Deepest Holesa

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

[By Subject] [By Date] [By Sender [By Thread]
Previous In Time
Next in Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bob wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom,

I received the seismometers on Thursday. I hope we can get together a package to send to you in the near future. I'm working on it.

In regard to your questions:

Yes, the plates are being driven by the convection currents occurring in the molten mantle rocks. They are indeed floating on molten material. A good demo of this is boiling water and rice over a small burner that heats just the central part of a pot (I first observed this phenomena when using my backpack stove to cook rice!). As the water heats up, the rice starts to circulate on the convection currents in the water, up in the hotter part and down in the cooler parts near the edge of the pot. This is kind of hard to show in a classroom because of the danger of boiling water. but, you could tell them to take a look at home next time they do some cooking and look for this.

`Q: What is the deepest mine in the world?

A: The deepest mine in the United States is probably the Homestake gold mine in South Dakota. People have been mining gold at Homestake since 1877. The underground workings reach to about 8,500 feet below the surface. The deepest mine in the World is probably the Western Deeps Gold mine near Carletonville in South Africa. This mine reaches to almost 4 kilometers (more than 13,000 ft) below the surface! Because the interior of the earth is still very hot, the temperature in deep mines can be very high, some times more than 140 degrees Fahrenheit. This makes working in these mines very difficult and dangerous. Cold, fresh air needs to be pumped from the surface deep into the mine to allow the miners to work. Sometimes, it is so hot that cold water must be sprayed on the miners to allow them to work. The high pressure caused by the weight of the overlying rocks sometimes causes the rocks to shatter explosively in what are known as rock bursts. Because of this, underground mining can be one of the most dangerous jobs and experienced miners are paid well.

The deepest holes on earth were drilled on land. Two holes in Kruna, Sweden reached 6.5 and 6.7 km depths, and were done for research purposes, like studies of geothermal gradient and crustal structure. Holes drilled for the purpose of hydrocarbon exploration in Louisiana reached depths of about 9 km, and in Andarko Basin, Oklahoma, about 12 km. There is another hole drilled to about this same depths on the Kola Peninsula, Russia, purely for research purposes. Because of extemely high temperatures encountered at that depths and related mechanical problems with the drill, progress became very slow and the Russians finally gave up.

`Q: How do scientist really know that the inner core is made of solid metal and for that matter, how do they really know what's down there at all?

A: Geologists believe the Earth's core has a solid inner part that is surrounded by a liquid outer part. The primary evidence for this is provided by listening to earthquake waves that pass through the center of the Earth. Such waves are of two sorts, P (or pressure) waves that are simply low-frequency sound waves, and S (or shear) waves that are similar to the waves one can make by wiggling a stretched rope. For S waves to be transmitted through a substance, the substance must have shear strength. No S waves are transmitted through the core, suggesting it has no shear strength. Stuff without shear strength is a liquid, suggesting the core is liquid. However, P waves travel more rapidly through the central part of

the core than one would expect for a liquid, suggesting that the center is solid.

Geologists think the core is probably a nickel-iron mixture for three primary reasons: (1) The strength of the Earth's gravitational field and

what we know of the composition of the outer layers requires something very dense in the core; (2) Many meteorites, which for a variety of reasons are thought to be similar in composition to the core, are nickel-iron mixtures; and (3) A nickel-iron mixture has the physical properties consistent with seismic-wave data.

For diagrams and further information, look at a good introductory geology textbook such as Geology, by S. Chernicoff and R. Venkatakrishnan, published by Worth Publishers, New York, in 1995.

In general, we base most everything we know about the earth's interior from observation of seismic waves and how they're affected by their travel through the earth.

`These answers came from the USGS Ask-a-geologist online service database. You can request answers directly, if you'd like, at:

[email protected]

`regards,

Bob ====================================================== Bob Hammond, Geophysicist US Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center at the Alaska Earthquake Information Center, Fairbanks ph: 907-474-5161 fax: 907-474-5618

2

" Unlike traditional photographs from space, a dark area does not
necessarily mean that less light is falling on the surface; as translated by radar, dark does not mean shadow. Instead, light and dark are relative measurements of radar reflectivity. Finely powdered snow and smooth ice with few imperfections both tend not to scatter radar projected against it; hence they look dark. Coarse material like old, pitted ice, rock slides, and crevasses scatter the radar beam and thus look bright--a strong radar
signal." ( From Science Magazine )

...

What if the poor reflectivity was due to the fact that Malapert is the Southern Polar orifice? Perhaps radiations emanating from the orifice at the South Pole of the Moon, apparently located in Malapert, play havoc with radar signals and falsely give the impression of ice.

3

Members,

I sent this Malapert posting, but it came through in a yellow print rather hard to read.

You can apply these Malapert comments to Venus. Cater says that the nature of the energies emanating from the openings of Venus- in other words, soft particles- reflect radar imaging and give the false impression of a smooth crater floor. But it must be a through opening because of the way that atmosphere gets expelled out of it. The attached image shows atmosphere being expelled from the Southern opening, while the NASA study Vortex studies the vortex at the Northern polar region which, by definition tells a tale of an opening; that there are " open " orifices, not just a depression as on Mars. Mars has a thin shell so that accumulated radiation can pass back through it. In the case of Venus we have evidence that the atmosphere itself shoots through the planet and provides ventilation.

Malapert at the Moon's southern pole could also have soft particle radiation flowing out of it such that radar imaging, as well as light, get reflected.

