A Case For "The Hollow Earth" Photo/Video

Hello ATSers,
Many of you who are probably rolling your eyes at this title. Allow me to put forth a compendium of reference for this theory. Please keep this to a constructive thread using references to support your point of view. This being said, grab a cup of coffee or a glass of wine, relax, and lets go for a little ride.

Let's start at the beginning. The origins of "The Hollow Earth."

The concept of a "Hollow Earth" has been around a long, long time. Almost every civilized gathering of people have an ethos that includes some type of subterranean existence. The earliest being from the Sumerians. The Sumerians had several different cuneiform that dealt with the underworld. Irkalla being the most notable. The early Upanishads also had a concept of an underworld as well called Naraka. The Aztecs believed in Xibalbá and give rather detailed descriptions. Are these concepts meant to be taken literally? Tough to say. It is quite a coincidence that we have many different civilizations separated by thousands of miles and hundreds of years describing the same concept.

For the sake of keeping this thread grounded let's chaulk all these ancient references up to being myth and lore. Although we can not exclude the possibility, however slight as it may be, that there may be truth behind them.

Before we get into cute maps and city names like Agartha and Shambhala, I want to jump into the hardest part to consider in the "Hollow Earth Theory," which is...well...the Earth being hollow or at least massive cavities. Let us look at other celestial bodies. Is there anything else in space that would corroborate this?

Well of course there is Phobos:



The Crab Pulsar looks as if its spewing material from its poles. What happens when it runs out of energy or mass to eject? Does it just float around hollowed out in a slowly decaying spin?

apod.nasa.gov...

Here is a overhead view of the icy northern pole of Mars. Interesting how the ice seems to be twisting around what appears to be a oblong hole. However you can't really tell if it is a hole from a 2D photo.




Here is a 65 meter hole on the moon. If this is a lava tube it would be bigger than any on Earth. This was found in the Marius Hills region by Japan's Kaguya spacecraft

www.newscientist.com...

Here is a Venus's south pole taken by Mariner 10
2.bp.blogspot.com...

Here is a curious view of Jupiter



So we have a few examples of questionable photos. None these offer proof but allow for us to see that idea of polar openings is not asinine. So let's look at this theory.









And of course we can't forget "The Smokey God" and Admiral Byrd's secret journal.

Here is a previous ATS post that does a great job of weighing both sides.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here are a few interesting points from United States Patent 1096102 posted in Sinter Klass's thread that I'd like to restate. These are quite compelling anomalies that suggest there may be something to this theory.

"1) warmer climate in Polar region
2) eccentric behavior of the compass
3) the peculiar polar lights known respectively as the Aurora Borealis and, in Antarctica, the Aurora Australis

Although the brevity of this article prevents all but a cursory examination of the voluminous available evidence, there are several other categories of proof as well. These include:

4) a dramatic increase in plant and animal life at the far north, also extreme northward bird migrations at the onset of Winter
5) stones, wood, dust, pollen, and mud found both on and imbedded in ice bergs
6) anomalous radio wave behavior in polar region
7) gravitational increase measurable at the Polar Curve, sufficient to cause a significant segregation of salt water and fresh water
8) strange situation of the far north Eskimo, a people with a completely unique language and whose oral tradition states that they originated from much farther north in a warm land of perpetual daylight
9) polar sea depth and strong south-going current in the high Arctic
10) the perfectly fresh mammoths found encased in the ice

A) if, as the official government position postulates, these elephants died during a climate shift from tropical to frigid, it is logical to inquire why didn’t these shivering elephants simply ’pack their trunks’ and move south? or
B) if this alleged climate shift happened suddenly, then why aren’t these ’flash frozen’ pachyderms found alongside the inevitable ’flash frozen’ thousands of acres of forest in which they lived?

11) the peculiar chemistry and mathematics of ice bergs, enormous objects composed of fresh water and which, although there is almost no annual precipitation with which to replace them, travel by the thousands slowly southward to melt every year

The compass has been trying to indicate the true configuration of the Polar regions ever since man first employed this instrument in his quest for those mythical poles. Instead of smoothly leading would be conquerors of the pole to the fabled 90* latitude point, as it must if the official description of the Earth’s geology is correct, the needle starts to perform in an agitated and indecisive fashion in high latitudes. After reaching approximately the 80th parallel, an extraordinary thing begins to occur—the needle starts vertical movement! It is at that stage that the conflicting forces of magnetism and gravity are manifesting themselves.

Concerning the compass, Russian explorer Snegirev writes:
"...the magnetic pole...makes some kind of tricky curve...inconvenience of traveling by compass alone. The arrow would point northward, then suddenly it would veer to the west, and then almost reluctantly it would return to its former position.""

