Antartic Opening

ALLPLANETS-HOLLOW Yahoo Group (Old Posts)
, , , ,
1

Members,

I've been studying Rod M. Cluff's explanation of the Radarsat image. You all
might remember that I posted the image, along with Rod's comments, at the
bottom of my images page:

http://www.skyboom.com/hollowearthpuranas/index6.html

I really think the guy got it.

He said: " you can see fog coming up out of the opening on the right side of
the dark area." By dark area he means the red circle. And you can really see
a white line snaking off to the right of it.

Then he says: " Also, notice that towards the top left is an area where
there is a lot of icebergs that regularly break off the antarctic ice and
that there is a definite flow of ice from this dark circular area."

And this is true. From 10 or 11 oçlock on the red circle on up at an angle,
you can actually se the lines where the ice flow is across the continent.
Who can get us an Antartic relief map? We have to check elevations and
grades along that line.

Then he says: " Looking at the edges
of this dark area of low radar reflectivity I see
a definite depression. On the sides you can see
clearly the surface details which taper off in in
clarity towards the dark area caused by the
sloping angle as you enter the depression. "

And the image really does show this. You can see texture around the red
circle, but the texture tapers off as you arrive at the circle and then it
is all dark. I don't have my atlas here, nor is it a super-good one. Can
anybody use the key to their atlas and figure out the width of the opening?
You know, rule of thumb.

Now look at the Bancroft-Arneson expedition map, those two ladies who
crossed the Antartic and got picked up. It is attached ( Thanks, Ralph ).
They went so far left of it that they didn't even stay on land- they passed
across the Ross Ice Shelf!

Something else- Now go to my informal Antartic page:
http://www.skyboom.com/hollowearthpuranas/index19.html
Look at the map, third image down, entitled 1999 Antartic AWS Site Names.
AWS means automatic weather station ( unmanned ). The opening area seems to
be between AGO 1, AGO 4 and AGO 5. They forma triangle at that circle which
represents 85* of latitude and 120* of longitude, which is synonamous with
the 39* which Rod calls it in his comments. ( 40* = 120*, it depends on how
you number them. ) I wonder what those weather stations really are, what
they really measure.

Well, that's it for now. I kind of went over this before, with no comments
or feedback. This is the kind of info that hollow earthers of yesteryear,
like Gardner, could only speculate on- they didn't have any Radarsat images
to deduce from! And you're having it all given to you n a silver platter!
Nansen spent three years collecting info, Cook was slandered and got thrown
in jail for sticking his nose where it shouldn't have been, Admiral Peary
lost toes to frostbite! How cold are you?

Any feedback, especially from new people?

later,

Dharma/Dean

Yahoo Groups removed 1 attachment from this message: bancroft-Arnesen.jpg (image/jpeg)

2

Dean,

I asked Jan this question and he never got back to me about it,
but,
I put high emphasis on the position of one polar opening being exactly on

the opposite side of the planet than the opposite polar opening is. If
the
planet was formed by an application of natural physical laws it would
seem imperative that the polar holes be very nearly perfectly symmetrical
to each other. For instance, if one polar opening is at 85 degrees
latitude
north just as a hypothetical, then the opening at the other pole ought to
be
also located at 85 degrees south latitude. In the same vein, if the
location
of the hole in the arctic were at X degrees west longitude, then, the
location
of the hole in the Antarctic ought to be at X degrees east longitude. It
is
reasonable to assume that the planet could have been created so that the
polar opening and the geographic axis were congruent. Through precession
of the poles and possibly polar shifts, the holes may be not aligned
perfectly
with the spin of the planet but they ought to reflect such congruency
that
they most logically had at the creation of the planet. Has this been
considered
enough? I hardly ever hear anyone other than myself mention this point.
This does beg an interesting question for those that might not
believe
in a Supreme Being having an active hand in the formation of the Earth we

dwell on. If the formation of the planet came about through natural
laws,
then it would seem imperative that the openings be exactly opposite each
other.
On the other hand, if the poles were created slightly off of an alignment
suggested
by what natural forces would dictate, ie. the quick rotation of nebular
gases
and dust particles, then modern science so contrary minded to the idea of
recognizing an Almighty God, would have no reasonable out for a planet
regardless of the order implicit in natural law, that formed with the
polar
openings offset from each other. In other words, one could be positioned
exactly on the spin axis, but the other could not be.
Please consider symmetry people! It can be seen everywhere
throughout nature and if man didn't engineer his wheels and machines with
high symmetry, the equipment would either not be able to work at all,
work
in a poor way, or it would fall to pieces under high duress.

