Members,
Here is the Agharta Map.
Is Shambhala supposed to be below Kentucky? Somebody tell Col. Sanders!
DD
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Agharta Map/Churcward
Map
(To all) After printing and
carefully studying the AGHARTA Map, I compared it with
the following Earth
"Map" below by James Churchward...
CROSS SECTION OF EARTH
AT THE EQUATOR WITH WATER
AND ATMOSPHERE BEING
FORMED.
(Probably viewed
from the North Pole looking down)
from Page 33 of
James Churchward's "COSMIC FORCES OF MU," book two.
Diffcult to scan. Originally a pencil drawing.
Note the GREAT HOLLOW
(A) shown, at first was filled with lighter and non-solidifying
"free" volcanic gases at Earth's
beginning...
CHURCHWARD'S
EXPLANATION OF ABOVE MAP OF EARLY EARTH:
A. CENTRAL
GASES.... B. MOLTEN MATTER... C. GRANITE ROCK...
Not shown in above, the gas chambers or pockets of non-solidifying
explosive gases that formed as bubbles within the solidifying granite
rocks, fully half the volume of the original crust, Churchward
estimated. Same type of gases filling the Hollow
center... 4. GNEISS ROCK - laid down later in
layers, stratified... E. WATER... F. WATER AND ATMOSPHERE
(Steam.)
Over many millions of
years, Earth's centrifugal force gradually drove these gases OUT of
the center, into and through the MOLTEN LAYER (B) above and into the
still hot and soft UNstratified primary GRANITE - that had formed
through fusion. (C).
The many lower gas pockets
that had already formed in the granite were filled to capacity and
could accept no more The central gases were forced upward through
vertical cracks and fissures that opened (everywhere) through
contraction as the granite rocks cooled.
Those gases in the lowest
pockets were also driven upward by Earth's unmeasurable centrifugal
force. These ADDED volumes of gases from below, entered and
OVER-COMPRESSED the upper gas chambers just under the surface,
forcing their "roofs" above the waters for periods of time.
Eventually the roofs were forced even higher, becoming thinner and
thinner and could no longer stand the strain. The roofs burst open as
volcanic cones, emptying the chamber gases into the atmosphere The
bolstering gases gone, the cones and chamber "roofs" would
collapse to the chamber "floors." Water poured in to fill
the hole. The weight of the water compressed the rocks of the
fallen roof and floor, adding new layers of SEDIMENTARY ROCK to
Earth's thickening crust.
HE believers, consider
this... Once the free gases had been worked out of the HOLLOW center
in my above picture of Earth, perhaps it was at that stage of
Earth's LATER development that a SECOND inner crust - with
water and atmosphere, may have developed inside similar to how the
outside crust developed. Its a stretch but may have happened IF the
HE (and occupants) are physically real! After development of that
inside crust, men and animals may have begun to enter and populate
the Hollow Earth. The occupants had to BEGIN at some point in
time. Anyone got a better logical idea when and how life may have
begun in the hollow?
- Dick Fojut
(But PLEASE don't refer to that AGHARTA map as
evidence. WHO illustrated - and wrote all the little details on
that AGHARTA map? I hope something like that didn't come from
Etidorpha or Bernard's book! I could offer a thorough analysis
of the Agharta Map (but won't at this time) which seems to me to have
been "conceived" by a grade school mind with scant knowledge of
even orthodox geology! Waiting to read OTHER list opinions
about it.)
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Agharta Map/Churcward Map
Dick Wrote:
( But PLEASE don't refer to that AGHARTA map as evidence. WHO illustrated - and wrote all the little details on that AGHARTA map? I hope something like that didn't come from Etidorpha or Bernard's book! I could offer a thorough analysis of the Agharta Map (but won't at this time) which seems to me to have been "conceived" by a grade school mind with scant knowledge of even orthodox geology! Waiting to read OTHER list opinions about it.)