Keep in mind is that the deepest hole ever dug is only 7.5 miles deep.
wiki.answers.com...

With one of the recent "Top Topics" being "Entrance to Agartha" I noticed many are quick to just dismiss this theory like I once did. Let's have some good clean ATS fun with this one. I hope you've enjoyed.

reply to post by QuantumDisciple


Great find!!

This ties in with this:

www.youtube.com...

And so it starts...

So you are stating that there is a star in the centre of the earth? Otherwise the people in the centre would not have any plant life and thus no start to the food chain
I'm also assuming there must be from the perpetual daylight thing.

What do we know about stars, we know that the smallest they can theoretically be to support nuclear fusion is 0.7 Solar masses.
1 solar mass is 332946 earth masses so the smallest mass a star could have is 233062 Earth masses.

How do we account for the fact that the currently understood Mass of the earth is 233062 times less then it should be if there is a star inside it?

Somebody please check my maths if they know more then me (which you most likely do)

Great Find, i gave you S&F for this thread.

I'm always fascinated by the Hollow Earth theory, i've read a lot about it, i'm not saying it's true or anything.
I read Byrds storie a couple of times but have had stange feelings with it, cause in his story it sounds more like Nazi's have hidden basses at the poles. The crosses he saw on the vehicles that contacted him in mid flight, and the voices of the persons inside were all German like in his words..

I also wonder, have there been any expeditions to the poles just for this, i mean expedition just to look for a hollow earth entrance or anything. I've read a website once from Belguim, but can't remember what site it was and if they really did what they were saying (going on expedition to the poles to research on this) but i have'nt heard from them ever again (an other websites did some reports on them but stopped after a couple of weeks) so i don't now if they ever got there..

But i'm still quite intrigued by this subject.

Regards..

reply to post by davespanners


I am certainly not stating there is a "star" in the center of our earth. There is absolutely no evidence to support that.

This is the description given in "Smokey God"

"It is a mock sun," exclaimed my father. "I have read of them; it is called a reflection or mirage. It will soon pass away."

But this dull-red, false sun, as we supposed it to be, did not pass away for several hours; and while we were unconscious of its emitting any rays of light, still there was no time thereafter when we could not sweep the horizon in front and locate the illumination of the so-called false sun, during a period of at least twelve hours out of every twenty-four.

Clouds and mists would at times almost, but never entirely, hide its location. Gradually it seemed to climb higher in the horizon of the uncertain purply sky as we advanced. It could hardly be said to resemble the sun, except in its circular shape, and when not obscured by clouds or the ocean mists, it had a hazy-red, bronzed appearance, which would change to a white like a luminous cloud, as if reflecting some greater light beyond.

We finally agreed in our discussion of this smoky furnace-colored sun, that, whatever the cause of the phenomenon, it was not a reflection of our sun, but a planet of some sort -- a reality.13

13Nansen, on page 394, says: "Today another noteworthy thing happened, which was that about midday we saw the sun, or to be more correct, an image of the sun, for it was only a mirage. A peculiar impression was produced by the sight of that glowing fire lit just above the outermost edge of the ice. According to the enthusiastic descriptions given by many Arctic travelers of the first appearance of this god of life after the long winter night, the impression ought to be one of jubilant excitement; but it was not so in my case. We had not expected to see it for some days yet, so that my feeling was rather one of pain, of disappointment, that we must have drifted farther south than we thought. So it was with pleasure I soon discovered that it could not be the sun itself. The mirage was at first a flattened-out, glowing red streak of fire on the horizon; later there were two streaks, the one above the other, with a dark space between; and from the main top I could see four, or even five, such horizontal lines directly over one another, all of equal length, as if one could only imagine a square, dull-red sun, with horizontal dark streaks across it."

This allegedly happened sometime between 1850-1908. As you can imagine they didn't have the tech we do today and are try to describe something similar to our Sun but quite different.

What it is they are talking about or actually mean would be nothing more than a wild assed guess on my part. Perhaps our Fe core is heated to the point that it glows. The light and heat given off causes life to flourish off the geothermals. Just a wild guess...

Don't see any holes here?

www.globalwarmingart.com...

I wonder if any of the 4000 people living and working on Antarctica has seen any holes?

en.wikipedia.org...

These guys drove to the North pole.

Antarctica is 5405430 square miles. If those 4000 people spread out equally across the continent they would have about 1,350 square miles between them. Even in suitable weather conditions and terrain a large hole could be overlooked.