Here is the Malapert info:

" Unlike traditional photographs from space, a dark area does not
necessarily mean that less light is falling on the surface; as translated by
radar, dark does not mean shadow. Instead, light and dark are relative
measurements of radar reflectivity. Finely powdered snow and smooth ice with
few imperfections both tend not to scatter radar projected against it; hence
they look dark. Coarse material like old, pitted ice, rock slides, and
crevasses scatter the radar beam and thus look bright--a strong radar
signal." ( From Science Magazine )

...

What if the poor reflectivity was due to the fact that Malapert is the
Southern Polar orifice? Perhaps radiations emanating from the orifice at the
South Pole of the Moon, apparently located in Malapert, play havoc with
radar signals and falsely give the impression of ice.

Yahoo Groups removed 1 attachment from this message: venus01.jpg (image/jpeg)

4

Dean,
The information shared by UFOMAN on the description of the geological model
of the earth's cosmogony was an interesting review. I have discussed the
assumptions of the adherants of this concept at many levels for several
years. I have confronted the establishment of academia, as in the dean of
the Physics Department at M.I.T., as well as enthusiastic recent graduates in
the field of geology, and many in between, both in and out of the field.
They proponents of this model have always left these discussions in a mental
state of semi-frustration to that of extreme frustration.

When these individuals are confronted with the contradictory aspects of their
model, both in physical evidence and in mathematical calculation, they have
no concrete or justifiable answers to these conflicting observations. They
know that the model isn't perfect or absolute, but they claim that,
considering the facts they have at hand, it is the best model we have.

By the way, the model is not primarily determined by seismographic readings,
but more so by the mathematical calculations of the Newtonian Theorists which
require the seismographic readings to be thusly interpreted. Remember, by
Newtonian Law, in the equations which calculate the mass or weight of the
earth, it is required that the earth has to weigh a great deal more than what
the average 5.5 grams per cubic centameter of the outer crust material would
weigh if that average weight were applied to the entire volume of the earth.

This, remember, is the faulty Newtonian equation which misrepresents the
required mass of the earth in order to satify the incorrect equation. Thus,
to both satisfy the Newtonian Theory and its equations, along with keeping
true to the seismographic readings, the interpretation of these readings are
extremely biased in favor of explaining the Newtonian weight of the Earth.

With the Newtonian blunder out of the way, the seismographic readings could
even more readily be interpreted as fitting the Hollow Earth model! It is
the Newtonian requirement of weight that dictates the geological three -layer
model of an Outer Crust, made up of dirt and rocks as we know them, an Inner
Layer of molten lead, which satisfies both its liquid nature and the weight
requirement, and the Central Core of a more solid nature, which has been
theorized to be that of a Titanium or a nickel-iron mixture composition,
which satisfies the solid nature along with the even more additional weight
requirement factor in addition to the impervious-to-heat nature of this solid
mass which would be necessary to remain solid in the midst of the 4000 degree
molten lead. Fanciful, isn't it?

This model explanation satisfies all the major obstacles that Newtonian
Seismographers encounter, much to their own peace of mind and self-assurance,
therefore, ignoring the rediculous and fanciful nature of this extreme model.

Unfortunately, this rediculous explanation has been touted and presented as
truth for so long, that the majority of intellectuals in the world just
accept it as unchallenged fact.

However, with the Newtonian demands factored out of the puzzle, then these
extreme weight interpretations would not be required, and more sensable
explanations could be entertained.

The Hollow Earth model fits the same three-layer observation of the
seismographic readings, and it does so with a much more plausable
explanation. When considering the corrected Newtonian equation, the Hollow
Earth Model is the only explanation that makes any sense! The Outer Core, on
which we reside, remains intact, and it basically provides all the weight
necessary to satisfy the corrected Newtonian equation. The Inner Core still
exists with the properties of liquid as suggested by the seismographic
readings. Since gas, or atmosphere, has the same properties of liquid, only
lighter than water, or indeed, molten lead, then it would read as a liquid in
the seismographic readings. The Central Core would be the central sun, solid
enough in nature to read differently on the seismographic picture, but not
nearly as dense or heavy as the required Titanium or Nickel-Iron composite of
Newtonian Lore.

We have to keep in mind that all the scientific theories of the cosmogony of
the earth have been biased in their need to satisfy Newtonian requirements.
The domino effect has biased the interpretation of most every other
observation that comes along. If a satisfactory explanation can't be
formulated, then the observation just goes ignored. Whether in physics, or
geology, or any of the other pertinent sciences, this Newtonian bias has
blocked the progress of true discovery, as far as the nature of the earth is
concerned. This includes the Hollow Earth Theory as well as soft-particle
physics.

Newton was a brilliant individual. But, he make one slight, yet, tragic
error. That error has detoured the focus of the scientific world for
centuries now.

There may be a divine purpose for this misdirection. It's possible that
Newton was directed in making this mistake intentionally. Perhaps it has
allowed for a Utopian Culture to exist in conjuction with that of a much more
aggressive exterior culture. In this Utopian society, perhaps greater
discoveries and talents were allowed to be developed without the interferance
of greedy, conspiring men, who would have monoplized these discoveries at all
costs, and would have distorted the use of these powers and discoveries for
the purpose of greed, power, and control, which typifies the nature of man on
the surface of the earth.

However, with this Utopian Society being well-established, and with the
intellect of mankind on the surface of the earth reaching the crossroads
between truth and tradition, perhaps it's time that these two cultures
combine. It's appears that the Utopian Society is aware of us here on the
surface of the earth, so, perhaps, it's up to us Hollow Earthers to introduce
the rest of the world to the possibility of the existance of this Utopian
Society, with all their wonders and advancements, and this might help to
prepare surface mankind for the adjustments in our society that will be
necessary to co-mingle with the nature of their society.