Yeah, I have my doubts about the authenticity of that map. As something just to popularize the notion, it's ok, though, but I don't know if anyone can say that Shambhala is in the part below Kentucky.
Dharma/Dean
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Agharta Map/Churcward Map
Dick,
I'll make a few comments on the following-
First of all, the origin of the HE is not so important as it existence, although I think that it is good that we consider it's origin, too.But we might disagree there, and to dwell on it would be like finding yourself about to be run over by a Mack truck and standing there wondering how you got into that situation in the first place. Once you are there, just get out of the way!
The centrifugal force which opened up the cavity in the first place would have distributed mass along the equator and left the axial points thin, at least. Any buildup of super hot gaes within would have quickly burst out forming the polar openings, so I don't see how the gases would have forced their way through the inner surface to the inner crust. But the gases in the cavity would not have to have bursted open the orifice- it probably would have opened up due to the centrifugal force, denying any buildup of gases in the cavity in the first place.
That doesn't mean, however, that gases were not active in the inner crust and that they didn't open up tunnel and chambers and cavern worlds, so I'll give Churchward credit there. I hadn't even thought ofthe role of gases in this regard.
Dharma/Dean
···
** CHURCHWARD'S EXPLANATION OF ABOVE MAP OF EARLY EARTH:**
A. CENTRAL GASES... . B. MOLTEN MATTER... C. GRANITE ROCK ... Not shown in above, the gas chambers or pockets of non-solidifying explosive gases that formed as bubbles within the solidifying granite rocks, fully half the volume of the original crust, Churchward estimated. Same type of gases filling the Hollow center... 4. GNEISS ROCK - laid down later in layers, stratified... E. WATER... F. WATER AND ATMOSPHERE (Steam.)
Over many millions of years, Earth's centrifugal force gradually drove these gases OUT of the center, into and through the MOLTEN LAYER (B) above and into the still hot and soft UNstratified primary GRANITE - that had formed through fusion. (C).
The many lower gas pockets that had already formed in the granite were filled to capacity and could accept no more The central gases were forced upward through vertical cracks and fissures that opened (everywhere) through contraction as the granite rocks cooled.
Those gases in the lowest pockets were also driven upward by Earth's unmeasurable centrifugal force. These ADDED volumes of gases from below, entered and OVER-COMPRESSED the upper gas chambers just under the surface, forcing their "roofs" above the waters for periods of time. Eventually the roofs were forced even higher, becoming thinner and thinner and could no longer stand the strain. The roofs burst open as volcanic cones, emptying the chamber gases into the atmosphere The bolstering gases gone, the cones and chamber "roofs" would collapse to the chamber "floors." Water poured in to fill the hole. ** The weight of the water compressed the rocks of the fallen roof and floor, adding new layers of SEDIMENTARY ROCK to Earth's thickening crust.**
HE believers, consider this... Once the free gases had been worked out of the HOLLOW center in my above picture of Earth, perhaps it was at that stage of Earth's LATER development that a SECOND inner crust - with water and atmosphere, may have developed inside similar to how the outside crust developed. Its a stretch but may have happened IF the HE (and occupants) are physically real! After development of that inside crust, men and animals may have begun to enter and populate the Hollow Earth. The occupants had to BEGIN at some point in time . Anyone got a better logical idea when and how life may have begun in the hollow?
- Dick Fojut
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Agharta Map/Churcward Map
···
From: Dean
To: List Members
Re: Truths about Hollow Mars: http://skyboom.com/hollowearthpuranas/index15.html
The traditional idea that the public has in relation to the ice caps is that they are rather thick and that they accumulate during the Martian winters and melt during the Martian summers. However, it can be seen that, in the first picture, the northern depression/crater is empty. This indicates that the ice had melted, which suggests that the crater does not fill to the brim with accumulated ice in the first place. How could it be that such a tremendous quantity of ice could accumulate every winter, only to melt away again during the summer and leave the crater empty? How much water would be involved to accumulate in a crater which is hundreds of miles wide and many, many miles deep? This would be something akin to having the entire ice sheet on Antartica build up and melt every year. Where would such an amount of water/ice come from? Mars is presented to us as a mostly dry planet, supposedly with no rivers or lakes. The Martian atmosphere is said to have only 2% of the density of the Earth’s atmosphere, so it could not be laden with much moisture given this model. Even on the Earth, a planet which is 2/3 covered with water, we cannot imagine such a phenomenal amount of accumulation and melting taking place over the span of a year.