From what I have researched the polar opening in the north isn't over the pole.

On a map, the perimeter would begin at about 784 miles from Point Barrow, Alaska and the center of the polar opening would be located at 87.7 N Latitude and 142.2 E Longitude (2.3 degrees from the pole). From Point Barrow, Alaska, the perimeter would begin at 784 statute miles. The direction from Point Barrow is a bearing of 2.3 degrees to the left of the geographic north pole.

Cool video though!

I look at it this way. On a potters wheel while making a clay bowl you will notice that as it spins it forces the clay out and away from the center which allows you to hollow out the center of your clay creation. I suspect the same has happened as the Earth and other planets spin.

As for the illuminated Sun in the center, I find it plausible. We live on a planet comprised mostly of water. Water of course is made of Hydrogen and Oxygen. What if somehow Hydrogen separated from the water and collected in the center of the Earth due to the spinning effect? Hydrogen is close to Helium in weight and very light. (Will Hydrogen gravitate toward the center of a centrifuge? I don't know.) If it can and then was ignited could it not be possible to have a mini Sun spinning around in the center of the Earth?

reply to post by QuantumDisciple


That sounds like an interesting book! I'm going to give it a read. Thanks for the info

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
As for the illuminated Sun in the center, I find it plausible. We live on a planet comprised mostly of water. Water of course is made of Hydrogen and Oxygen. What if somehow Hydrogen separated from the water and collected in the center of the Earth due to the spinning effect? Hydrogen is close to Helium in weight and very light. (Will Hydrogen gravitate toward the center of a centrifuge? I don't know.) If it can and then was ignited could it not be possible to have a mini Sun spinning around in the center of the Earth?

No, it can't. First up: water is so plentiful because it is stable. If you could easily get Hydrogen to form from water, we would have no energy problems, ever. We could just burn it all the time, to form water. But to get Water to give up it's Hydrogen , you would need to somehow reverse the formation of water. So the energy you get from burning it would be the Activation Energy to get the Hydrogen back. This is, really, an enormous amount of energy, hence it is difficult for us to do.
Second: Hydrogen is lighter than air, which means that in a gravitational field, it 'floats' above anything heavier. Which just so happens to be everything else, as Hydrogen gas, H2, has a Molecular weight of 2. Helium is twice as heavy. So Hydrogen floats off into space.
For some sort of Hollow Sphere, spinning so as to create gravity inside it (but only along the equator), then it might go to the middle, or at least the entire axis of rotation from "North Pole", to "South Pole". (This incidentally, is basically why a True Dyson Sphere is unrealistic). It wouldn't go to the middle, and even if it did, a previous poster stated the fact that you need 0.7 Solar masses to initiate Fusion to create a star. And fusion liberates a lot more energy than burning it does. So no, this doesn't work.


Now, as to the Original Post:

Phobos is not hollow, those are just craters. If it were hollow those impacts would have obliterated it, impact events have enormous energy contexts, somewhere in the Megatons to Gigatons of TNT or so. Such energetic impacts have a tendency to melt or fracture catastrophically the things they involve. Phobos would need to be solid for that not to happen.

Pulsars are highly dense spheres of neutrons, which are packed so tight that if they were much denser they would form a black hole. Their mass is that of a normal star (ie the Sun), and their radius somewhere around a milliont of the Sun. Under such conditions, you would need a material so strong as to be physically impossible to be created by the Electromagnetic Force.

The picture of Mars, I can't see a hole, it looks like a valley, maybe.

The Moon 'hole', looks like an image artifact. You'd need a high res image to actually tell.

Venus, not really sure, but I doubt it's a hole. More likely to be where they didn't actually take a picture of, which is probably the case given that it's supposedly taken by Mariner 10, which only flew past Venus.

Jupiter, seems to be calm at the poles, likeley because there is less centripetal effect there.

The final thing I'm going to say is this: gravity does not allow you to stand on the inisde of a hollow sphere. gravity pulls you toward the middle, effectively. It always, effectively, comes from a single point, like the singularity in a black hole. You cannot create a three dimensional point to have gravity pull you towards it. If Earth spun fast enough to give a habitable ring on the inside, there would be no way gravity could stick us the outside.

Originally posted by apex
The final thing I'm going to say is this: gravity does not allow you to stand on the inisde of a hollow sphere. gravity pulls you toward the middle, effectively. It always, effectively, comes from a single point, like the singularity in a black hole. You cannot create a three dimensional point to have gravity pull you towards it. If Earth spun fast enough to give a habitable ring on the inside, there would be no way gravity could stick us the outside.

