It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hollow Earth : The NASA Proof

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 10:13 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
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.

Please tell Zmorgg hello from everyone at ATS.

I am also fascinated by Inner Earth theories. Why couldn't it exist? Everyone assumes the earth's core is solid, but no one has any proof of that either. We do know that there are caves systems that go extremely deep into the earth. Why not all the way to the center?

This is actually the topic that got me interested in alternative news a few years ago.

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by disgustedbyhumanity

If BouddhaSystem truly buddhist was, we would have heard about Shamballa and would for so worship the King of the World who shines in those Inner Realms from their very Capital. Hey BS, please have a look at the Ferdinand Ossendowsky's story... and give us some news....

Even if we -humanity - are the ultimate God's Image comparing to what we truly know so far about actual Creation and according to the astonishing Teilhard de Chardin's Cosmogenesis (for example) - still we're perhaps just little critters comparing to the Inner Earth inhabitants - who might be responsible, at least partly, of Bible's accounts about some higher God's servants. These one or... those ones...

Not to evoke the Moon. Check out the size of the New Jerusalem according to John in Patmos' Revelation.... (thread to come)

[edit on 30-1-2008 by Rigel]

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 11:11 PM
I really do wonder about the hollow earth theory. I think that there are some really deep caves on this planet, and I can see the possibility of organisms or humanoids living inside the earth. I really want to believe that the earth is hollow, I just wish these so called explorers would stop talking and go inside to reveal the truth.

posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 06:46 PM
It's amazing to me how everyone believes everything in Wikipedia that is published by a lett wing nut who asks for information to be updated by whomever exacts the triuth the publisher needs.

It amazes me further that so many believe everything printed, published, and documented *as in pictures-google earth, blah blah blah) that our government gives us.

I still have a history book from my Granfather that laid claim to an expedition Admiral Byrd made to the north pole where he saw the lush vegetation at the north pole ans surmised he had found the entrance to hollow earth. Why was that removed from the history books?

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 09:27 AM
reply to post by Rigel

lets get together and go

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 02:54 PM
If the earth isnt hollow, then why is it that every photo of either pole taken by either the military, nasa,seti, the navy, and just about every credibale weather forcasting sit online, show this big black dot in this region, and the only explaination is, the photo equiptment can resolve that area?



prove me wrong on this region and the mysterious unresolved "black dot"

posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 11:01 AM

Did it have one of these maps in it?
I apologize if it doesn't post the picture, I've never posted on here before.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by monkeynuts]

posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 06:09 PM
the nazi interest in antarctica and admiral byrd is one of my favorite subjects, cool thread

posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 06:41 PM
The second video whre the aurora seems to come from a frozen lake is facinating. I would like to know why it does that.

posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 06:49 PM
There are more reports of visits to the hollow earth then there are reports of visits to the " core of the earth to see the magma....

here are a few, enjoy.

posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 07:21 PM
I hear a lot of you disclaiming science as being twisted or a lie. Reserve that kind of thinking for some mainstream scientists and not the science. If you have to be convinced about the uncertainty of science why not explore the experimentation leading to the theories. Take some resposibility for what spews out of your thoughts and do your own experimentation with science and see if you can dismiss it's validity. It is unreasonable to bash the science that is easily investigated. If you have no scientific background(meaning you have not understood and tested some basic physics that you should know as a responsible human) then you really have nothing of valued input except to say "I read this somewhere that..". If you have travelled to the center of the earth yourself and have maybe something of value to contribute to those of us less fortunate, then share your story or write your own book.
The earth being more cavernous than previously thought does not equate with hollow earth. Now I have read that while Russia was drilling a couple of miles into the crust they hit some water at a depth that was not thought possible. I believe it was even refered to as a underground stream/river.

[edit on 28/7/08 by bDaedal4ever]

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:53 AM
reply to post by DogHead

R U joking suns made of rock!?!?!?! wow man I should give U a Nobel prize matter in fact let me contact MIT so they can study ur brain

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Researcher
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.

Frankly I think this is a cheap excuse to dismiss any hollow earth theories. There is some evidence, as controversial as it is, to justify testing this hypothesis. I do remember reading a site where valid claims where made in support of hollow earth and valid questions where asked in opposition to mainstream ideology. The link escapes me so I apologize in advance to any interested parties.

I do find it hypocritical to say "Who needs an update on the pole 18 times a day?" when at the same time the american government has commosioned a polar antartic base for the specific reason of conducting experiments.

NASA and the other super-powers are willing/going to spend billions of dollars during the next few decades exploring an "arid, lifeless moon" and perhaps even send men to mars yet they are unwilling to spend a few million to give us some crispy polar shots. Is this logical?

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:18 PM

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?

The Hollow Earth theory doesn't hold that the "Sun" inside the earth is a literal sun...

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 04:21 PM
Hollow earth theories are one thing... but the OP is just off base by about 500 miles that the images of the magnetosphere are "proof".

