Dick,
It's true that Mammoths discovered in frozen blocks of ice with intact
capillaries does not prove that there is a hollow earth. This discovery only
adds to the continuing mass of physical evidence which supports the hollow
earth concept.
At the same time, Colonel James Churchward's opinion of what he thinks
happened to cause the accumulation of mammoth remains in the northernmost
isles of the seas is just a guestimation based on the information available
to him and his ability to reason.
Mr. Churchward was not familiar with all the facts which are currently
available, or he might have proposed a much altered conclusion to his
observations. He was a very intelligent individual, but he, in no way, is an
authority on the "pre-historical" events which have taken place on this
earth. He's got some interesting ideas, however, his ideas do not stand
infallible without dispute.
The idea that the ice age didn't happen, as the scientific community has
suggested, is shared by others who have done extensive research on the
subject as well. Anton Velikovsky has demonstrated through countless
documents and ancient records that the world did experience a cataclysmic
event which altered the surface of the earth. These accounts are consistent
in placing the date of this event in correlation with the Flood of Biblical
account. The Flood wasn't just caused by forty days and forty nights of
rain, which caused the water tables to casually rise. In addition to the
rain, which was unlike any rains as we now experience them on earth,
Velikovsky points out the records which describe the event as one that
included several sources of water which inundated the entire earth.
This inundation could have included an encounter with a rogue comet, with the
earth passing through its massive tail of frozen water crystals. The
encounter also triggered massive disruption of the earth's rotational status
causing the oceans to slop out of their beds and wash over the entire land
surfaces of the earth. A plethora of physical evidence supports this
concept, which includes hundreds of explored caves which have revealed the
remains of sea creatures right alongside earthbound creatures in the silt and
debris which have filled them. Creatures like seashells and fish skeletons
intermeshed with rhinoceros bones and other mammal remains, all entombed in a
muddy silt, which composition was foreign to the surrounding area in which it
was found. Records from dozens of civilizations throughout the world place
this event at some four thousand years ago -- the Bible being only one of
these sources.
Churchward, for some reason, suggests that this cataclysmic event took place
17,000 years ago. Then he also attempts to organize the chaos of this
cataclysmic event by suggesting that there was a specific wave that singled
out mammoths and washed them all up to the northern territories and islands
and instantly froze them there.
Certainly, you must realize that this is all pure speculation on Churchward's
part. It's interesting speculation, based on the results observed, which he
contrives in an attempt to explain, in a rather simplistic way, the
accumulation of the mammoth remains which have been discovered in the North,
including the frozen carcasses.
Your slight prejudice is noted in the comment you made about one of his
ideas, that you want to believe that Churchward is right. Therefore, for him
to be right in that vein, he must needs be right in all that he says in his
other ideas to maintain credibility, and your peace of mind.
My point is this: Churchward's ideas don't prove or disprove anything, any
more than do mine, or Velikovsky's, or Dean's, or yours. We are all
speculating on a giant puzzle that can't be solved by one simple explanation.
In Dean's defense, which he doesn't need from me, but, which I will offer
nonetheless, I do understand that when Dean refers to discoveries as being
proof of a Hollow Earth, I do realize he means that it adds to the
ever-mounting mass of evidence which supports the theory. He doesn't mean
that this one fact is unequivocal proof in itself that the Earth must be
hollow.
Personally, I have a problem with the interior source of icebergs concept,
for if there is polar warming, and if there are no icebergs present as you
travel further north, then how does this constant supply of freshwater
icebergs get from the inside of the earth to the outer lower latitudes
without being detected traveling from the northern opening?
Not to dash the whole concept of captured contemporary mammoths, but, let's
use a little common sense here. We can't have it both ways. We can't say
that there is a warming of the water and atmosphere as you go further north
from certain latitudes and that there are no icebergs found there because the
water is too warm, and then turn around and say that these icebergs are
formed on the inside of this polar opening, where it's supposed to be a
constant tepid temperature due to the nature of the interior configuration,
and then, on top of all this, have these "warm-water" formed miracle icebergs
float from the inside of the earth to the outside of the earth through a
warming Arctic Sea, and to do so completely undetected until they reach a
certain colder latitude where they magically reappear!
LET'S SCREW OUR HEADS ON HERE AND STOP ALL THESE SELF-CONFLICTING STATEMENTS
THAT MAKE US SOUND FOOLISH!!
The facts indicate that there is a warming as the pole is approached and that
icebergs are not found in these extreme latitudes because of this warmer
water! Therefore, there must be another explanation to the iceberg dilemma!
Perhaps it has something to do with the inversion phenomena which Olaf and
his father observed, where the lighter fresh water rose to the surface in a
layered effect above the heavier, and perhaps semi-plasmatised and
semi-frozen salt water. Since icebergs have this layered nature, then
perhaps, they are formed in a process where these layers of fresh water are
accumulated over a period of time to create the massive icebergs. This could
all be a surface process and could happen quite rapidly in 40 degree below
zero temperatures which the polar areas experience. This process could be
ongoing in that the fresh water is gleaned from the salty waters in building
up the underside masses of these "tip-of-the-iceberg" icebergs.
Isn't it interesting that we only see these independent icebergs floating
around, and yet, we never seem to be able to find the
iceberg-manufacturing-plant "source" of them all. Well, duh, maybe that's
because they are all independently formed and that there isn't some
mysterious originating source to find.
Yes, we have the glacier sources of smaller icebergs breaking off and
crashing into the sea that we have observed, but these are much smaller in
comparison to these larger giants that are observed. Perhaps these glacier
bergs are the seedlings for starting up the larger giants. Who knows?
But, then, the question, where do the mammoths, and evergreen trees, and
whatever else of living foreign matter that we find protruding from, or
encased in these giant accumulations of frozen fresh water come from?
Good question, huh! Any ideas? I have several, but, it's your turn to
speculate.
Let's see if we can logically come up with some valid proposals which might
lead to solving the mystery, instead of just quoting and canonizing everyone
else's speculations. Some of them don't make sense. Let's come up with one
that does.
Norlan