If the depression were largely filled with ice which melts, we would have to witness the water draining out and sloshing here and there. Astronomers have ventured the explanation that the water may be quickly absorbed by cracks and crevices, such that we simply have never observed it drain, but that would be a lot of water to disappear unperceived. Is such an explanation reasonable?
The above photograph [ Attached ] suggests that the ice- were it ice- is relatively shallow in the depression, only coming to the brim on one side, and way below the brim on the other. Other photos, however, show the depression full to the brim on all sides. We cannot accept that it is accumulated ice which is responsible for this, for the reasons which we have just gone over.
Therefore, we can concludes that the polar depression is principally filled by cloud cover which accumulates every winter. The clouds fill in the polar depression and stay put in that area. This fits in well with Gardner’s theory that it was cloud cover which is actually seen at the pole. And where does thick, heavy cloud cover come from on a planet whose atmosphere is only 2% of that of Earth’s? The traditional, solid-planet model does not explain this cloud phenomenon in any suitable way.
The Hollow Planet Theory offers a tenable explanation; that the clouds result from the warmer atmosphere from the interior of the planet in contact with the colder, outer atmosphere. Although there is no gaping hole seen in any NASA images of Mars, the picture above shows crevices which can allow the passage of humid air and clouds from within the planet. The Martian polar depression, then, is the threshold of an opening to the interior of the planet.
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Agharta Map/Churcward Map
Members,
The issue about clouds across the hollow opening is a very crucial one for the Hollow Earth Theory.
Frode recently suggested that there is a bottle-neck of soft particles at the openings which tends to reflect light downwards, back in. I agree with Frode- I imagine that this is the principal cause of the non-passage of visible light through the opening.
Clouds only exist several miles above the Earth's atmosphere, so our conventional understanding of science doesn't allow us to imagine that the clouds stretch across an opening hundreds of miles wide at the neck. It is probably for this reason that some hollow earthers, in recent years, have contented themselves with a model in which the opening is rather narrow and which could be covered by clouds. They have even minimised the inward-sloping curvature, which begins far out from the neck, and have explained phenomena indicative of it in other ways.
But I have been thinking about this conundrum and have come up with an additional explanation. First keep two things in mind- according to Mr. Cater, the soft particles possess a slight, negative charge, although the water and air molecules possess a slight positive charge ( not recognised by science ). Does this mean that the flow of soft particles through the neck could pull mist across the neck AT DISTANCES FROM THE GROUND WHERE CLOUDS DON'T NORMALLY EXIST, and impede the light from the inner sun in this way?
I'm sure that the non-passage of light is due to a combination of factors, not just one.
I invite comments and reality checks, especially from Frode.
Dharma/Dean
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Agharta Map/Churcward Map
Some of Mr. Cater's comments on the hollow condition are attached above.
His book is available at: http://www.healthresearchbooks.com/Authors/joseph_cater.htm
Dharma/Dean
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Churchward's
Explanation
Dick,
I'll make a few comments
on the following-
First of all, the origin
of the HE is not so important as it existence, although I think that
it is good that we consider it's origin, too.But we might disagree
there, and to dwell on it would be like finding yourself about to be
run over by a Mack truck and standing there wondering how you got
into that situation in the first place. Once you are there, just get
out of the way!
Dean (here we go again with
comments to comments, etc,)...
