areas...
IMAGE is probably not a satellite, so...
- So what's the mainstream's take on this ?

Less cynically, I guess we'll all agree here that Hollow Earth is probably one of the most UNcredible theory within the world of conspiracies. Not to mention the dubious purpose of most of its promoters, interestingly agreeing upon some "prötökölisch" ideas...

This said, Olaf Jensen's report on a hand and tibetan traditions about Shamballa or Agartha on the other are difficultly dismissable (even if I personnaly could, at least for the latter
).

Back to the topic as for those NASA datas, the tiny black spot can't be explained by some optical weakness inherent to such a technology as IMAGE sat', does it ?

This other vid completes the serie, denoting the orbiting position of the sat :

svs.gsfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel
 


There will always be those who remain unconvinced by physics... either because the physics is too difficult to understand, or just simply not appealing enough an explanation!

"But... The same sciencifikillistical theoretism explains for years that if every satellite map doesn't plainly shows the pole (you know, that famous black spot on almost every sat imaging...), that IS because satellites can NOT take pictures of it as they can NOT fly by such polar areas... "

satellites can fly over the poles and photograph them... whats your point?

IMAGE is part satellite imaging/sensor readouts and part computer program to make sense of it all.

Given that IMAGE is only interested in effects in the magnetosphere there is a polar region where the magnetic effects are neutral. this is the black dot you see, its a region where nothing that IMAGE is interested in happens!

Hollow earth to me is laughable because geology and physics dictates that if the earth was hollow it would simply implode under the pull of its own gravity and mass.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rat256
reply to post by Rigel
 


There will always be those who remain unconvinced by physics... either because the physics is too difficult to understand, or just simply not appealing enough an explanation!

"But... The same sciencifikillistical theoretism explains for years that if every satellite map doesn't plainly shows the pole (you know, that famous black spot on almost every sat imaging...), that IS because satellites can NOT take pictures of it as they can NOT fly by such polar areas... "

satellites can fly over the poles and photograph them... whats your point?


"My" point is that for years official science advocates explains that satellites can not fly by poles. So the balck spot on almost every south/north pole imaging.


IMAGE is part satellite imaging/sensor readouts and part computer program to make sense of it all.

Given that IMAGE is only interested in effects in the magnetosphere there is a polar region where the magnetic effects are neutral. this is the black dot you see, its a region where nothing that IMAGE is interested in happens!


Are you kidding Mr Rat256 ? Does it cost much to the USA citizen to give the entire picture ?



Hollow earth to me is laughable because geology and physics dictates that if the earth was hollow it would simply implode under the pull of its own gravity and mass.


Except if something tremendously weighty stands whithin it. The Smoking God according to Olaf Jensen : an inner Sun.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel
 


An inner sun. Yeah, hey, that's a good one. So tell me, why is it, if we have an inner sun, that these "pole holes" are always dark? Shouldn't the numerous from-space images of out planet show beams of light emanating from both poles? For that matter, why hasn't the Arctic Ocean or the Antarctic ice cap boiled away from the massive amounts of heat and radiation that would be billowing out of these holes?



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel
 


can't image the poles??? what, see below!

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

there are weather satellites out there whose whole purpose is to fly in an orbit that takes them over the poles so they can track weather patterns!

"Given that IMAGE is only interested in effects in the magnetosphere there is a polar region where the magnetic effects are neutral. this is the black dot you see, its a region where nothing that IMAGE is interested in happens!



Are you kidding Mr Rat256 ? Does it cost much to the USA citizen to give the entire picture ?
"

what i mean is that NOTHING happens there to see, whether we wanted to see it or not. The magnetic effects are neutral, if something happened there we'd see it, as nothing does happen there we don't!

an inner sun... what? I'm sorry, someone, Olaf Jensen, was clearly not paying attention in geology 101, you can call me mainstream if you like but i'm not buying that. a violent nuclear reaction going on inside the planet? life on earth would simply never have exsisted if that were the case. in fact the planet probably wouldn't exsist either.


