Dean,
In the '40's Edgar Cayce predicted that in 1968 traces of "Atlantis,"
would be located off the coast of Bimini Island. Sure enough, an airplane
pilot coming in for a landing, noticed, what appeared and turned out to be,
an ancient "causeway," off the coast of Bimini Island.
Cayce also was correct in predicting the discovery of a secret chamber
under the paw of the "Sphinx."
MM
Mike Maloney,
If Edgar Caycee had a little bit of perception on the astral level, then he
could have perceived these events before they occurred on the physical
plane. Activities trickle down, from higher planes to lower.
What else did he say about the chambers under the Sphinx? Of course one
could tunnel on down and eventually work one's way to a cavern world. There
are references to underworld paradises in the Egyptian Book of the Dead,
although I personally haven't read this book.
I surmise that pyramids and such were markers of entrances to subterranean
realms. Then waht about the pyramids on the surfaces of other planets and
the Moon? I wrote about that in the articles on pyramids on the thrid page
of my site. Most of you have probably read it.
Why can't we just go on down and find out about these worlds, now that we
have some indications?
Tell me that there is no conspiracy amongst the institutions of our world!
How widespread? Academic, financial, political- who knows. Mike Mott feels
that the surface world is very much manipulated by the underworld.
The joke's on us. I bet the Incas are just biding their time for revenge.
They probably dug a tunnel all the way to Spain.
# ;^ )
DD
Dean,
In the '40's Edgar Cayce predicted that in 1968 traces of "Atlantis,"
would be located off the coast of Bimini Island. Sure enough, an airplane
pilot coming in for a landing, noticed, what appeared and turned out to
be,
an ancient "causeway," off the coast of Bimini Island.
Cayce also was correct in predicting the discovery of a secret chamber
under the paw of the "Sphinx."MM
DD,
I thought always thought that there is an underground entrance to the HE from an Egyptian Pyramid, and also in the Tibetan Mountains. But, one of the pyramids in Egypt is feels to me like it has to been built over a vortex, which could be a portal into the HE...If I were to want to get into a HE--I would look to a desert area for the least dangerous avenue. I have asked my daughter to buy me a world map for my BD and I am going to put it on the wall and see what kind of visions I get....I should get a vibration and some light around entrances, if indeed there are any.
Mike could be right about the underworld being manipulating the upper earth, actually wouldn't surprise me---but, who is doing the manipulating? Various opinions on this....
Leslee
Subject: [allplanets-hollow] The Inca's revenge!
`Mike Maloney,
If Edgar Caycee had a little bit of perception on the astral level, then he
could have perceived these events before they occurred on the physical
plane. Activities trickle down, from higher planes to lower.What else did he say about the chambers under the Sphinx? Of course one
could tunnel on down and eventually work one's way to a cavern world. There
are references to underworld paradises in the Egyptian Book of the Dead,
although I personally haven't read this book.I surmise that pyramids and such were markers of entrances to subterranean
realms. Then waht about the pyramids on the surfaces of other planets and
the Moon? I wrote about that in the articles on pyramids on the thrid page
of my site. Most of you have probably read it.Why can't we just go on down and find out about these worlds, now that we
have some indications?Tell me that there is no conspiracy amongst the institutions of our world!
How widespread? Academic, financial, political- who knows. Mike Mott feels
that the surface world is very much manipulated by the underworld.The joke's on us. I bet the Incas are just biding their time for revenge.
They probably dug a tunnel all the way to Spain.;^ )
DD
Dean,
In the '40's Edgar Cayce predicted that in 1968 traces of "Atlantis,"would be located off the coast of Bimini Island. Sure enough, an airplane
pilot coming in for a landing, noticed, what appeared and turned out to
be,
an ancient "causeway," off the coast of Bimini Island.Cayce also was correct in predicting the discovery of a secret chamberunder the paw of the "Sphinx."
MM
`
` To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]`
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the [Yahoo! Terms of Service](http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).
Leslee,
Etidorhpa describes the Earth's structure like this, that it rests upon a bubble of spirit. The outer surface rests upon it, and the inner surface is within it. It is called the sphere of rest. If one dives into it, one swims around on the ethereal plane, weightless, and with the powers of the mind unbound by gravitational polarities in the brain. The Guide and The man traveled along it, but not through it towards the center.This is the description of Eitidorhpa, anyway. So although one could penetrate quite a ways going through the shell, I don''t know if one could penetrate it through to the inner surface
Dharma/Dean
DD,
I thought always thought that there is an underground entrance to the HE from an Egyptian Pyramid, and also in the Tibetan Mountains. But, one of the pyramids in Egypt is feels to me like it has to been built over a vortex, which could be a portal into the HE...