In my opinion it IS important to be able to understand HOW
hollows came to form inside planets. Skeptics (most scientists
and ordinary people) will remain skeptics if we cannot offer a
reasonable explanation for the phenomenon. If you can't rationally
and reasonable answer "HOW could a giant hollow form in the
Earth?," they'll give no credence to anything further you say.
Being UNABLE to answer that question by a skeptic could be very like
getting hit by a Mack truck. - Dick
The centrifugal force which opened up the cavity in the first place would have
distributed mass along the equator and left the axial points thin, at
least. Any buildup of super hot gaes within would have quickly burst
out forming the polar openings, so I don't see how the gases would
have forced their way through the inner surface to the inner crust.
But the gases in the cavity would not have to have bursted open the
orifice- it probably would have opened up due to the centrifugal
force, denying any buildup of gases in the cavity in the first
place.
Dean... Now
you're posing the kind of questions an enquiring SKEPTIC would
ask... Agreed, centrifugal force would have left the axial points
thin - or THINNER. The soft initial molten mass (the granite not
yet cooled and solidified) would tend to form a "drop" of the
matter inward or into a flattened "cup" shape at the poles
(as exists today). The hot gases didn't "buildup" in the hollow.
They were non-solidifying type, "lighter" gases that were worked
to the center from the original hot nebula by the CENTRIPETAL force
(finger of God? - my analogy). They were thus CONTAINED within the
forming crust. They didn't "buildup."
Consider (I
think it most probable) that originally there were NO POLAR
OPENINGS. The ends were sealed over with all sides of the forming
molten crust. Polar openings may have come into being long
AFTER the granite primary crust rocks and gneiss rocks were
solidified to form a relatively thick, solid crust. BUT if, as you
describe, polar holes existed at the start, yes, the hot gases
probably would have burst out and escaped. And this planet may never
have come into being, as Churchward pictured it. Now I'm the
skeptic, Dean.... HOW do you imagine the planet and crust containing
hot volcanic gases and a thick molten area deep down , came to be?
And how did an atmosphere form into the HE middle?
Volumes of those lighter
gases were "trapped" inside, along with the heavier solidifying,
rock-forming gases, when the first line of crystals cooled and
combined to form Earth's beginning outer crust. The gases were
"sealed" inside the forming outer crust.
Churchward evidently first made a thorough study of Earth's rocks.
Only certain percentages and proportions of the universally needed
OXYGEN gases, for example, could be absorbed by the "heavier"
gases to combine and build the primary granite foundation rock
(remember, the primary granite was made up of six elements only). And
some of those encased lighter gases - like hydrogen, nitrogen,
sulfur, etc (explosive type gases when combined) were NOT rock-making
gases. They remained free as gases. But they were PRESENT in
the center AND within the hardening granite rock crust. They had to
be accounted for. But if polar holes opened earlier, a lot of those
gases in the center cavity MAY have escaped outside.
If
Churchward was correct, the entire center Hollow was AT FIRST filled
with these gases - AND also inside the cooling, hardening, molten
mass of the crustal granite itself. They formed small and giant
gas BUBBLES as the granite solidified around them.. Even if the gases
in Earth's hollow center had escaped sooner than he conceived through
polar holes as you picture it, the gas bubbles remained within the
solidifying granite (50% of its volume if Churchward estimated
correctly). And Earth's centrifugal force gradually drove them upward
through the cracks and crevices.
I'm
speculating that many of the lowest chambers in the crust have long
ago been emptied of their original gases.. IF the "source" of
gravity deep in the crust pulling, is neutralized by the internal
centrifugal; force throwing away, I see no problem conceiving that
those deep, but now empty chambers, will hold and not be crushed
flat, as orthodoxy might believe. In most arguments of orthodox
thinkers, they forget Earth's great centrifugal force is
"neutralizing" or countering the PULL of Earth's magnet on
elements. - Dick
That doesn't mean, however, that gases were not
active in the inner crust and that they didn't open up tunnel and
chambers and cavern worlds, so I'll give Churchward credit there. I
hadn't even thought oft he role of gases in this regard.
