Members,
There is a certain interpretation going around out there, embraced by various hollow Earthers:
" Gardner makes a lot of the fact that after leaving the ship for the
abortive attempt on the pole, Nansen was completely lost for many months. He
insinuates that this was because the curvature of the earth was different to
what was expected due to the fact that Nansen was on the lip of a polar
opening. However, Nansen's difficulty in finding Franz Joseph Land was
largely due to the fact that he and Johansen had carelessly let their
chronometer watches run down, with the result that all their calculations
for longitude were out by several degrees."
It is true that everyone can have their own opinion, but it is a matter of getting the facts clear. The blame belongs to Gardner in the first place ( the guy is allowed a boo boo ); he mixed things up. It is true that their ( Nansen and Johansen )
watches had run down and caused them to get lost above Franz Josef Land. But
this problem had to do with longitude and had nothing to do with latitude.
Several months prior, however, Nansen did experience latutude anomalies as
he retreated from his stab at the Pole. This was in the middle of April, and
it was a matter of latitude confusion, which is so suggestive of curvature
anomaly. Separate incidents have been confused. I'll quote from my article
Seven Days North of Tibet, where I quote from Nansen's book Farthest North:
" Now we touch on the anomaly of curvature again-
Page 288: [ April 6th ] " It became more and more of a riddle to me that we
did not make greater progress Northward. I kept on calculating and adding up
our marches later on, but always with the same result ... we must be far
above the 86th parallel. It was becoming only too clear to me that the ice
was moving southward."
Page 291: [ April 14th ] " I find that we should yesterday have come farther
South than 86* 05. North; ...I cannot explain it in any other manner than by
the surmise that we have been drifting radiply northward, which is very good
for the Fram, but less so for us [ on foot ]."
It was between these two log entries that Dr. Nansen and Johansen had turned
back. Here we find that within the space of a few days, Nansen blames his
navegational anomalies on the ice drifting Southward then Northward. More
likely, they were very close to the doughnut-like funnel opening into the
hollow portion, and the curvature changes were confusing Dr. Nansen,
indicating paucious lateral movements, rendering his sextant unreliable.
There was a Northward current at the time because the ship Fram, which was
still in the vicinity, had drifted Northwards also. This current would
account for the retarded Southward progress of Dr. Nansen and Johansen. But
their scant Northward/lateral progress prior to the turnback had to have
been due to travel down the inward slope of the opening."
Here I talk about the problem when he got losta few months later above Franz
Josef Land:
" Due to polar anomalies in terms of compass and curvature, Dr. Nansen and
crew had been unable to precisely calculate their position since the first
moment that they had lodged their ship into the ice. At this point, trekking
on foot near the Pole, he and Johansen were still quite unsure of their
position thanks to the drunken compass readings along the rim of the
opening; and they remained unsure for a long time as they headed straight
down South on the Russian side of the Pole. ( As an example, by June 14th,
Nansen recorded his position to be 57* 40' of longitude but, later on, once
he got back to civilisation, he felt that it had been more like 6* further
East of that. ) As he and Johansen headed South towards Franz Josef Land, he
wasn't even sure on which side of the archipelago they would come down on!
As they descended from near the Pole, however, the nature of their
navigational difficulties took on a different nature. They became problems
in terms of longitude because they had let their watches run down- not
latitude. Their difficulties in determining their longitude at this point
were not anomalous."
Above the New Siberian Islands, around 80*, he had experienced curvature
anomalies at the very start of his trip. Again, from Seven Days North of
Tibet:
" On page 126 of Nansen's book, disappointment is described as the navigator
all of the sudden determines the ship's position to be various degrees South
of where they had calculated. Now, it is not reasonable to assume that an
error had existed all this time, which was not caught until that moment.
Their navigator was Sugurd Scott Hansen, an officer of the Norwegian Navy
and an academy graduate: Could it be that the current had the ship
straddling the rim of the funnel-like opening, falsely indicating
exaggerated movements in terms of latitude? It seems that the curvature of
the polar opening was playing havoc with the angle of their sextant, and the
indications derived from the readings. "
Even from that side of the basin, by 79 * latitude, they were experiencing
latitude/curvature problems, two years before the time when they left the
polar area and headed towards Franz Josef land.
So there was sloping reported from far-removed, separate points. Not only from above the New
Siberian Islands, not only from above Franz Josef Land, but from over above
Greenland/Canada where Greely explored. His comments on " foreshortening "
are in Bernard's book.
Another thing about curvature anomalies- If we examine photos of the North
Pole, you'll see that the horizon drops off shortly. It should stretch on
out, but since the curvature is foreshortened at that point, the horizon
drops off. So again I say, Nansen related two solid cases of curvature
anomaly, from just below the Pole on the Franz Joseph side and from above
the New Siberian Islands, and Greely experienced curvature anomalies from
near the Greenland/Canada point, what to speak of the Pole having a
short horizon.
The point about curavature anomalies from far removed, separate points is that they support the idea of a large opening, not a narrow opening similar to a hole. So we have to get it straight.
Some people doubt this because they feel that a large opening would have been spotted by the military operatives in the region, NORAD aircraft, satellite pics, et cetera.
But we shouldn't be so quick to rule out a conspiracy among the powers that be in
the world. For example, they all know that UFOs exist, but when the US military denies
them you don't see the Queen of England saying " Oh, they do, too, exist." Nor does the Prime Minister of Japan let people know what's going on.
I think that European powers had an idea of the opening before Nansen went, from previous
info from previous explorers. His people were carefully selected. And
you'll notice that Nansen got involved in European politics trying to unite Europe,
and with the League of Nations, right after his trip. I bet he knew, and
that he and the European powers which he represented immediately started
marshalling support and consolidating power, even back then.
I don't think that the Fram's crew told all, either. Just enough to leave us
hints, but nothing direct, really. nansen spent two Arctic nights very near
the opening, and didn't mention anything about any luminosity over the
horizon which could be from the inner sun shining through. But H.D Northrop
said that the "white " aurora
was constant through the Arctic night once one got far enough North. how
came Nansen was so mum on this " constant " phenomenon?
There are more reasons to suspect conspiracy in regard to a noticeably large opening, but it is late. I can't go
into it.
Good night.
Dharma/Dean