Leslee,
Etidorhpa describes the Earth's structure like this, that it rests upon a bubble of spirit. The outer surface rests upon it, and the inner surface is within it. It is called the sphere of rest. If one dives into it, one swims around on the ethereal plane, weightless, and with the powers of the mind unbound by gravitational polarities in the brain. The Guide and The man traveled along it, but not through it towards the center.This is the description of Eitidorhpa, anyway. So although one could penetrate quite a ways going through the shell, I don''t know if one could penetrate it through to the inner surface
Dharma/Dean
The appropriate part from Etidorhpa:
While conversing about the configuration of continents, The Guide illuminated his charge by saying: “ You argue from an erroneous hypothesis. The Earth is neither rigid nor solid.” “ True,” I answered. “ If it were solid I could not be a hundred miles beneath its surface in conversation with another being; but there cannot be many such cavities as that which we are now traversing, and they cannot surely extend entirely through its mass; the great weight of the superincumbent material would crush together the strongest materials, if a globe as large as our earth were extensively honeycombed in this manner." " Quite the contrary," he replied; " and here let me, for the first time, enlighten you as to the interior structure of the terrestrial globe. The earth-forming principle consists of an invisible sphere of energy that, spinning through space, supports the space dust which collects on it, as dust on a bubble. By gradual accumulation of substance on that sphere a hollow ball has resulted, on the outer surface of which you have hitherto dwelt. The crust of the earth is comparatively thin, not more than eight hundred miles in average, thickness, and is held in position by the central sphere of energy that now exists at a distance about seven hundred miles beneath the ocean level. The force inherent to this sphere manifests itself upon the matter which it supports on both sides, rendering matter the lighter the nearer it lies to the center sphere. In other words, let me say to you: `The crust, or shell, which I have just described as being but about eight hundred miles in thickness is firm and solid on both its convex and concave surface, but gradually loses in weight, whether we penetrate from the outer surface toward the center, or from any point of the inner surface towards the outside, until at the central sphere matter has no weight at all.' Do you conceive my meaning?" " Yes," I replied; "I understand you.”
List Members,
Not only does gravity diminish, according to Etidorhpa, but the cavern environment seems to be characterized by some type of orgone/soft particles- pay attention to the last line of this post. This could be caused by the rays of the sun which undergo a trnsformation of frequency and penetrate the Earth's shell at lower and lower frequencies. Cater explains this:
CHAPTER XXI.
MY WEIGHT IS DISAPPEARING.
We halted suddenly, for we came unexpectedly to the edge of a precipice, twenty feet at least in depth.
" Let us jump down," said my guide.
" That would be dangerous," I answered; " can not we descend at some point where it is not so deep?"
" No; the chasm stretches for miles across our path, and at this point we will meet with the least difficulty; besides, there is no danger. The specific gravity of our bodies is now so little that we could jump twice that distance with impunity."
" I can not comprehend you; we are in the flesh, our bodies are possessed of weight, the concussion will be violent."
" You reason again from the condition of your former life, and, as usual, are mistaken; there will be little shock, for, as I have said, our bodies are comparatively light now. Have you forgotten that your motion is continuously accelerated, and that without perceptible exertion you move rapidly? This is partly because of the loss of weight. Your weight would now be only about fifty pounds if tested by a spring balance."
I stood incredulous.
" You trifle with me; I weigh over one hundred and fifty pounds; how have I lost weight ? It is true that I have noticed the ease with which we have recently progressed on our journey, especially the latter part of it, but I attribute this, in part, to the fact that our course is down an incline, and also to the vitalizing power of this cavern air."
Hi Dean:
<Etidorhpa describes the Earth's structure like this, that it rests upon a bubble of spirit. The outer surface rests upon it, and the inner surface is within it. It is called the sphere of rest. If one dives into it, one swims around on the ethereal plane, weightless, and with the powers of the mind unbound by gravitational polarities in the brain. The Guide and The man traveled along it, but not through it towards the center>
I notice the Guide and The Man travel along it? Are the entering with their minds? If so, then this would explain the Tibetan Monks having access to the HE--they travel in their minds, which would be easy for them to accomplish.
Sphere of rest? Could this be a place for rejuvination of our spirit? Our spirit swims on the ethereal plane, weightless could mean entrance is only obtained by our spirit, or one who is able to release their minds from the "worldly & material" weight, so it may take an adept, or very enlightened person to gain entrance.
The appropriate part from Etidorhpa:
While conversing about the configuration of continents, The Guide illuminated his charge by saying: “ You argue from an erroneous hypothesis. The Earth is neither rigid nor solid.” “ True,” I answered. “ If it were solid I could not be a hundred miles beneath its surface in conversation with another being; but there cannot be many such cavities as that which we are now traversing, and they cannot surely extend entirely through its mass; the great weight of the superincumbent material would crush together the strongest materials, if a globe as large as our earth were extensively honeycombed in this manner." " Quite the contrary," he replied; " and here let me, for the first time, enlighten you as to the interior structure of the terrestrial globe. The earth-forming principle consists of an invisible sphere of energy that, spinning through space, supports the space dust which collects on it, as dust on a bubble. By gradual accumulation of substance on that sphere a hollow ball has resulted, on the outer surface of which you have hitherto dwelt. The crust of the earth is comparatively thin, not more than eight hundred miles in average, thickness, and is held in position by the central sphere of energy that now exists at a distance about seven hundred miles beneath the ocean level. The force inherent to this sphere manifests itself upon the matter which it supports on both sides, rendering matter the lighter the nearer it lies to the center sphere. In other words, let me say to you: `The crust, or shell, which I have just described as being but about eight hundred miles in thickness is firm and solid on both its convex and concave surface, but gradually loses in weight, whether we penetrate from the outer surface toward the center, or from any point of the inner surface towards the outside, until at the central sphere matter has no weight at all.' Do you conceive my meaning?" " Yes," I replied; "I understand you.”