Something to think about.

Norlan

5

field.

Norlan,

You are a brave soul. I personally feel that people at this level are
not exactly sincere, that they are part of the infiltration that has
taken place, and that they hold back the truth and channel research
in their own way.

I´ll give them credit though- given the way that people are now and
the way things are right now, the surface population is hardly ready
to assimilate the truth about gravity and antigravity, nor about the
hollow earth, nor about the civilization living there.

have.

Yes- They stand by some grossly absurd models and brush off attempts
to point out exactly how off track their model is by saying that "
more research is necessary." Then they ask you to be " reasonable "
and say that you are being fanatic.

Remember, by

the earth.

Norlan,

I thought that it was the Cavendish experiments which determined the
mass of our planet and which determined the way in which
seismographic readings have to be interpreted.

This is important for us to know. Could we clear this up, could you
comment on this? Maybe Scott has a comment or two is he isn´t
completely frustrated with me by now. # ; ^ )

The orthodox, solid planet model is not that hard to disprove. Jan
Lamprecht does it very well in his book Hollow Planets. the difficult
part has to do with establishing a viable, hollow earth model. I feel
that Cater does this by employing his Redistribution of Frequency
concept, such that soft particles are formed,then penetrate and
release heat and light within the shell to drive geological
processes.

I put up an article outling Cater´s model called A Comprehensive,
Hollow Earth, Geological Model.

Anyway, be careful about dealing sincerely with snakes. The dean of
physics at MIT is there for a reason. I think that you should get
some counselling from Dennis.

Later,

Dharma/Dean

6

On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:11:11 -0000 [email protected] writes

Dean,

All right, lets get something straight. I have never succumbed
to
the state in which I would not carry on a conversation with you and as
far as my being "frustrated with you" I have tended to think the shoe
was on the other foot. I sent you an e-mail or two which you didn't
bother to even answer but that might have been the mistake of the
e-mail system and not yours or mine.

Now, It has been brought to my attention time and time and time
and time again, that Newton is wrong or appears to be wrong and
that everyone ought to jump ship onto the Cater express. In a private
e-mail to Rod, I stated my concern that despite all of the bally-hoo
about Cater's change in frequency, hard particle, soft particle stuff, I
have not even heard one mention of the null gravity scenario as is
envisioned by those opponents of the hollow planet theory. They state
that there is no motive gravitational force from any location and in any
direction and that this proves that the hollow planet theory is left
without a gravity field to glue ones feet to the interior surface were
one to travel there.

I have made a great study out of this and it is a benchmark of my
research.
WHY HAVE YOU NOT ANSWERED THIS CHARGE YOURSELF?

I recall your consideration of the Pari Spolter book and how she claims
that
the inverse square law is now and has ever been found infallible in the
effects
of gravitational force at a distance. Mass products, electromagnetic
induction,
or whatever gravity really is has not answered this problem and neither
has
Cater or you would have proudly displayed his answer to the null gravity
question.

OPEN INVITATION TO THE GROUP

I am in search of a couple of people to go over the program I have
written
which discusses in depth the null gravity question. I have not expounded

everything I have thought about it but there is much there to wet the
whistle
and I would really appreciate some feedback. The program is more
advanced
than the last copy I sent to Dean and a few others in my seismic group.
So,
if I could have some volunteers that will agree to two simple conditions,
I will
sent the program to them. The conditions are stated below:

  1. Not to send or share this program with anyone else. I have more
    ideas and
    things to add to it and I share it in its incomplete state so that I have
    a sounding
    board in addition to myself about what is right wrong or otherwise about
    it. I
    feel that this is a wise step because it does no good to put my name on
    something
    without having at first critiqued it extensively.

  2. Not to keep me waiting. I want quick concise reactions to the
    program
    that are either praise, criticism or indifference. I want partial
    reactions within a
    couple of days and a full reaction within a week or 10 days at the most,
    so
    if you know you don't have time for it now, wait to ask for it at a time
    when you
    know you will be able to spend a little time going over it.

E-mail my personal address listed below with a statement of agreement to
these
terms and I will send it to you. It will be in the form of an
extractable DOS file
a little over 200 KB in size. It extracts out to a program of 955 Kb
plus two
source files. Just follow the simple directions and it ought to work
fine for you.

Axiously awaiting requests,

Scott

7

Norlan and Dino: I thought you both had very good replies to that article. I also found an article saying the Chinese are planning on drilling a couple deep holes. One will be like a telescope in the ground. It is the basic assumption by most people that the farther you go down into the earth the hotter it gets and therefore it would be impossible for people to live there. Thats why they can't fathom the idea of a Hollow Earth. My own brother-in -Law is a Science teacher and we have squabbles about this all the time. I think he is very narrow minded. I present him with evidence and books of the hollow earth and all I get is arguments. He won't even take time to buy a book in let alone read one. We have really only scratched the surface of the earth and we have all these experts out there wanting to shoot down the hollow earth theory. The Bright Spot story of a water reservoir 9 miles deep under Georgia may change some ideas on this theory. This is deeper than any hole drilled by man and they say there may be water where it should be impossible to exist. From: Ralph

8

Ralph, Norlan, Scott, and Dean...

I also read Holland's seismograph deductions post from Ralph (who enjoys playing devil's advocate it seems, posting straight orthodox pieces like Holland's. Good for you, Ralph. Keeps list readers on their mental toes!).