Again, Dean, if
Churchward correctly described the role of gases in changing and
developing the outside crust ...something similar may have gone on
with an inner hollow crust, but in some sort of reverse order.
But if mountains on the outer crust are raised up centrifugal force
driving gases through over-compressed subterranean gas tunnels, I
have difficulty imaging how mountains could be "uplifted" inside.
There is no centrifugal force driving the gases "inward" into the
hollow center, "raising" the rocks into mountains as on the
surface. That causes me to be SKEPTICAL about stories that depict
mountains and mountain ranges on inside hollow surface..
You haven't
read Churchward about this yet, but until (no earlier) than 20,000
years past, it is his opinion there was probably no land anywhere on
earth higher than 100 feet above sea level. All land was a little
above or a little below sea level. He gives all the details why, but
in brief it was because prior to that (really recent date in
history), the driven gases could still directly easily puncture the
surface rocks and escape.
He points to the amazing fact (if he was right) that prior to that
date, the vegetation was all SWAMP GROWTH variety. Swamps are
found near sea level. He asserted that geology and the other sciences
can find no evidence of MOUNTAIN VEGETATION or MOUNTAIN ANIMALS prior
to 20,000 years back. And only swamp growth and swamp animals for the
millions of years prior. As long as land could still be submerged
(Swamps and ridges dropping to the floors of the emptied out gas
chambers holding them just above the surface of the oceans), no gas
belts would form and thus no mountains or high ground would be raised
above the belts.
I
can grasp how this could happen on the outside crust, but not on an
inner crust. A reasonable explanation for comparable changes on the
inner crust is beyond my imagination. Have you any explanation?
- Dick Fojut
···
Dharma/Dean
CHURCHWARD'S EXPLANATION OF ABOVE MAP OF EARLY
EARTH:
A.
CENTRAL GASES.... B. MOLTEN MATTER... C. GRANITE
ROCK... Not shown in above, the gas chambers or pockets of
non-solidifying explosive gases that formed as bubbles within the
solidifying granite rocks, fully half the volume of the original
crust, Churchward estimated. Same type of gases filling the Hollow
center... 4. GNEISS ROCK - laid down later in
layers, stratified... E. WATER... F. WATER AND ATMOSPHERE
(Steam.)Over many millions
of years, Earth's centrifugal force gradually drove these gases OUT
of the center, into and through the MOLTEN LAYER (B) above and into
the still hot and soft UNstratified primary GRANITE - that had formed
through fusion. (C).
The many lower gas
pockets that had already formed in the granite were filled to
capacity and could accept no more The central gases were forced
upward through vertical cracks and fissures that opened (everywhere)
through contraction as the granite rocks cooled.
Those gases in the
lowest pockets were also driven upward by Earth's unmeasurable
centrifugal force. These ADDED volumes of gases from below, entered
and OVER-COMPRESSED the upper gas chambers just under the surface,
forcing their "roofs" above the waters for periods of time.
Eventually the roofs were forced even higher, becoming thinner and
thinner and could no longer stand the strain. The roofs burst open as
volcanic cones, emptying the chamber gases into the atmosphere The
bolstering gases gone, the cones and chamber "roofs" would
collapse to the chamber "floors." Water poured in to fill
the hole. The weight of the water compressed the rocks of the
fallen roof and floor, adding new layers of SEDIMENTARY ROCK to
Earth's thickening crust.HE believers,
consider this... Once the free gases had been worked out of the
HOLLOW center in my above picture of Earth, perhaps it was at that
stage of Earth's LATER development that a SECOND inner crust -
with water and atmosphere, may have developed inside similar to how
the outside crust developed. Its a stretch but may have happened IF
the HE (and occupants) are physically real! After development of that
inside crust, men and animals may have begun to enter and populate
the Hollow Earth. The occupants had to BEGIN at some point in
time. Anyone got a better logical idea when and how life may have
begun in the hollow?