So, areas of no gravity, or very little within the thickness of the earth's crust?
This is going to be a wonderful book, I can't wait until it arrives!
Leslee
` To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]`
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the [Yahoo! Terms of Service](http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).
From Capter 20 of Etidorhpa:
" The spectral light by which we were aureoled increased in intensity, as by arithmetical progression, and I could now distinguish objects at a considerable distance before us. "
This refers to the way in which the soft particles penetrate the shell and break up, gradually, into their constituent particles of light the further down one goes.
Soft particles/orgone, is generated by an interaction between the particles of light of the sun, the fundamental particles of matter of the Earth and ether.
Dharma/Dean
Re: [allplanets-hollow] The description of
Eitidorhpa
(Comment from Dick Fojut)
Dean, You posted the following for
Leslee...
The appropriate part from Etidorhpa:
While conversing about the configuration of continents,
The Guide illuminated his charge by saying: " You argue from an
erroneous hypothesis. The Earth is neither rigid nor solid."" True," I answered. " If it were solid I could not be a
hundred miles beneath its surface in conversation with another being;
but there cannot be many such cavities as that which we are now
traversing, and they cannot surely extend entirely through its mass;
the great weight of the superincumbent material would crush together
the strongest materials, if a globe as large as our earth were
extensively honeycombed in this manner."
" Quite the contrary," he replied; " and
here let me, for the first time, enlighten you as to the interior
structure of the terrestrial globe. The earth-forming principle
consists of an invisible sphere of energy that, spinning through
space, supports the space dust which collects on it, as dust on a
bubble. By gradual accumulation of substance on that sphere a
hollow ball has resulted, on the outer surface of which you have
hitherto dwelt. The crust of the earth is comparatively thin, not
more than eight hundred miles in average, thickness, and is held in
position by the central sphere of energy that now exists at a
distance about seven hundred miles beneath the ocean level. The force
inherent to this sphere manifests itself upon the matter which it
supports on both sides, rendering matter the lighter the nearer it
lies to the center sphere. In other words, let me say to you: `The
crust, or shell, which I have just described as being but about eight
hundred miles in thickness is firm and solid on both its convex and
concave surface, but gradually loses in weight, whether we penetrate
from the outer surface toward the center, or from any point of the
inner surface towards the outside, until at the central sphere matter
has no weight at all.' Do you conceive my meaning?"
" Yes," I replied; "I understand
you."
About the type I made bold faced in the above, "earth
forming principle"... specifically, "space dust
which collects on it, as dust on a bubble. By gradual accumulation of
substance on that sphere..."
Is the above HOW Earth was supposed to have been created?
..."space dust" that "collects"(accretion) on
an "invisible sphere of energy....spinning in
space..."
I have no trouble conceiving the Creator creating an invisible
sphere of energy and spinning it in space. BUT the "ACCRETION"
from space dust somehow collecting and forming Earth's crust, is ONE
of the vague NON-explanation theories long embraced by orthodox
astronomers and geologists since BEFORE Etidorpha was composed.
Except for the concept that a hollow somehow forms and somehow
gravity also diminishes going in, this could be dropped into an
orthodox textbook. I expected a more substantial explanation from an
"all-knowing" HE being. Very disappointing.
The above explanation is on a par with Sitchin and his
juvenile tale about Marduk. Marduk was a huge, fully developed
planet that (presumably) went through billions of years of normal
geological development, and had a population. I recall Sitchin wrote
that when Niburu came orbiting back around here, its moon (or was it
Niburu itself?) slammed into Marduk and busted it in half. The
smaller half became the asteroid belt, the larger half (Voila!)
"reformed" itself (like silly putty in Sitchin's child-like
conception), and became our EARTH!
Just HOW did a decapitated half-a-planet "reform" and
geologically progress and become our Earth? Sitchin never felt
pressed to explain. Left it up to others, more expert about geology
than he, to provide details. Haven't heard of anyone doing so yet,
have you? His several followers like Lloyd Pie have accepted also
accepted his unreasonable tale unquestioningly.
So, I ask the questions here of the HE being (or his
better informed messengers, DD, Cater etc):
Just HOW did space dust collect and form Earth's crust
- Dick Fojut
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Correction! (The
description o
CORRECTION to my Email below just sent....
In my comment at bottom I wrote MARDUK was the Planet that
Sitchin's Nibiru busted in half. My wife just whacked me and
informed me it was TIAMAT! Whoops! Got my names mixed up. -
Dick Fojut (Correct name inserted below)
(Comment from Dick Fojut)
Dean, You posted the following for
Leslee...
The appropriate part from Etidorhpa:
While conversing about the configuration of continents,
The Guide illuminated his charge by saying: " You argue from an
erroneous hypothesis. The Earth is neither rigid nor solid."" True," I answered. " If it were solid I could not be a
hundred miles beneath its surface in conversation with another being;
but there cannot be many such cavities as that which we are now
traversing, and they cannot surely extend entirely through its mass;
the great weight of the superincumbent material would crush together
the strongest materials, if a globe as large as our earth were
extensively honeycombed in this manner."