I am awed by the informed comments of Norlan, Scott (and you too Dean, though you kept yours brief). Hope Forster throws in his "two cents" too.

What amazed me about orthodox "geophysicist" Holland, is that his many sincere, but pompous views about what is below Earth's surface, are mostly the SAME views that DAVID PRATT brilliantly analyzes and demolishes in his online Gravity-Antigravity book at the following URL...
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/gravity.htm

If anyone has forgotten or not yet read Pratt's analyses at the above, please do so. I've re-read his stuff several times (because of my sieve-like memory) and continue to find new correlations.

After reading Pratt's analysis of the orthodox mishmash of conflicting interpretations about seismic readings based mainly on ASSUMPTIONS (Newtonian or not) Holland and his compatriots seem ARROGANT as hell to presume their nickel-iron or Titanium ball in the center of the Earth, is absolute Fact!

It seems that in Pratt's opinion, today's orthodox geologists have "certainty" ONLY about a relative few miles below the surface. What is further below the surface is just their agreed-upon, (knee-jerk) SPECULATIONS based mainly upon their present also agreed-upon ASSUMPTIONS. In my opinion, Assumptions remain JUST imaginative "inventions" until proven true, even if they come from academic "scholars." Just THEORIES.

Norlan, thanks for pointing out that seismic vibrations passing through a LIQUID can just as well be interpreted as passing through GAS (or an atmosphere). Good point. Again it seems orthodoxy's general ASSUMPTION that what is being passed through is a Liquid, not a Gas.

Ralph, what next have you got to enliven our minds, besides your usual avalanche of terrific URLS?

  • Dick
9

Dean, Ralph, Norlan, Scott, Frode, Forster and everyone else...
Some of you may already be aware of the following. But for me it was an eye opener about Thomas Gold's assertion that Earth's OIL and Gas are PRIMORDIAL. Didn't even know the famous Colonel Prouty had a website and was supporting ALTERNATE views on science. Prouty's website was among those in that huge collection recently posted by Ralph from Barkayren's site. Whether this data also supports Cater, Etidorhpa and the HE, I am not certain. It doesn't conflict. But it certainly lends credence to Churchward's notion that the enormous volumes of gases within the crust are PRIMORDIAL. Yet Churchward apparently was not aware that OIL too was primordial and undoubtedly formed by various gases chemically combining deep in the earth to form the liquid hydrocarbons we call OIL. (See my added comments below following all the text on the Prouty website). Awaiting comments by the rest of you. - Dick
----------------------

The following is from the website of Col. Fletcher Prouty (The "man on the bench" in Stone's JFK movie), discussing Dr. Thomas Gold's theory that OIL and GAS deposits are nearly INEXHAUSTIBLE "PRIMORDIAL" deposits (that "came with the earth" at its beginning), and unlike coal, are NOT derived from ancient fossil life... "The oil wells in Pennsylvania that were pumped out dry at the turn of the century and capped are now filled with oil again."
L. Fletcher Prouty: "... (1978) the Common Market Energy boss, M. Montibrial of France, told us that while petroleum was being marketed then for $20.00 per barrel or more, it cost no more than 25 cents per barrel at the well-head. There is our petroleum problem! We were paying more than $1.50-$1.60 per gallon, one 42nd of a barrel, at that time. Interested folks need to learn more about the Chartered Institute of Transport, and not waste their time with OPEC, the "Cover" story."
- From Dick Fojut, [email protected]
--------------------------------------
--------------------
(On Prouty's website) Letter of the Month - July 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Origins of Oil and Petroleum
How to Find Hands-On Experiences That Ignite Creativity in Australia | Astrid MM.
(Above opens Col Prouty's main web page. Click on "Letters" bottom of left side banner, for the same text included below)

Daniel E. Reynolds wrote:

On June 20th, 1996 Col. Prouty stated...
"Oil is often called a 'fossil' fuel; the idea being that it comes from formerly living organisms. This may have been plausible back when oil wells were drilled into the fossil layers of the earth's crust; but today, great quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level of any fossils. How could then oil have come from fossils, or decomposed former living matter, if it exists in rock formations far below layers of fossils - the evidence of formerly living organisms? It must not come from living matter at all!"

Two days after I read his statement I encountered the following statement in a newspaper I deeply respect:

"Any geologist will tell you, well, most geologists will tell you that OIL IS CREATED BY THE MAGMA OF THE EARTH. The oil wells in Pennsylvania that were pumped out dry at the turn of the century and capped are now filled with oil again."

Say what?

-------------------------------------------------
I would be honored if Col Prouty could provide me with just a few additional leads to MORE DOCUMENTATION BACKING UP HIS ASSERTION. A search of the US libraries (via computer) has turned up the name of Professor Thomas Gold who wrote a book entitled:

"Power from the Earth".

I tried to contact Marc J. Defant, a Volcanologist who teaches at the University of Southern Florida, but he is in Russia -- probably drilling for OIL PRODUCED BY MAGMA!!!

Professor Gold's book has been requested via interlibrary loan.

I certainly believe Col Prouty is telling the truth -- as he knows it -- personally! Well, I seek the TRUTH -- and when I find it -- I teach it to all who desire to hear it -- as best I can.

Thank you for taking time to read my request. If, Col Prouty can find the time to read it too -- and he chooses to share additional information with me -- I shall be most grateful.

Sincerely,

Daniel E. Reynolds July 29, 1996

-- -- -- -- -- - -- --

Here is Col. Prouty's response.

-- -- -- --
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 21:16:04 -0400 From: Col. L. Fletcher Prouty To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Reynolds letter

This response is for Daniel E. Reynolds, 29 July 1996 on the subject of "Oil - A renewable and abiotic Fuel?"

