Seven Days North of Tibet:
" On July 18th Doctor Nansen brings our attention to other polar anomalies quite noticed and well documented by other explorers- at this point the ship was just above 81* North.
Page 201: Wednesday, July 18th. Went on an excursion with Blessing in the forenoon to collect specimens of the brown snow and ice. ... The upper surface of the floes is nearly everywhere a dirty, brown color, or, at least, this sort of ice preponderates, while pure white floes ... are rare. ...; but the specimens I took today consist, for the most part, of mineral dust mingled with diatoms and other ingredients of organic origin. [ Dr. Nansen mentions in the footnotes that ] larger quantities of mud, however, are also often to be found on the ice ... but are doubtlessly more directly connected with land.
Page 488: Siberian driftwood, ... as well as the mud found on the ice ... even when we were as far North as 86*.
The question always goes back to the manner in which one interprets such data. The sediment types from the mud typically found on the ice floes seemed to correspond to Siberian rivers, wherefrom some ice could have broken off. But the sediment types also correspond to Alaskan sediments-they did not correspond to European sediments. Driftwood found near Greenland was definitely of Siberian and Alaskan origin, not European. A Hollow Earther would ask why couldn't such evidence also correspond to a land mass at the entrance to the hollow world? The problem is that we have no sediment samples from such a place to compare with the mud from the floes, but since the suspected entrance lies in the same part of the polar basin as Siberia and Alaska, why wouldnt such a place provide a more likely explanation for the mud found on the ice floes at that very point? Such a place would be a closer source.
Granted that sediment types from the mud found on the icebergs do not constitute absolute evidence of a hollow Earth. But what about the pollen dust which covered huge expanses of ice? There may have been land masses which could have accounted for the existence of a bit of mud on the ice, but there was certainly nothing in the way of vegetation which could have produced pollen which blew about and settled all over the icebergs. Has any observer ever noticed huge clouds of pollen dust traveling across the Northern parts of continents and the Artic Ocean in order to deposit themselves on the ice up at 82* North? Nansen was not the only Arctic explorer tonote icebergs covered with pollen, it is a typical phenomenon. Since the ice has movement, such clouds of pollen would have to be typical in order to regenerate their dusty cover on the ice. Would not a polar opening, through which the winds of a continent are funneled, better account for such an observation?
Pollen dust was not the only dust encountered by the Fram and its crew. Clouds of volcanic dust were found, too, consisting of iron and carbon particles. These huge clouds descended on the Fram and settled everywhere and enveloped eveything, causing discomfort and irritation. Nansen noted: " Let us go home. What have we to stay for? Nothing but dust, dust, dust. " There were no active volcanoes at this time, certainly not for thousands of miles. But the Fram wasn't the only ship to encounter such dust, so any source for the volcanic dust found in the Artic would have to be typically active. A polar opening to the interior of our planet, with an associated land mass, provides a plausible explanation."
Does anybody know from where else pollen anomalies in the Artic were noted, from what other points?
Dharma/Dean
···