" Quite the contrary," he replied; " and
here let me, for the first time, enlighten you as to the interior
structure of the terrestrial globe. The earth-forming principle
consists of an invisible sphere of energy that, spinning through
space, supports the space dust which collects on it, as dust on a
bubble. By gradual accumulation of substance on that sphere a
hollow ball has resulted, on the outer surface of which you have
hitherto dwelt. The crust of the earth is comparatively thin, not
more than eight hundred miles in average, thickness, and is held in
position by the central sphere of energy that now exists at a
distance about seven hundred miles beneath the ocean level. The force
inherent to this sphere manifests itself upon the matter which it
supports on both sides, rendering matter the lighter the nearer it
lies to the center sphere. In other words, let me say to you: `The
crust, or shell, which I have just described as being but about eight
hundred miles in thickness is firm and solid on both its convex and
concave surface, but gradually loses in weight, whether we penetrate
from the outer surface toward the center, or from any point of the
inner surface towards the outside, until at the central sphere matter
has no weight at all.' Do you conceive my meaning?"
" Yes," I replied; "I understand
you."
About the type I made bold faced in the above, "earth
forming principle"... specifically, "space dust
which collects on it, as dust on a bubble. By gradual accumulation of
substance on that sphere..."
Is the above HOW Earth was supposed to have been created?
..."space dust" that "collects"(accretion) on
an "invisible sphere of energy....spinning in
space..."
I have no trouble conceiving the Creator creating an invisible
sphere of energy and spinning it in space. BUT the "ACCRETION"
from space dust somehow collecting and forming Earth's crust, is ONE
of the vague NON-explanation theories long embraced by orthodox
astronomers and geologists since BEFORE Etidorpha was composed.
Except for the concept that a hollow somehow forms and somehow
gravity also diminishes going in, this could be dropped into an
orthodox textbook. I expected a more substantial explanation from an
"all-knowing" HE being. Very disappointing.
The above explanation is on a par with Sitchin and his
juvenile tale about Tiamat. Tiamat was a huge, fully developed
planet that (presumably) went through billions of years of normal
geological development, and had a population. I recall Sitchin wrote
that when Niburu came orbiting back around here, its moon (or was it
Niburu itself?) slammed into Tiamat and busted it in half. The
smaller half became the asteroid belt, the larger half (Voila!)
"reformed" itself (like silly putty in Sitchin's child-like
conception), and became our EARTH!
Just HOW did a decapitated half-a-planet "reform" and
geologically progress and become our Earth? Sitchin never felt
pressed to explain. Left it up to others, more expert about geology
than he, to provide details. Haven't heard of anyone doing so yet,
have you? His several followers like Lloyd Pie have accepted also
accepted his unreasonable tale unquestioningly.
So, I ask the questions here of the HE being (or his
better informed messengers, DD, Cater etc):
Just HOW did space dust collect and form Earth's crust
- Dick Fojut
Re: [allplanets-hollow] The description of Eitidorhpa
Dick,
You have asked for reasonable proofs. Well, proofs which satify our understandings may be lacking. First of all, we had no perception of the event, and we hardly understand enough about physical processes to be able to pass any kind of judgement. In our situation, to ask the question which you have is like having Dr. Frog, Ph.D., sit in his well and ask- " Is the ocean as big as my well?"
I can't vouch for this particular piece of info given in Etidorhpa, but I do not reject it based on my understandings.
The accumulation of space dust is not hard to conceive of. The unanswered question might relate to how different strata of mateials and different densities of strata came about. But unless you know how the different elements are created, you can hardly pass judgement in this regard.
Cater stipulates that the different elements are not deposited during an initial formative process as much as they are cultivates by the different flows and penetrations of soft particles at different times. He is basically talking about a transmutation of elements which takes place in the various strata, that a rain of soft particles passing through the Earth's shell has an impact on the level of atomic particles and zonal forces. In this way, a vein of gold might be transmuted instead of actually being deposited during an initial formative process.
Things like this make me think that less centripedal and centrifugal force might have been necessary for the creation of the planet. Do you see what i am saying? In this scenario, extreme weight from strata above would not have been necessary to pack dense strata deep below.
In this way, a shell could be superincumbent upon a spirt bubble, and the different densities and elements within the strata still be accounted for.
Dharma/Dean
About the type I made bold faced in the above, ** "earth forming principle"... specifically, ** "space dust which collects on it, as dust on a bubble. By gradual accumulation of substance on that sphere..."
Is the above HOW Earth was supposed to have been created? ...** "space dust"** that "collects"(accretion) on an ** "invisible sphere of energy....spinning in space..."**
I have no trouble conceiving the Creator creating an invisible sphere of energy and spinning it in space. ** BUT the "ACCRETION" from space dust somehow collecting and forming Earth's crust, is ONE of the vague NON-explanation theories long embraced by orthodox astronomers and geologists since BEFORE Etidorpha was composed** . Except for the concept that a hollow somehow forms and somehow gravity also diminishes going in, this could be dropped into an orthodox textbook. I expected a more substantial explanation from an "all-knowing" HE being. Very disappointing.