Dan, your use of the word "abiotic" is good. As a non-fossil fuel, petroleum has no living antecedent. It contains chemical elements found in living matter; but it is not "formerly living matter." There has not been enough true "formerly living matter"through all of creation to account for the volume of petroleum that has been consumed to date.

My background in this subject goes back to 1943. I was the pilot who flew a U.S. Geological Survey Team from Casablanca to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. We met the Cal. Standard Oil team holding down that lease. Then we went back to Cairo to meet President Roosevelt during the Nov. 1943 "Cairo Conference" with Churchill and Chiang Kai Shek. FDR ordered the immediate construction of an oil refinery there for WW II use. This led to ARAMCO.

During the "Energy Crisis" of the 1970's I was detailed to represent the U.S. Railroad industry as a member of the "Federal Staff Energy Seminar" program started by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, sponsored by Georgetown University. That began in Jan 1974 and continued for four years. It was designed to discuss "the working of the United States national energy system, and new horizons of energy research." Among the regular attendees were such men as Henry Kissinger and James Schlesinger...most valuable meetings.

During one meeting we took a "Buffet Break" and I was seated with Arthur Kantrowitz of the AVCO Company..."Kantrowitz Labs" near Boston. At the table with us were four young geologists busily talking about Petroleum. At one point one of them made reference to "Petroleum as organic matter, and a fossil fuel." Right out of the Rockefeller bible.

Kantrowitz turned to the geologist beside him and asked, "Do you really believe that petroleum is a fossil fuel?" The man said,"Certainly" and all four of them joined in. Kantrowitz listened quietly and then said, "The deepest fossil ever found has been at about 16,000 feet below sea level; yet we are getting oil from wells drilled to 30,000 and more. How could fossil fuel get down there? If it was once living matter, it had to be on the surface. If it did turn into petroleum, at or near the surface,how could it ever get to such depths? What is heavier Oil or Water?" Water: so it would go down, not oil. Oil would be on top, if it were "organic" and "lighter."

"Oil is neither."

They all agreed water was heavier, and therefore if there was some crack or other open area for this "Organic matter" to go deep into the magma of Earth, water would have to go first and oil would be left nearer the surface. This is reasonable. Even if we do agree that "magma" is a "crude mixture of minerals or organic matters, in a thin pasty state" this does not make it petroleum, and if it were petroleum it would have stayed near the surface as heavier items, i.e. water seeped below.

My D. Van Nostrand "Scientific Encyclopedia" says "Magma is the term for molten material. A natural, complex, liquid, high temperature, silicate solution ancestral to all igneous rocks,both intrusive and effusive. The origin of Magma is not known." My "Oxford English Dictionary" does not even have the word "Magma."

Some years ago I wrote two or three pages that appeared in the McGraw Hill Yearbook of Science and Technology, i.e. "Railroad Engineering." Even that source is a bit uncertain about the"origin of petroleum" to wit:

"Less than 1% of the organic matter that originates in or is transported to the marine environment is eventually incorporated into ocean sediment," and

"Most petroleum is formed during catagenesis (undefined anywhere). If sufficient organic matter is present oceanic sediments that undergo this process are potential petroleum sources. Deeply buried marine organic matter yields mainly oil, whereas land plant material yields mainly gas." (Their idea of "deeply buried" is the "out.")

All this leaves us no where. I still go with Kantrowitz. Since oil is lighter than water, everywhere on Earth, there is no way that petroleum could be an organic, fossil fuel that is created on or near the surface, and penetrate Earth ahead of water. Oil must originate far below and gradually work its way up into well-depth areas accessible to surface drilling. It comes from far below. Therefore, petroleum is not a "Fossil" fuel with a surface or near surface origin.

It was made to be thought a "Fossil" fuel by the Nineteenth oil producers to create the concept that it was of limited supply and therefore extremely valuable. This fits with the "Depletion"allowance philosophical scam.

During one of our C.S.I.S. "International Nights" (1978) the Common Market Energy boss, M. Montibrial of France, told us that while petroleum was being marketed then for $20.00 per barrel or more, it cost no more than 25 cents per barrel at the well-head. There is our petroleum problem! We were paying more than $1.50-$1.60 per gallon, one 42nd of a barrel, at that time. Interested folks need to learn more about the Chartered Institute of Transport, and not waste their time with OPEC, the "Cover" story.

Those who pumped the Pennsylvania wells "dry" during the late eighteen hundreds saved what they had for those better days.

L. Fletcher Prouty

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FOLLOW-UP-LETTER-- -- -- --

Subject: FACTS, FACTS, and MORE FACTS! To: Col Prouty Priority: Normal

Dear Len (and Col Prouty)

Stimulated by Col Prouty's assertion that OIL IS A NON-FOSSIL FUEL -- I put my roadster in high gear -- and went prospecting for some SOLID support! Well, I'm hear to tell you both, I DO BELIEVE I've FOUND IT - in spades!

Item #1: A MAGNIFICENT BOOK!!!!

TITLE: Power from the Earth Deep Earth Gas -- Energy for the Future by Thomas Gold [J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd, London, 1987] ISBN 0-460-04462-1

May I quote a few lines from from the front cover of the book ... a few words ... on

JUST WHO THIS GUY THOMAS GOLD AND WHAT HE HAS TO SAY ON THIS SUBJECT!

"Professor Thomas Gold is one of the great scientific thinkers of our time and in Power from the Earth he puts forward a highly revolutionary and controversial theory.