[edit on 25/1/08 by rat256]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Rigel
 


An inner sun. Yeah, hey, that's a good one. So tell me, why is it, if we have an inner sun, that these "pole holes" are always dark? Shouldn't the numerous from-space images of out planet show beams of light emanating from both poles? For that matter, why hasn't the Arctic Ocean or the Antarctic ice cap boiled away from the massive amounts of heat and radiation that would be billowing out of these holes?


I thought the answer was so obvious! Because suns are actually made out of rock with a fire atmosphere and are giant electrical batteries. So the interior sun just gives off a static charge not light. Or not as much light. Or something.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DogHead
 


Ow! you just hurt my physics bone, you feind!



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by rat256
reply to post by Rigel
 


can't image the poles??? what, see below!

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

there are weather satellites out there whose whole purpose is to fly in an orbit that takes them over the poles so they can track weather patterns!


Yep. And this one is for the south pole : Holeless Antartica ... Still MOST of polar images are black-spotted, officially, or rather mainstreamly because-of-the-said-explanation... Which I never believed, should I say.



"Given that IMAGE is only interested in effects in the magnetosphere there is a polar region where the magnetic effects are neutral. this is the black dot you see, its a region where nothing that IMAGE is interested in happens!


Are you kidding Mr Rat256 ? Does it cost much to the USA citizen to give the entire picture ?
"

what i mean is that NOTHING happens there to see, whether we wanted to see it or not. The magnetic effects are neutral, if something happened there we'd see it, as nothing does happen there we don't!


Sorry but it's somewhat "why do it simply when one can do it difficultly". The blackspot is there in these NASA vids, and nothing justifies it to be as an artifact.



an inner sun... what? I'm sorry, someone, Olaf Jensen, was clearly not paying attention in geology 101, you can call me mainstream if you like but i'm not buying that. a violent nuclear reaction going on inside the planet? life on earth would simply never have exsisted if that were the case. in fact the planet probably wouldn't exsist either.


Not such a trivial, nuclear-reacting sun, my friend : a Smoking God
. If Earth is hollow and inhabited by 30ft-tall giants, one can conclude that their technology is far above the one of the poor population of dwarfs rantling on the outer crust, sadly exposed to cosmics rays and other galactical risks.
This is somewhat the core of Agartha & Shamballa beliefs, and of the highly-dubious purpose of spreading the hollow earth theory since more than a century - shall it be remind there that many Nazis were fond of the idea ? But if Nazis used to believe in (and tried to engineer some?) UFO's, does it for so dismiss the entire UFO phenomenon... ?

See what I mean ? The Inner Sun could just be a... Giant Bulb !




posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Rigel
 


An inner sun. Yeah, hey, that's a good one. So tell me, why is it, if we have an inner sun, that these "pole holes" are always dark? Shouldn't the numerous from-space images of out planet show beams of light emanating from both poles? For that matter, why hasn't the Arctic Ocean or the Antarctic ice cap boiled away from the massive amounts of heat and radiation that would be billowing out of these holes?


A Giant Bulb. No heat, no beam. Not to mention what's inside the Moon...



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   


Back to the topic as for those NASA datas, the tiny black spot can't be explained by some optical weakness inherent to such a technology as IMAGE sat', does it ?


Easily explained.

The duration of a satellites orbit is a function of its altitude. Most Low Earth Orbiters orbit at ~350 miles. This gives a period of about 90 minutes, or 16 orbits per day.

Subpoint: The point on the earths surface on a direct line between the satellites Center of Gravity and the earths Center of Gravity. Straight down.

If a spacecraft is in a polar orbit, it sees the pole 18 times a day, and it crosses over any other subpoint about once in a zillion years. The satellite orbits, the earth rotates under it, on the next orbit the satellite passes over a different ground track.

If you incline the orbit slightly, the satellite track can be adjusted to repeat itself. It's called a Sun Synchronous orbit.

en.wikipedia.org...