** The above explanation is on a par with Sitchin and his juvenile tale about Marduk.** Marduk was a huge, fully developed planet that (presumably) went through billions of years of normal geological development, and had a population. I recall Sitchin wrote that when Niburu came orbiting back around here, its moon (or was it Niburu itself?) slammed into Marduk and busted it in half. The smaller half became the asteroid belt, the larger half (Voila!) "reformed" itself (like silly putty in Sitchin's child-like conception), and became our EARTH!
** Just HOW did a decapitated half-a-planet "reform" and geologically progress and become our Earth?** Sitchin never felt pressed to explain. Left it up to others, more expert about geology than he, to provide details. Haven't heard of anyone doing so yet, have you? His several followers like Lloyd Pie have accepted also accepted his unreasonable tale unquestioningly.
So, I ask the questions here of the HE being (or his better informed messengers, DD, Cater etc):
Just HOW did space dust collect and form Earth's crust - with caverns throughout, atmosphere, mountains and oceans - then HOW were added vast volumes of volcanic gases plus a thick molten layer and a hollow center having a surface like that on Earth's outside crust? And HOW did continental plates riding on that "Vaseline" come about? And then HOW was added a central Sun of soft and hard particles in the hollow? ** Just HOW did this all come about geologically? I'd like some reasonable proofs, if any can be provided.**
- Dick Fojut
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Earth forming
principle
Dick,
You have asked for
reasonable proofs. Well, proofs which satify our understandings may
be lacking. First of all, we had no perception of the event, and we
hardly understand enough about physical processes to be able to pass
any kind of judgement. In our situation, to ask the question which
you have is like having Dr. Frog, Ph.D., sit in his well and ask-
" Is the ocean as big as my well?"
I can't vouch for this
particular piece of info given in Etidorhpa, but I do not reject it
based on my understandings.
Dean (from
Dick), Why NOT examine the Eitodorpha "accretion of space dust"
explanation based on your understandings? Isn't that what you
and the rest of us do every moment about everything else? None of us
would even be interested in the HE and alternate science if we hadn't
already questioned much of what is accepted orthodox "facts." Did
the Creator-of-all directly dictate every word in Etidorpha (like
some believe about the Bible) and therefore one must NOT question any
statement in it even if some parts seem illogical? In my
opinion Dean, REASONABLE PROOFS of asserted "FACTS" on any
subject, should be asked of you, me, Cater, Lamprecht,
Churchward, Etidorpha, list members, scientists, governments, etc.,
etc., etc when we assert those "Facts" to be true. Those
proofs may still not be sufficient to some of us but NOT to ask for
some proof seems foolish. If we are simply stating our OPINIONS,
our THEORIES, and present them as such, that's different. But the
Etidorpha being did not say "this is my theory." He said his
assertions were FACTS, reality, the way things are. Then (somewhere
in the book} reasonable proofs to backup those "facts" should
have been presented. Apparently not. No wonder some readers having
read Etidorpha during the past century, tossed it aside as fantasy
Dean,
all my adult life I have questioned many "facts" accepted by most
other people that just didn't make sense to me. And tried to find
out any proofs behind those "facts." Sometimes, especially what
pretends to be scientific "facts" on various subjects, I have
discovered were poorly proved, mainly just widely agreed-upon
conjecture and theories. Like many of you, I have found that to
be so about many subjects including causes and treatment of ailments,
politics, economics, history, religion, geology, astronomy and other
physical sciences, etc. I've become a CYNIC (a "healthy" cynic I
hope). And in further looking sometimes I have
discovered different "facts" based on better proofs
about many of the subjects listed above. Not necessarily the FINAL
"facts" but closer to reality than the former orthodox
"facts" to my discernment.
I
originally also doubted Churchward. Put his books aside. But as years
passed, in re-reading his 5 books, I found he attempted to provide
REASONABLE PROOFS for his every scientific assertion. I have NOT
found that with many of the assertions of orthodox scientists, and so
far, not in the several "explanation" excerpts you have provided
from Cater. Like the orthodox thinkers he clearly disagrees with,
Cater's explanations about soft and hard particles coming from the
Sun, seem to me to be ASSERTED FACTS, not stated as his
THEORIES. I do not know if he also provides REASONABLE PROOFS to
back up his assertions. Perhaps he does in his books, but Dean, you
have not provided those backup proofs in the excerpts you've so far
posted on the list, so far as I remember.
Churchward, on the other hand, after presenting his proofs, left it
up to each reader to discern whether his proofs were sufficient.
I'm still not convinced about his every notion, leaving those on
the shelf. But I have been very impressed about the REASONABLE
PROOFS he presented about HOW this planet was geologically
created. EVERY major phenomena is reasonably explained in a
unified sequence of events, especially volcanos, earthquakes, the
emersion and sinking of land, the uplifting of mountains, the falling
of sea floors creating our ocean depths and the existence of a great
HOLLOW in Earth's center. Many of the conflicting and disconnected
explanations for the same preceding phenomena by orthodox geologists
and astronomers come across to me as misunderstood and poorly proven
theories.