Is this your theory? Do you have any reference that proves this? The latest I've read still have not accounted for all the anomalies and descrepancies found in Newton's law of universal gravitation. Gravity is still a mystery, that hopefully CERN will solve.

I want my Hoverboard!

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
Is this your theory? Do you have any reference that proves this? The latest I've read still have not accounted for all the anomalies and descrepancies found in Newton's law of universal gravitation. Gravity is still a mystery, that hopefully CERN will solve.

No, that was Physics, as taught to about A level in the UK. Gravity is not really a mystery at a Macroscopic scale. Yes, on a quantum scale it doesn't explain everything, but thats so far removed from large scale physics of planets as to be irrelevent here.

Think about it, we can see the Universe and for everything we see the basic laws of physics are obeyed. CERN is trying to recreate conditions present in the Big Bang, where the Four Fundamental forces were effectively one. Considering the energy required to do this on a small scale (compared to something earth sized), I can't see how you could bend Gravity to attract things to the inside of a hollow sphere. But, if you know of something that can do that, by all means, show me.

Oh, something I missed out earlier. A star (or whatever) at the centre of a hollow sphere will not be in a stable position relative to the sphere, and would need constant amendments to it's position, IIRC.

see: en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
...lets go for a little ride.

Thank you for an awesome ride. I don't believe in the "Hollow Earth" theory, but I'm certainly open to it. I think it's a fascinating theory and like I've said once before, I'd LOVE to go on a huge expedition to find out if it's for real or not. Because even if it's not, we'd have blown a ton of cash and had an awesome time doing so.

Bookmarked (and starred/flagged) for future reference!

Originally posted by apex
No, that was Physics, as taught to about A level in the UK. Gravity is not really a mystery at a Macroscopic scale. Yes, on a quantum scale it doesn't explain everything, but thats so far removed from large scale physics of planets as to be irrelevent here.

"As above so below"

Here are some examples of gravity anomalies observed it the macrocosm.

home.netcom.com...

Extra fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed.

Pioneer anomaly: The two Pioneer spacecraft seem to be slowing down in a way which has yet to be explained

Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater accelerations during slingshot maneuvers than expected.

Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all, however this conclusion is disputed.

Anomalous increase of the astronomical unit: Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are widening faster than if this was solely through the sun losing mass by radiating energy.

Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales

Dark flow: Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass. Such a large mass is too large to have accumulated since the Big Bang using current models and may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.

Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.

I feel these examples alone are enough to call your advanced UK understanding of gravitation a theory not a fact. You will know when we fully understand gravity by when we fully understand anti-gravity. Perhaps this is part of the reason we are still using the same aerospace tech from 70's.

reply to post by apex



You can easily get Hydrogen from water. It's called electrolysis using a Hydrogen generator. With negative and positive leads from dc current, two pieces of metal and salt you can separate it right in your kitchen. That is why they haven't brought out Hydrogen engines because you could refill them on your own. How do you know something like this isn't probable in nature?

Not to divert from the OP but here is a video showing how.

Hydrogen Generator

In the video he uses the tube method. I prefer the double helix because it generates way more Hydrogen than he demonstrates.

Thank you for your input but I still think a Hydrogen Sun in the middle of the Earth is plausible.

Read the following when first published and it made me wonder about the hollow earth theory.

newsvote.bbc.co.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Arctic dips as global waters rise

By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News
15 June 2006

There is little that can be done at present, however, to address the caveat in satellite altimetry's view of the Arctic - the "hole" in the data above 82 degrees; no spacecraft flies above this latitude. This gap was to have been filled by the Cryosat mission, but it was lost on launch last year. A replacement platform, Cryosat-2, will not fly until 2009.

The hollow earth theory would also account for the lack of matter left behind from the destruction of Maldek.

The supposed planet which is now the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

From what I saw in that video, they just drove around Baffin island for a few minutes of footage scaring the polar bears. Besides if the hollow earth theory is sound and an advanced race lives within our wonderful planet - Would they not take appropriate measures to ensure that the entrance was cleverly disguised?

Or perhaps it is left open, somewhere in the poles.

Until the government is transparent, we wont know.


-G

reply to post by Gradius Maximus


Maldeck/Marduk as described by Z. Sitchin? That brings about a different rabbit hole. If you had exiled Annunaki on this planet, trying to hide from their superiors or hide from a disasterous event, where do you think they would hide?

One of the biggest problems I have with polar openings is plate tectonics.

Great thread. I look forward to Zorgon's comments as he seems as passionate about this subject as anyone on here.

In reply to the above poster: Hollow minds belong to those who don't have an inkling of curiosity about their existence, not the other away around.