- Dick
Fojut`To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
`
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to theYahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Churchward's Explanation
···
To: Members
From: Dean
I am cross-posting from Mike Mott's list:
Dean,
All of the facts here are absolutely accurate and documented,
except for one: Mars is considerably smaller than the Earth,
rather than larger. Probably just a typo on Cater's part.--Mike
Mike,
No, Mr. Cater feels that Mars is larger than what conventional astronomy tells, and that all the planets, even the Moon, are larger. Let me explain. For one thing, he points to Olympus Mons. One of those probes that went to Mars ( I don't have the book with me, I'm doing this from memory ) measured the base of Olympus Mons and reported that it was 375 miles wide. This info is reliable because the measurement was taken from right there, orbiting above. But a width of 375 miles would make Olympus Mons about 11 % of the diameter of the planet. The diameter of Mars is supposed to be 4219 miles, so 4219 divided by 375 = 11. This is not so. You all can look at any good maps of Mars and you will see that Olympus Mons does not cover anything like 11 % of the planet's diameter.
Rule of thumb tells you that it is about 3 %. When you do a cross product, 375 miles being about 3 % gives a true diameter of 12,500 miles. We are rounding and estimating, but there is a huge difference between a diameter of 4219 miles and 12,000 or so miles! The Earth has a dimater of 7926 miles, so just imagine.
But to our view from the Earth through telecopes, and from Earth-based radar bouncing, this does not seem to be the case; Mars is measured as being much smaller. Mr. Cater explains that there is a soft particle medium in the cosmos, what to speak of in the solar system, which is exerting a refractive effect on light which makes objects seem much farther away and smaller. I have this in a file, this is from page 190 - 194 of The Awesome Life Force:
" There are several factors which astrophysicists and astronomers have not taken into consideration in their calculations. Perhaps the most important of these is the fact that all electromagnetic radiaitons, including gravity in free space, suffer an attenuation affect, well beyond that due to the inverse square law. It has already been shown that all space occupied by the material universe is permeated with soft and hard particles of all kinds that have been radiated by planetary systems for countless ages. This principle is demonstrated by fluctuations in the velocity of light to be discussed soon and the gravity attenuation that prevents the roofs of giant caverns deep inside the earth from caving in, as mentioned earlier. It also follows that there is a steady decline in the velocity of light as it travels through space. The reasons become apparent from the following considerations.
Normal light, or light which has traveled relativey short distances from its source, immediately resumes its original velocity, after passing through a dense medium, such as glass or water. As shown earlier, this is due to the close bunching of photons and soft electrons in any given ray. The concentration of particles in a ray of light tends to decrease after traveling great distances. The farther it travels, the more attenuated the ray becomes. This means that its ability to increase its velocity after passing from a medium of a given density, to one less dense will be reduced. This, of course, is due to the scattering and dissipation of particles within the ray, as it encounters the conglomeration of particles, moving in random directions throughout space.
Since conglomerations of soft particles permeate all known space, and the distribution is not uniform, it follows that light will experience refraction effects, even when passing through free space. Therefore, even under the best conditions with observations beyond the atmosphere, astronomical observations cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. The difficulty, of course, is compounded when they are made inside the atmosphere. It is a small wonder that Charles Fort found a wealth of evidence that completely debunked the astronomers' claims of great precision.
The fluctuation in soft particle distribution and the refraction effects of the atmosphere rules out the possibility of averaging out errors by making many observations and applying the mathematical method of least squares, developed by the mathematician Gauss. Conventional statistical theory obliterates actual small variances and distorts data by such averaging out processes. The gross errors that crop up despite these methods speak for themselves."
On page 195 he says:
" Another factor that leads astronomers astray is the fact that higher frequency light is refracted more by a lens than the lower frequencies. As a result, an image is magnified to a greater extent if the object is illuminated with higher frequency light. Light that is attenuated, in the manner described earlier, such as losing velocity, being scattered, and being brought to lower frequencies by the redistribution law, will have a tendency to be refracted less, the farther it travels. Each of these three factors is by itself sufficient to produce this effect. Together they compound it. Consequently, the image of a distant planet will not be magnified by a telescope, to the extent that the power would indicate. As a consequence, the planet will seem to be more distant than it actually is.