Churchward's OTHER notions about ancient
populations and ancient lands I have put aside as POSSIBLE, but not
sufficiently proven to me yet. But the same goes for your ideas about
the ARYANS, Dean. Possible, but not reasonably proven.
**By the way, Churchward thinks
(correctly or incorrectly) the ancient Scandanavians may have came
from light skinned QUETZELS and King Quetzel, that fled in their
ships long before 12,000 years back, after an invasion by outsiders
of their homeland**. If Churchward was correct, prior to the
formation of the "gas belts," there was an OVERLAND ROUTE from
Europe to Canada and America. Above surface land stretched from
France to Canada. The British Isles and Ireland are the major pieces
that remained above water. The rest was sunken, like Atlantis, MU and
Ancient Ceylon, when upholding gas chambers beneath each were blown
out and emptied by penetration of the subterranean "gas belt"
tunnels between 15,000 and 10,000 years past. If that overland
route existed in ancient times, travel of some ancient people to
America and back, would have been made easier. Also, if Atlantis
and MU both also existed at that time, ship travel on Earth prior to
15,000 years ago, may have required only relatively short distances
between coastlines. Of course IF those land masses existed, the
entire CONTINENTAL DRIFT theory will have to be tossed in the ash
can! - Dick
The accumulation of
space dust is not hard to conceive of. The unanswered question might
relate to how different strata of mateials and different densities of
strata came about. But unless you know how the different elements are
created, you can hardly pass judgement in this
regard.
Sure I can "pass judgement." Orthodoxy is unable to EXPLAIN how
the different elements were created. Right or wrong, Churchward DID
and presented reasonable proofs. Read his stuff thoroughly and judge
for yourself. He doesn't leave out much. - Dick
Cater stipulates that
the different elements are not deposited during an initial formative
process as much as they are cultivates by the different flows and
penetrations of soft particles at different times. He is basically
talking about a transmutation of elements which takes place in the
various strata, that a rain of soft particles passing through the
Earth's shell has an impact on the level of atomic particles and
zonal forces. In this way, a vein of gold might be transmuted instead
of actually being deposited during an initial formative
process.
Cater may be right about some of the above. But
maybe Cater should read Churchward too, and see where they agree or
disagree. The explanation you provided above seems THEORETICAL to me
at this moment, and not very substantial to my mind. Please explain
further. - Dick
Things like this
make me think that less centripedal and centrifugal force might have
been necessary for the creation of the planet. Do you see what i am
saying? In this scenario, extreme weight from strata above would not
have been necessary to pack dense strata deep
below.
No, I don't see and understand what you are
saying. Centrifugal, centripetal and magnetic (gravitational)
Forces MOVE the particles in atoms around - and MOVE the Suns and
their satellites throughout space. These are the GREAT secondary
Forces emanating (I think) from the One Great FORCE, the Creator.
They can't be dismissed. They are what makes the physical Cosmos
function in the magnificent orderliness we perceive. As basic as they
are, they HAD to play the major roles in creating this physical
planet from its original hot nebula of elementary gases. -
Dick
In this way, a
shell could be superincumbent upon a spirt bubble, and the different
densities and elements within the strata still be accounted
for.
Dharma/Dean
If Churchward (or anyone appealing to other
scientists of his day or now) had asserted the above idea of a
"spirit bubble," he'd have been laughed at so hard none of his
other conceptions would even have been read! I personally
like the Seth (Jane Roberts) idea that "we (all of us in
concert) create our reality." I also like (though have difficulty
understanding it) Seth's assertion that ALL HAPPENS AT ONCE in a vast
present "moment." And the idea that we each exist SIMULTANEOUSLY
in many alternate realities, present, past and future.
And still like some of my former
"insights" from early Scientology that DISTANCES are an
agreed-upon illusion by all of us "Thetans" (Spirits). We
agree those Suns are millions of miles away, so they "are," when
in reality there is no "distance." We "postulate" things into
existence, sometimes. (A Rishi Master postulates or decrees and the
atoms move instantly to produce his desire).
Dean, those are concepts similar to those
you find in the Vedas. But if we try to present such SUBJECTIVE views
as "spirit bubbles" to explain and PROVE physical Earth has a
HOLLOW CENTER... and other planets also have hollow centers,
Scientists and MOST ordinary people will ignore us and look on us as
loonies. That is why, in my opinion, we must present REASONABLE
physical PROOFS about the HE, as well as REASONABLE PROOFS about any
related alternative scientific assertions. Just the same as we'd each
do about ANY subject we are attempting to PROVE to those people yet
uninformed. - Dick
About the type I made bold faced in the above,
"earth forming principle"... specifically,
"space dust which collects on it, as dust on a bubble. By
gradual accumulation of substance on that
sphere..."Is the above HOW Earth was supposed to have been created?
..."space dust" that
"collects"(accretion) on an "invisible
sphere of energy....spinning in space..."I have no trouble conceiving the Creator creating an
invisible sphere of energy and spinning it in space. BUT the
"ACCRETION" from space dust somehow collecting and forming
Earth's crust, is ONE of the vague NON-explanation theories long
embraced by orthodox astronomers and geologists since BEFORE
Etidorpha was composed. Except for the concept that a hollow
somehow forms and somehow gravity also diminishes going in, this
could be dropped into an orthodox textbook. I expected a more
substantial explanation from an "all-knowing" HE being.