A magnetic field produces an area of effect similar to a toroid... a shape like a donut. The magnetic poles of the earth reside within the "hole" of the donut.

You realize the solar wind is an electromagnetic effect, yes? Instead of gas molecules as wind on earth, it is electrons and protons ejected as a byproduct of the nuclear reaction of the sun.

As these charged particles pass within a magnetic field, a charge is created in exactly the same manner a dynamo generates electricity. The release of photons from the charged particles that represents the excess charge generated by the electromagnetic interaction is the Aurora Borealis, or Northern Lights. Electrons become more active and shed photons, and protons are ionized and de-ionized, releasing photons to also shed the excess energy generated.

The image you posted is different, however. It is a graphical representation overlay on a composite earth image. The camera that takes that kind of photo is known as an RPI, or Radio Plasma Imager. It creates an image by measuring the varying densities of plasma via radar inspection... in a manner not to dissimilar from how weather radar can indicate the density of rainfall. Plasma densities are greatest at the poles where the electromagnetic interaction with the solar wind is the strongest.

Why is this not proof of a hollow earth? Because you can duplicate it on the ground. 'Nuff said.

This is basic freshman-level college physics in action. No high-minded, complex equations or theories required.

Deny ignorance.

EDIT: you want to support hollow earth theory? What is it that generates the Earth's magentosphere? That is the only riddle posed in the image you posted.

[edit on 6-11-2008 by cogburn]

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 04:28 PM
Lawd have mercy! It don't take a genius to realise that the only thing beneath our feet is seweage. Come on now man. can't believe people are still considering this as a posibility. I mean, yes, there may be some underground nuclear bunker, but that is all they are! A means to avoiding catapstoripic (sp) events on the earths surface. Im sorry but volcanoes are enough reason for me to know there aint nothing under there than mantle.

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 05:27 PM

Originally posted by rat256
reply to post by Rigel

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? ...

by the way, the sun isn't a "violent nuclear reaction"... that's just the most powerful thing that they could think of in the '50's, and it stuck in the science books. our sun is electric! it passes through charged plasma in space, which explains why the surface of the sun is COOLER than it is millions of miles above the surface, and why the deepest recesses of the sun, sunspots, are colder than the surface - why are they cooler if they're closer to the center/inside of the sun?!

Originally posted by no_one817
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.

atmosphere creates gravity!

gravity creates atmosphere!

and the electro-magnetic field creates both!

Earth's atmospheric pressure is 14.7 lbs/sq. inch, which is just enough to hold everything in place on THIS planet... it also happens to be the amount of pressure they use in submarines underwater...

all planets' atmospheres act as a filter system for solar radiation and wavelengths of light, which in turn creates heat within the atmosphere. the whole explanation that the closer a planet is to the sun, the hotter it is, and the further away the colder it is, is bunk.

each planet's atmosphere filters the light accordingly based on what ingredients make up the atmosphere. think about it - how can the sun's heat travel through space anyway? the universe's average temperature is just above absolute zero, and with "nothing" to transfer the heat, how would it reach a planet at all? you're right in saying that it converts energy to heat!

moreover, this new explanation postulates that any planet could have an atmosphere, and therefore some amount of gravity to sustain life!!

oh, and planets don't just "float away" - we're held "soundly" in orbit by a perfectly harmonic equilibrium of frequency and vibration, resonating throughout the electro-magnetic universe!

if you have any questions, PLEASE watch Thunderbolts of the Gods!!

Google Video Link

also, this interview REALLY helps...
Otis T. Carr - interviewed in 1959

i just wanted to clear some things up, because how can humanity progress if we aren't all on the same page?!

...and as for hollow earth, i'd just like to know why Hitler sent around HALF of his entire army to Antarctica during the war... why were they there? what were they "protecting"?? someone still guarding the poles?

here're some related threads:

[edit on 6-11-2008 by adrenochrome]

posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 03:35 AM
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

I heard on youtube that the ''built'' sun was not as hot as our external one, and for the no light coming out of the poles , either its clouds , or traps

Let's go there


posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 09:41 PM
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Frankly I think this is a cheap excuse to dismiss any hollow earth theories.

1) There is ne need to excuse the dismissal of the ridiculous
2) It is, in fact, a statement of fact

I do find it hypocritical to say "Who needs an update on the pole 18 times a day?" when at the same time the American government has commisioned a polar antartic base for the specific reason of conducting experiments... Is this logical?

If you can't see the difference between taking a photograph from 150 miles up 18 times a day, losing the advantage of a sun synchronous orbit in the process,

Versus the benefits of a station on the deck, taking atmospheric pressure and temperature readings 24/7/365, nothing I can say will clarify things for you.

posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 04:14 AM
I just want to correct one thing. Lava does not come, as commonly believed, from the earths supposed mantle but is melted in the crust by movement in the crust. So volcanoes would still be possible in a hollow earth model.

Read this it explains much:

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in