According to Gold, there are within the Earth virtually limitless stores of energy in the form of gas and oil as yet untapped. This energy is of non-biological origin and there is far more of it in the Earth than geologists have ever imagined -- and IT IS ACCESSIBLE!

--- Score 1 for Col Prouty!

At a time when the future supply of traditional fossil fuels is said to be seriously limited and nuclear energy is becoming ever more suspect, Gold's theory has vast implications for the future of the Earth's energy supplies and is crucial to our understanding of the deep processes that cause earthquakes and volcanoes. His view also clearly has far reaching consequences for the economic and political shape of the world.

--- Score 2 for Col Prouty!

In the past Professor Gold has explained the nature of pulsars and solar flares, proved that the Earth's poles change position over time, made new discoveries about the workings of the human inner ear, and was the only scientist to predict that Moon's surface consists of dust. His new theory has already been grabbing the attention of the international press and a drilling operation has been started in Sweden on the basis of his idea.

In Power from the Earth Professor Gold puts forward one of the most important scientific ideas of our age."

--- Well, having read the book, I can say I certainly concur with THAT OPINION. And guess what -- Dr. Gold is a friend of Arthur K. of AVCO LABS, etc....! BULLSEYE!

--- Score 3 for Col Prouty!

WHO IS THIS MAN....well listen up...

"Professor Thomas Gold, FRS, was born in Austria and educated in Switzerland and England, where he became famous as an astronomer at Cambridge in the post-war years. In 1956 he moved to the United States to become a professor at Harvard. He later became Professor of Astronomy at Cornell University, where he founded and directed the world-famous Center for Radiophysics and Space Research. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and of the United States National Academy of Sciences, and in 1985 was awarded the Gold Medal by the Royal Astronomical Scoiety. He now lives in Cambridge, England and is an Honorary Fellow of Trinity College."

Not bad. Not bad at all.

In fact, I'm honored to have made his acquaintance.

---- Score 4 for Col Prouty

& a Hearty THANK YOU TO DR. GOLD.

They say -- he coined the term magnetosphere in '59! I wonder what HE THINKS is causing those black outs out West??? Falling tree limbs? Now THAT's an interesting hypothesis! Maybe a bird took out the TWA? Hey, it's just a theory, just a theory...
-----------------

Ok ... now ... I hear some one murmuring

... "Well, if his Ideas are so good, so right, so profound -- SURELY THEY'VE MADE THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE ...REFEREED JOURNAL ARTICLES ... you know ... and all that. I mean ... if it's REEEEEEAL SCIENCE surely it's been recognized around the world!"

As a matter of fact, it has!

My I introduce you both (if you have not been so introduced prior to this letter) to the work and writings of P.N. Kropotkin...
Ref: Kropotkin, P. N. (1985) Degassing of the Earth and the Origin of Hydrocarbons, published in the International Geology Review, 27, 1261-1275

P.N. Kroptkin -- who is with the Geological Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow, it says in the header "has long been a leading proponent of the INORGANIC ORIGIN OF PETROLEUM, a THEORY which has had a continuous tradition of support in Russia and the Soviet Union and a recent revival in the United States and Western Europe."

Oh, well, better late than never!
------------------------------------------------------------
THIS PAPER IS LOADED WITH FACTS! Anyone who thinks that Col Prouty or Dr. Gold are spinning some kind of yarn ... HAD BEST READ IT -- ASAP. WE ARE BEING OFFERED AN IMMORTAL SYMPHONY BY THESE MEN -- and I for one LOVE the Sound of THIS MUSIC!

May I share just one quote from the work of P.N. Kroptkin... from page 1265 ... just one of many many AWESOME FACTS IN THIS SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT...

"Commerical oil pools in the basement rocks have been recorded in 267 oil and gas deposits on different continents. In some, oil is present at a depth of several hundred meters from its surface; in the USSR, such pools are known in a number of areas. A detailed analysis of the geological environment suggests that in some of these deposits, OIL COULD NOT HAVE ENTERED THE POOLS FROM THE OIL-BEARING STRATA OF THE SEDIMENTARY COVER AND, CONSEQUENTLY, PENETRATED FROM BELOW ALONG FAULTS.

---Score a HOME RUN for Col Prouty and Dr. Gold!!!!

Such is the Borolla deposit with pools in the Precambrian granites of the Shillong plateau (eastern India), the Peace River deposit in Western Canada associated with faults in the basin of the Athabasca River which border the zone of the pericratonic tough of the Canadian Shied, and the gigantic deposits of the Hugoton-Panhandle region of the USA and the Augila-Nafoora-Amal deposit in Libya. In the Hugoton-Panhandle deposit, the upper Paleozoic sediments and the basement rocks contain, in addition to oil, 2000 billion m^3 of fuel gases and 10 billion m^3 of helium and its concentration in such vast amounts over a small area may be explained, as earlier noted by V. I. Vernadskiy, solely by the migration of gas from a great depth, where faults drain huge volumes of rocks of the lithosphere."
---------------

May I make a simple REQUEST TO COL PROUTY...

Sir. Please continue to provide YOUR PROVOCATIVE MATERIAL...and OFFER US THE FACTS, as YOU KNOW THEM. Those of us out in this media-blitzed wilderness LOVE TO DO RESEARCH. WE WILL EFFORT to track down the details and WE WILL DO OUR PART but KNOW WE NEED GUIDANCE and we beg you to continue to shine YOUR VERY BRIGHT AND WISDOM FILLED LIGHT on the ROAD A AHEAD FOR US, OFFERING JUST A LITTLE DIRECTION, NOW AND THEN! We are OVER-UNITY 'MACHINES' ... and WE SHALL NOT FAIL YOU!