Very disappointing.The above explanation is on a par with Sitchin and his
juvenile tale about Marduk. Marduk was a huge, fully developed
planet that (presumably) went through billions of years of normal
geological development, and had a population. I recall Sitchin wrote
that when Niburu came orbiting back around here, its moon (or was it
Niburu itself?) slammed into Marduk and busted it in half. The
smaller half became the asteroid belt, the larger half (Voila!)
"reformed" itself (like silly putty in Sitchin's child-like
conception), and became our EARTH!
Just HOW did a decapitated half-a-planet
"reform" and geologically progress and become our
Earth? Sitchin never felt pressed to explain. Left it up to
others, more expert about geology than he, to provide details.
Haven't heard of anyone doing so yet, have you? His several followers
like Lloyd Pie have accepted also accepted his unreasonable tale
unquestioningly.So, I ask the questions here of the HE being (or
his better informed messengers, DD, Cater etc):
Just HOW did space dust collect and form Earth's
crust - with caverns throughout, atmosphere, mountains and oceans -
then HOW were added vast volumes of volcanic gases plus a thick
molten layer and a hollow center having a surface like that on
Earth's outside crust? And HOW did continental plates riding on that
"Vaseline" come about? And then HOW was added a
central Sun of soft and hard particles in the hollow? Just HOW did
this all come about geologically? I'd like some reasonable proofs, if
any can be provided.
- Dick FojutYahoo! Groups Sponsor
[`To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
`
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the](http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190481.1393724.2979175.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700043464:N/A=613960/?http://www.newaydirect.com)Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Earth forming principle
Dean (from Dick), Why NOT examine the Eitodorpha "accretion of space dust" explanation ** based on your understandings?** Isn't that what you and the rest of us do every moment about everything else? None of us would even be interested in the HE and alternate science if we hadn't already questioned much of what is accepted orthodox "facts." Did the Creator-of-all directly dictate every word in Etidorpha (like some believe about the Bible) and therefore one must NOT question any statement in it even if some parts seem illogical? ** In my opinion Dean,** ** REASONABLE PROOFS of asserted "FACTS" on any subject, should be asked**
Dick,
My goodness, you are quite a writer! In an expressive mood today, I see.
I am going to distinguish my comments from yours by addressing each one to you, below your name. That line-type of margin that you use isn't handy for distinguishing.
You're right. We can ask for reasonable proofs, we try to find them all the time, just like you said.
But the process of formation of the Earth is a hard one. Not only do we lack direct perception, but much of formative proccesses, such as the transmutation of elements, is not generally known or suspected in this context.
Snip
** Dean, all my adult life I have questioned many "facts" accepted by most other people that just didn't make sense to me.** And tried to find out any proofs behind those "facts." Sometimes, especially what pretends to be scientific "facts" on various subjects, I have discovered were ** poorly proved, mainly just widely agreed-upon conjecture and theories** . Like many of you, I have found that to be so about many subjects including causes and treatment of ailments, politics, economics, history, religion, geology, astronomy and other physical sciences, etc. I've become a CYNIC (a "healthy" cynic I hope). ** And in further looking** sometimes I have discovered different "facts" based on better proofs about many of the subjects listed above. Not necessarily the FINAL "facts" but closer to reality than the former orthodox "facts" to my discernment.
Dick-
The only way to arrive at the truth is by questioning the status quo. You have to scratch the surface. Curiosity is a sign of intelligence.
I originally also doubted Churchward. Put his books aside. But as years passed, in re-reading his 5 books, I found ** he attempted to provide REASONABLE PROOFS for his every scientific assertion** . I have NOT found that with many of the assertions of orthodox scientists, and so far, not in the several "explanation" excerpts you have provided from Cater. Like the orthodox thinkers he clearly disagrees with, Cater's explanations about soft and hard particles coming from the Sun, ** seem to me to be ASSERTED FACTS, not stated as his THEORIES.** I do not know if he also provides REASONABLE PROOFS to back up his assertions. Perhaps he does in his books, but Dean, you have not provided those backup proofs in the excerpts you've so far posted on the list, so far as I remember.
Dick-
Cater presents strong logic, deduction, some observation, some experimental results. I can only give a sample and hope that someone will be inspired enough to read his book.
Churchward, on the other hand, after presenting his proofs, left it up to each reader to discern whether his proofs were sufficient.
Dick-
** Modesty is definitely not Cater's strong point! He missed his calling. He should have joined the Marine Corp as a scientist.**
** I'm still not convinced about his every notion, leaving those on the shelf.** ** But I have been very impressed about the REASONABLE PROOFS he presented about HOW this planet was geologically created.** EVERY major phenomena is reasonably explained in a unified sequence of events, especially volcanos, earthquakes, the emersion and sinking of land, the uplifting of mountains, the falling of sea floors creating our ocean depths and the existence of a great HOLLOW in Earth's center. Many of the conflicting and disconnected explanations for the same preceding phenomena by orthodox geologists and astronomers come across to me as misunderstood and poorly proven theories.