The typical Sun Synchronous orbit puts the spacecraft over the same track on the earths surface every 18 days. So you can track the path of a plume of pollutants, or the progress of a disease affecting the coffee crop in Columbia, et cetera.

Consider this: You have a camera on a tripod above a flat item; a painting. You try to focus on the painting. If you focus on the center, you lose focus at the edges. The edges are at an angle to the center; the distance is greater. If you focus at the edges, you lose focus at the center.

Mount the camera higher. Use a telephoto. You reduce but do not eliminate this effect. Now change the flat item to a sphere. Lens selection is a compromise between surface are viewed and the ability to get fine detail on the surface.

The spacecraft are built for a purpose. They provide regional planners with information they need about their region. Experience has shown that a 150 mile square is a good size for regional planners.

If the spacecraft is in a polar orbit it eyeballs the pole 18 times a day. Who needs an update on the pole 18 times a day?

If the spacecraft is in a sun synchronous orbit it eyeballs the same track on the ground on a regular schedule. A 150 mile wide swath. But it doesn't ever cross the poles. The angle of the orbit and the angle of view of the cameras work out so that the camera does not quite see the pole in the edge of the picture. If the lens on the camera was altered slightly, you would see the poles. But this is not a priority for spacecraft designers.

Hence the tiny black dot at the poles.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I love this theory.

I mean 1000 years ago Earth was flat, now its a sphere, and in 1000 years it will be hollow. Fantastic! It's not impossible.

There is no way to prove it, but these guys keep comming telling us about hollow Earth, who knows.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Pericle
 


reply to post by Researcher
 


Mainstream aloof explanation versus Galilean wisdom intuition : who's next ?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
i dont think this hollow earth thing is true becuase i heard there is a sun is the centre of the earth

a sun is impossible so i think this theory needs more proof



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
This topic is pretty amusing. IT is simple. IF the Earth were empty, then we would simply float away. We know a limited amount of information about gravity. But what we DO know is that mass determines gravity. To keep all our feet on the planet, or even to pull something like the moon and keep it in orbit REQUIRES MASS. SImple 101 stuff. IF we agree then we argue, whats in it. A sun inside the earth? C'mon. At least come up with something like cryptonite to keep the story going. A hollow lightbulb?

Oye, ok listen up... Something with the mass that is required to give out the gravitational pull our earth is giving, would emit energy. OUR SUN DOES NOT EMIT HEAT. IT Emits energy which is then converted over to heat. thus some silly light bulb sun in our earth, that has the mass required but does not give off the energy that would go along with it, makes zero sense.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
wow come on suns in the earth!?! several questions there chief.

1. I guess magma is just excess sunpaste that super heated by elves and pushed up all over the world.

2. secondly those elves seem to scatter at seismic events run all over points in earth and shake tables to make it look like the earth is solid.

3. spinning quite quickly being hollow on both ends and filled with a super dense star in the middle of the earth...... none of those makes sense structurally, in space things want to be a ball not some hollow ellipses.

4.Dont ya think it would be quite difficult to hide a large hole seeing as how thousands fly over it each day?..... o wait i sapose the elves have a cloaking generator staffed by the NWO and operated by Michael Jackson whose power source is dilithium crystals.

this is a blatant statement of ignorance! you can not say well the earth is hollow b/c no ones been there, NONONO just for sayign such ignorant things Bruce Bolt turned over in his grave and i wouldn't put it past haunting you.

all i have to say is... oy, don't they teach science anymore?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Question to those who are half-seriously trying to debunk the bunk that the OP is:

is it really worth the effort? Just say yes. By the way, I am a cyborg from Zeta Reticuli, who is studying ATS for the benefit of Supreme Being Zmorrg, who resides in the center of a giant neutron star.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Okay dudes. Just a big round rock. Eppur, si mueve.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
i find this subject interesting,

and will follow this thread





top topics
 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join