It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Hmm, honestly i want to beleive you, but it does sound EXACTLY like what someone spreading disinfo would say...
And just like everything i read or hear, im not gonna just take "your" word for it, that would be just as dumb as beleiving any one theory without firsthand proof.
And thats the funny thing about this site and conspiracies in general, No matter what someone says or what proof they have, we all want firsthand proof and in the end, your proof, is nothing more than a few little grey words on a page, that mean about as much to me as any fictional book.
Originally posted by Tsurugi
Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
Amazing that we WANT to spend MILLIONS trying to stop/help FOOLS, but let people suffer poverty all over the world, including here in New Zealand!
we should just STOP responding when they get in distress...SINK OR SWIM. Don't make it OUR problem.
...as opposed to poverty, which is fine to make our problem? I don't get it.
Originally posted by LongbottomLeaf
When I was kid I remember my grandfather saying the further inland you go there is less snow and ice it gives way to plains of rock and sand. Sometime in the 40's after he got back from the pacific he changed commands and got sent on some trip there when he was in the navy. Now as I'm older I read about it and whaddya know pops was telling us the truth
Originally posted by Cassius666
How did the earh become hollow? You have a gasball that condensates to mass, how does it go on to become hollow? There is 30 to 50 Km of Crust that can house a cave system. That is up to 5 times mount everest. It does not make the earth hollow.edit on 26-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)
Could there be any logical reason for thinking that a planet might be hollow? The only possibility which comes to mind is that a spinning sphere might become hollow naturally. This was originally suggested to me by John Flora, who joined my Internet list. Scientists believe stars and planets formed from huge clouds of dust in space. Gravity caused them to condense. Then they started spinning and eventually became spheres. If this is the case then, like an ice skater, these stars and planets would have spun ever faster as they contracted. This would be dictated by the law of conservation of angular momentum. However, the solar system tells a different story. It is not the smallest planets which spin the fastest, but the largest ones. The Earth rotates om 24 hours, and many of the planets smaller than it rotate even slower. Jupiter, the largest planet, which has a diameter more than ten times that of the Earth spins about its axis in a mere 10 hours. This is not what one would expect from condensed, solid planets. John pointed out that this is also true of the different types of stars. The larger ones spin faster than the smaller ones. He believes that it can be shown mathematically that a high rate of rotation would cause a spherical body to expand until it reaches a point of maximum inertial stability. In an e-mail dated 15 Feb 1998, he explained in part, “As I said earlier, the maximum moment of inertia for a rotating sphere to spin stably is that of a hollow sphere. . .” He suggested that the planets and stars be regarded as “tornadoes in space.” He explained: “This smaller size – slower rotation, bigger size – faster rotation relationship of planets and stars rotations is exactly what you would think if the planets and stars were created hollow however!" Because, according to spherical shell dynamic theory, the planets and stars were created out of convection currents between warm and cool regions of space, swirling the particles into whirling, twirling tornadoes of particles. In the zero-gravity of space these tornadoes took on the shape of spheres with open poles, and the faster they were rotating, the larger they became! John’s logic also suggests that Hollow Planets must have Polar Holes of some kind. He pointed out that there was a point at which centrifugal force and gravity balance. Gravity, (as we shall see later, is zero at the centre of the Earth (or any hollow sphere). All mathematical exercises show that if one could suspend an object at the centre of the Earth, then it would be weightless. So when a forming planet rotates, the matter at its core will be flung away from the centre. Gravity however, increases as one moves away from the centre of a planet because there is more matter “below” it. So a point is reached whereupon gravity is stronger than the centrifugal force, and the expansion then stops. One thus ends up with a hollow spinning sphere. Hollow Moon? The idea of Hollow Planets seems to have found a home for itself among Russian scientists more than anybody else. In this century Russians have twice suggested that planetary bodies might be hollow. The first was the suggestion that one of the moons of Mars was hollow. The second was when two senior scientists from the Soviet Academy of Sciences (as it was then known) suggested that our Moon was hollow. In the mid-1970s Vasin and Shcherbakov from the Soviet Academy of Sciences suggested that the Moon was a huge alien spaceship! No one really knows how the Moon came into being. If the Moon and Earth formed together in orbit, why are the surface materials of these two worlds so dissimilar? There are also some rocks found on the Moon which might be older than the Earth. Perhaps the Moon came from elsewhere? Perhaps even from outside our solar system. Many scientists have suggested that. According to all calculations and models produced by scientists, the chances of a successful capture of the Moon by the Earth as a mere random event is one in billions. How could the Earth have captured the Moon against such odds? That is why these two Russian scientists suggested that the Moon was steered into orbit by intelligent beings – who perhaps are no longer around. Or perhaps they still live there inside the Moon? Why a hollow Moon then? Apollo 12 placed the first seismometer on an alien world. NASA did not expect many Moon quakes. They expected the Moon to be seismically dead.
Originally posted by ConspiraCity
A) how do you explain plate tectonics?
B) how do you explain gravity
C) how do you explain magma?
That alone should make you realize how idiotic this notion is.
3. 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 via friction. 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.