Scott

On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 00:38:28 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected]

3

Scott,

You bring up a good issue.

If the planet were still expanding, or has expanded after creation, then
this would constitute a variable. Maybe the after-expansion was not
symetrical.

Rod feels that the Northern opening is at 141* East, and 85* of latitude.
The Southern one is at 39* of East Longitude and 85* South latitude. More or
less, especially if you consider that the Northern opening could be
elongated and stretch over towards the Canadian side. That would just about
align them symetrically.

Good night.

DD

4

Original subject: A new Antartic Map

Members,

Here is a real nice map of Antartica. It is the same map of automatic
weather stations, here initialed as AGO in order to be more complicated. (
What was wrong with AWS for Automatic Weathe Station? Leave it to those damn
scientists! ) But this one is more recent- Feb of 2000

http://uwamrc.ssec.wisc.edu/aws/AntAWS.jpg

Notice the area between AGO 1, AGO 4 and AGO 5- there is a flat area, a
smudge, with no texture. That seems to be it.

DD

5

List Members,

Don't forget about the onelight site, a hollow Earth site fromtop to bottom.
It is for those of you who meditate and search on that level.

Later,

Dharma/Dean

6

Members,

We don't like the solid-planet model, do we?

From: A Comprehensive, HE Geo Model-

" A geological model of the hollow earth, encompassing such processes as
earthquakes, volcanoes, gravity, continental drift ( plate tectonics ), the
inner sun, as well as wind patterns, is very important for the Hollow Earth
Theory. Modern science fields a solid-planet geological model, but it
doesn't seem to be extremely congruent.

For example, the case for super rotation in relation to the Earth's inner
core is weak. Whatever the inner core consists of, given millions of years,
its rate of rotation should catch up with the rest of the planet, especially
since the interior of the strata which surrounds the core shows peaks and
valleys in seismographs. The magnetosphere is supposed to be generated by a
difference in the rate of movement between the core and the surrounding
strata, but how such a magnetic field penetrates the Earth's shell and
extends into outer space is not clear. The magnetosphere would have to
penetrate through a heated strata, the athenosphere, which is characterized
by such intense heat that its rock layers are plastic. Even a lesser amount
of heat kills magnetic properties ( the Curie Point ), such that passage by
a magnetic field through the athenosphere is impossible.

At the same time, it is accepted that the athenosphere is characterized by
deep-focus earthquakes, which is incongruent again as earthquakes need
brittle strata for the " snap " to occur- is this strata plastic and heated,
or brittle? The athenosphere has to be hot and plastic for the strata to
support the subduction process which forms part of the solid-planet model of
how continental drift takes place. But the strata would have to be brittle
for deep focus quakes to occur. Incongruencies abound in the solid planet
model, and the idea of needing " further research " seems to be an
understatement.

The solid-planet model certainly does not enjoy a lock on theories in
relation to our planet's configuration; modern geology has no absolute
platform in this regard. One exacerbating cause of these contradictions is
the fact that geology does not enjoy direct perception of its object of
study, i.e., nobody has been hundreds of miles down through the crust and
shell of the Earth. This situation is different from other scientific
disciplines which do enjoy much direct perception. For example, a biologist
can observe microbes in a microscope, an astronomer can observe the heavens
through a telescope, et cetera. Even the seismographs, which are the main
source of evidence of the Earth's inner configuration, have to be
interpreted, and such interpretations are based on yet other unproven
interpretations, in the ultimate issue, of the Cavendish experiments."

7

It seems to be ....WHAT?

On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:21:19 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected]

8

The opening. All around there is texture to the terrain, at that point it
dulls out. Rod identified this as an area of low reflectivity on his
Radarsat image.

If you have any other angles of view, reality checks, then let us know.

Have you looked at Rod's Radarsat map?

DD