Dick-
I'm severely disappointed with geology. Incongruencies abound in the presentation of geo theory, but they put across their theories as already proven fact, and only qualify things by saying " more research is needed." They need a congruent theory.
** Churchward's OTHER notions about ancient populations and ancient lands I have put aside as POSSIBLE, but not sufficiently proven to me yet. But the same goes for your ideas about the ARYANS, Dean. Possible, but not reasonably proven.**
Dick-
** There is no proof left on the surface! A helocopter tour in the right direction would do the trick, though.**
** By the way, Churchward thinks (correctly or incorrectly) the ancient Scandanavians may have came from light skinned QUETZELS and King Quetzel, that fled in their ships long before 12,000 years back, after an invasion by outsiders of their homeland** . If Churchward was correct, prior to the formation of the "gas belts," there was an OVERLAND ROUTE from Europe to Canada and America. Above surface land stretched from France to Canada. The British Isles and Ireland are the major pieces that remained above water. The rest was sunken, like Atlantis, MU and Ancient Ceylon, when upholding gas chambers beneath each were blown out and emptied by penetration of the subterranean "gas belt" tunnels between 15,000 and 10,000 years past. ** If that overland route existed in ancient times, travel of some ancient people to America and back, would have been made easier** . Also, if Atlantis and MU both also existed at that time, ship travel on Earth prior to 15,000 years ago, may have required only relatively short distances between coastlines. Of course IF those land masses existed, the entire CONTINENTAL DRIFT theory will have to be tossed in the ash can! - Dick
Dick-
One thing that we have to discuss on this list is the possibility of vertical plate movement vs continental drift. I'm intrigued by the concept, but continental drift is the more accepted theory. I think that they are mutually exclusive. We'll have to get Scott's opinion on this.
Snip
Cater stipulates that the different elements are not deposited during an initial formative process as much as they are cultivates by the different flows and penetrations of soft particles at different times. He is basically talking about a transmutation of elements which takes place in the various strata, that a rain of soft particles passing through the Earth's shell has an impact on the level of atomic particles and zonal forces. In this way, a vein of gold might be transmuted instead of actually being deposited during an initial formative process.
Cater may be right about some of the above. But maybe Cater should read Churchward too, and see where they agree or disagree. The explanation you provided above seems THEORETICAL to me at this moment, and not very substantial to my mind. Please explain further. - Dick
Dick-
In other words, a vein of gold wasn't deposited that way when the planet was formed. A flow of soft particles along some underground route brought about transmutation.
Things like this make me think that less centripedal and centrifugal force might have been necessary for the creation of the planet. Do you see what i am saying? In this scenario, extreme weight from strata above would not have been necessary to pack dense strata deep below.
No, I don't see and understand what you are saying. Centrifugal, centripetal and magnetic (gravitational) Forces MOVE the particles in atoms around - and MOVE the Suns and their satellites throughout space.
Dick-
I'm saying that if cosmic dust settled on a spirit bubble, then maybe some wild, centrifugal spinning wasn't so necessary to the process. I am thinking out loud here.
Snip
** If Churchward (or anyone appealing to other scientists of his day or now) had asserted the above idea of a "spirit bubble," he'd have been laughed at so hard none of his other conceptions would even have been read!**
Dick-
He would have been tared and feathered!
Snip
Dean, those are concepts similar to those you find in the Vedas. But if we try to present such SUBJECTIVE views as "spirit bubbles" to explain and PROVE physical Earth has a HOLLOW CENTER... and other planets also have hollow centers, Scientists and MOST ordinary people will ignore us and look on us as loonies. ** That is why, in my opinion, we must present REASONABLE physical PROOFS about the HE, as well as REASONABLE PROOFS about any related alternative scientific assertions. Just the same as we'd each do about ANY subject we are attempting to PROVE to those people yet uninformed. - Dick**
Dick-
** Agreed, i think that my original comments came off as a bit too aggressive. Let's look for reasonable proof, I always try to present it in relation to Cater. But I'll be the first to admit, I don't have much proof to be able to substantiate a spirit bubble as the foundation of our planet's structure. It's to be understood that we have some platforms that we logically argue from, and some others which are"for " in house " inspiration. For example, I'll argue the findings of Arctic explorers with scientists, but I can't present Olaf jansen in that same way. Olaf is for us, for us to marvel at and wonder about and inspire us.**
** Anyway, enough for now, it's late here, I'm going to bed.**
Dharma/Dean
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Earth forming principle
List Members,
Since Frode talked about the nature of emanations from the opening this morning, I thought that we might take a look at a few comments which Sadek Adams gathered together on the Aurora in his book, Hollow Earth Authentic. It is available at Health Research: http://www.healthresearchbooks.com
Dharma/Dean
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Earth forming principle
Members,
Is this idea of gravity waves the same as Cater's electromagnetic radiation? http://www.shaka.com/~kalepa/gwrphome/gravwave.htm
Dharma/Dean
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Earth forming principle
Point Barrow, Alaska- A close place to be.
http://www.rjoule.net/Barrow.htm
Posted by DD