THANK YOU.

My very BEST to you both of you & Len!

SALU.

Daniel Reynolds Joyously Walking the grounds on which the Wright Brothers grew to fame, and VERY HAPPLY to be able to say so -- this day!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petroleum Disscussion Update for March 1997
-------------------------------

FOSSIL-FUEL THEORY DEBUNKED: OIL, GAS DEPOSITS CALLED PRIMORDIAL by Toldedo Blade

SEATTLE - The public's most widely known piece of geological knowledge--how petroleum and natural-gas deposits formed on Earth---is false, a noted scientist says. Surprisingly, his campaign to rewrite school textbooks and encyclopedias is getting grudging support from some geologists, who acknowledge that petroleum's origins may be dramatically different than what people believe.

Millions of Americans learned in grade school that oil deposits originated in the age of dinosaurs, when vegetation in lush forests was buried and subjected to high heat and pressure. Those extreme conditions supposedly transformed the hydrocarbons in vegetation into the hydrocarbons of petroleum.

"That's nonsense," snapped Thomas Gold, a scientist at Cornell University. "There's not a shred of evidence from chemistry, geology, or any other science to support it. It has no place in textbooks and school classrooms."

In appearances at the annual meeting of The American Association for the Advancement of Science in Seattle here that ended Thursday, Gold repeatedly challenged geologists to reconsider and reject the conventional theory.

Gold also presented evidence that oil and gas deposits on Earth are primordial. That means they came with the planet. They were part of the original raw material that formed the sun and planets, and deposited deep below Earth's surface when the planet formed 4.5 billion years ago.

Some of the oil gradually oozes upward from these original deposits 100 to 200 miles below the surface and collects where oil drillers can reach it.

In one presentation, Gold described shafts that he and associates drilled in an ancient meteorite impact crater in Sweden. They drilled into a kind of rock that was not sedimentary, not associated with the sediments believed to produce oil deposits. At a depth of about 4 miles, they encluntered a hydrocarbon oil similar to light petroleum that Gold believes was primordial oil. He noted a variety of evidence to support the belief. Gold estimated that this single site contained "more petroleum than all of Saudi Arabia." With current technology, however, pumping it out would be impossible, he added. Gold contended that many other planets and planetary bodies in the solar system have similar deep deposits of hydrocarbons, which are the stuff of oil and natural gas. Gold argues that a primordial origin for petroleum is the only way to explain its chemical composition.

Petroleum originating from plant matter decayed by bacteria, similar to bacteria that decay backyard garden-compost piles, would resemble a microbial product. Instead, petroleum is chemically similar to a pure hydrocarbon that has been contaminated with microbial material. That contamination, he argues, occurred as petroleum seeped upward through rock now known to contain enormous amounts of bacterial life. In moving upward, petroleum also collected helium, explaining why oil wells are such a rich source of helium.

"This is the only possible explanation," Gold said. "The association of helium with petroleum has not been accounted for in any other way."

How do geologists respond?

They're beginning to listen, according to Michael Carr, who appeared on a panel where Gold presented his theory. Carr is a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Reston, Va. "Dr. Gold has some very, very good evidence, especially that involving helium," Carr said. "He certainly is challenging the geological community. There is a debate within the geological community." Carr said geologists plan to reconsider the conventional theory about petroleum formation at a major meting later in the year.
--------------------------------------------------------
Once again, Prouty's assertions are backed by solid, credible people, and the next time Warren Commission apologists pooh-pooh Prouty, citing Prouty's "obviously ridiculous" views on petrol, just refer them to the above article. End of the Prouty website letters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------

P.S. from Dick Fojut... Col. James Churchward (who died in 1936), author of the 2 volume set "COSMIC FORCES OF MU," would undoubtedly support Thomas Gold's assertion that GAS (and OIL) deposits are primordial, not fossil derived.
Especially see the related paragraph further below: COAL BEDS FORMED FROM INDIRECT EMPTYING OF GASES.**

I'm repeating myself again, but Churchward, described the "birth of the earth" from a beginning nebula of hot elementary gases, gathered from space, being worked to a center by a centripetal force. A vortex. From the center the gases rebounded outward to impact against incoming gases about the middle of the nebula. At that impact point, some of the "heavier" gases chemically and mechanically combined through fusion and cooled to form the first line of crystals. Earth's first crust. Against that initial line of crystals, "heavier" rock-forming gases began to join and fuse, from BOTH sides simultaneously. The inside gases fused and accumulated to form the unstratified primary foundation granite. The fusing outside gases gradually formed the secondary Gneiss rocks, being laid down in layers because the crust was rolling.

Churchward contended that when the primary granite rock crust formed by fusion, the "Archaen" foundation granite was composed of "rock forming" chemical unions and mechanical compounds of 6 elements only (Oxygen, Aluminum, Silicon, Magnesium, Calcium, and Potasslum). Yet also "trapped" inside the solidifying outside crust were volumes of other (lighter) non-solidifying gases, including Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Carbon, etc. These gases did not go into the makeup of the primary foundation granite rock. But room space in the molten and semi-molten granite had to be provided for these gases. According to Churchward, the granite rock solidified AROUND bubbles of these "free" gases, encasing them..From geological evidence, Churchward estimated that these gas bubbles of all conceivable sizes (comparable in appearance to a Swiss cheese before compacting), occupied more than HALF the volume of the forming crust. Many of these gases combined to form bubbles of explosive volcanic gases. (Like Gold, extrapolating his primordial gas and oil theory to include all other planets, Churchward suggested that the crusts of all other planets in the universe were probably formed similarly to the way he described for earth, which seems in general agreement with Gold.)