The eye, which contains a lens, will play the same kind of trick and produce the same effect, but to a lesser extent, than with a telescope. A
telescope then will only perform up to its expectations when closer objects are being observed.
Since electromagnetic radiations have a tendency to lose velocity after traveling great distances, it follows that the method of bouncing radar off planets is not reliable. This, including the determining of the earth's velocity in its orbit by the alleged precise measuring of the aberration of light from stars, has supposedly enabled astronomers to calculate the astronomical unit to an extreme degree of precision. Allegedly, all of the various methods of determining this unit were in close agreement with each other. One can only speculate as to how much juggling of figures has taken place during the process in order to achieve such confirmations, since the integrity of the scientific community has proven to be less than impeccable. All that can be said about all of these distances is that they are less than the accepted values."
Meditate on all this, and you will see that you have plenty of reason to accept that Mars is much large than NASA measurements indicate, and that it has a size around 12,000 miles. Science does accept that cosmic rays exist in the cosmos, but they don't know exactly what the nature, makeup, density, and frequency, et cetera, of the cosmic rays are. The refractive effect, however, gives them a clue, and the close-up measurements of that space probe ( I'll look up the name and other particulars in the book later on ) suggests the extent of the refractive effects.
I think that we already have an idea that some nonsense is going on in relation to Mars anyway, like that recent probe which ran out of fuel because NASA mixed up miles with kilometers. GIVE ME A BREAK!
The Ultimate Reality, by Joseph H. Cater: http://www.healthresearchbooks.com/Authors/joseph_cater.htm
Posted by Dharma/Dean
--- In allplanets-hollow@y..., "Dean De Lucia" <0108@t...> wrote:
Mike,
No, Mr. Cater feels that Mars is larger than what conventional
astronomy tells, and that all the planets, even the Moon, are
larger. Let me explain. For one thing, he points to Olympus
Mons. One of those probes that went to Mars ( I don't have the
book with me, I'm doing this from memory ) measured the base
of Olympus Mons and reported that it was 375 miles wide. This
info is reliable because the measurement was taken from right
there, orbiting above. But a width of 375 miles would make
Olympus Mons about 11 % of the diameter of the planet. The
diameter of Mars is supposed to be 4219 miles, so 4219 divided
by 375 = 11. This is not so. You all can look at any good maps of
Mars and you will see that Olympus Mons does not cover
anything like 11 % of the planet's diameter.
Dean,
I had forgotten this aspect of Cater's theories. But it has always
struck me as strange that the surface features of Mars, such as
Olympus Mons and Valles Marineris, absolutely dwarf all such
similar features on Earth. Beside Olympus Mons, the Everest is
a pimple; and the Grand Canyon is a ditch compared to its
Martian equivalent.
Conventional science says that this is due to a lack of
atmospheric, water, and weather erosion on Mars. This does
not hold true, however, as evidence for great movements of
water on Mars, veritable deluge-size floods and dried river
basins, ocean basins, etc., are ABUNDANT. Moreover, Mars is
said to be "seismically dead," which would first preclude any
mountain-building or tectonic activity, and since weathering was
obviously in effect in the past, since the planet was much wetter
at some earlier point, why did erosion of Olympus Mons not
occur? By the same token, Valles Marineris is an obvious
product of huge erosional activity due to liquid water, or another
liquid. If tectonic or rift activity is responsible, then the entire
"seismically inactive" pronouncement is nullified. More and more
evidence comes forward all the time, which would indicate that
even now, Mars is much wetter than we are being told. Perhaps
the upcoming issue of FATE will address this to some degree.
At any rate, Cater may very well be right, and not just about the
size of Mars.
--Mike