(Note that some of those gases listed above that did NOT go into the makeup of the primary granite rocks, but combined to form explosive compounds in pockets, are the same that could chemically combine to form liquid OIL hydrocarbons. Churchward's "etc." included HELIUM, that Gold pointed out is so often found with Oil deposits.)

VERTICAL CRACKS OPENED EVERYWHERE.
Later, with the overall cooling of Earth's crust, weak places between the planes of crystals gave way and long vertical cracks and fissures opened up EVERYWHERE in Earth's crust, forming passageways connecting the gas filled bubbles. By that time, due to the earth's rolling and increasing centrifugal force, the bubbles flattened in extent, with reduced height. Some gas filled chambers could be measured with a foot rule. Most were less than 400 feet from roof to floor, but some were undoubtedly miles in height. And in some cases the horizontal extent of some also measured thousands of miles.

From the beginning to the present, Earth's great centrifugal force has been "working out," (upward), emptying the deep molten "center" layer and the hard crust, of these volumes of gases through the vertical cracks and fissures.

This "working out" of the gases began prior to the cooling and combining of the "lighter" outside gases that eventually formed Earth's atmosphere and waters. (At first not a rock was elevated above the boiling waters covering the entire Earth, according to Churchward.)

RAISING THE ROCKS ABOVE WATER LEVEL.
Earth's centrifugal force drove the gases still in the molten matter and in lower bubbles of the still soft crust, upward through the fissures, into the upper chambers that were formed under the rocky surface, and just under the Gneiss layers, OVERcompressing those upper gas chambers. The still soft rocks in the "roofs" of the chambers would be forced up higher and higher (above water level) by the added volumes of gases being driven in, until the thinning rock and Gneiss in the roofs gave way, rupturing through as a temporary volcanic cone. "Temporary" because at this early time in Earth's development, the pliable rocks in the upraised volcanic cones were not compacted and hard enough yet, to fall back on themselves to form supporting triangles and stay elevated.

THE FORMING OF SEDIMENTARY ROCKS.
Once the supporting gases had escaped, the roof rocks would come crashing to the chamber floor and water would fill the hole. In time the weight of the water on the fallen roof would create a new SEDIMENTARY rock. And that, according to Churchward, is precisely how almost all of Earth's sedimentary rock layers came to be formed.

Repeated succeeding uplifts of the roofs of live gas filled chambers just below the collapsed chambers, raised the lower roofs (along with each of the flattened collapsed chamber rocks on top) again above water level, temporarily. For periods of time the exposed cracked and sliced up rocks forced above above water level would erode to form sand and soil, preparing the surface to be capable of supporting future life forms. But before long, through direct volcanic eruption or indirect emptying, the emerged roof would collapse and be submerged again.

Over countless millions of years this continual uplifting, blowing out and submerging of the roofs of miles deep of the upper rows of gas chambers, resulted in "pancaked" upper crustal rock layers becoming more and more COMPACT, free of sizeable chambers. The thickened upper crust rock layers resisted the gases easily punching through vertically as before. "Nature" and the centrifugal force began to drive the gases HORIZONTALLY, opening connecting cracks and passageways laterally between chambers, some 10 to 15 miles below the surface, forming giant, irregular GAS BELT tunnels, while searching for a weak spot in the rocks above.

MOUNTAIN RANGES WERE UPLIFTED ABOVE GAS BELT TUNNELS.
Churchward claimed these GAS BELT tunnels did not begin forming until about 20,000 years back, and then only in a preliminary manner. Until that very recent time, Earth's upper rock layers were not sufficiently compacted and hard enough to resist being forced up and punctured.

With the "pancaked" rocks above resisting, the gases were driven along laterally under enormous pressure, forcing the rocks of the tunnel roofs upward and with the roofs, MILES THICK of the all the compacted rock layers above, to form "MOUNTAIN RANGES" protruding above the surface. As from a burrowing mole, the layers of compacted rocks above were uplifted, some thousands of feet, but not high enough to rupture through. The now hard, compacted rock layers, after being uplifted at angles, as gases passed on through the belt beneath relieving upward pressure, eventually fell back upon each other forming retaining angles and stayed uplifted. In prior millions of years, the still pliable rocks then collapsed into holes opened below. (Some of the upthrust rock strata found at the tops of mountains were from the original deep granite, which has been misread by orthodox geology to assume that mountains were formed millions of years past. This is different than the granite boulders found atop mountains that had been carried there by the waves of the last south moving magnetic cataclysm depositing them on the mountainless plains of the United States, before the mountains were uplifted, according to Churchward. Another story to be retold later about the "mythical ice age.")

The laterally driven gases continued burrowing on laterally, raised the rocks above into mountain ranges, until a weak spot above was found and the gases could move upward, forcing up a cone to empty into the atmosphere. Once a crater was opened and the belt's gases emptied, the mountain range uplifting ended above that belt. The volcano became the belt's SAFTEY VALVE for the emptying of future overcompressed gases being driven along in the deep belt.

Churchward claimed MOST of earth's mountains and mountain ranges were uplifted between only between 15,000 and 12,000 years ago. One of his many proofs that there were NO mountains anywhere on earth prior to 20,000 years past, is that geological evidence indicates NO mountain vegetation or mountain animal life earlier. The geological record shows only Super tropical and tropical SWAMP growth and SWAMP animal life reaching back toward the Cambrian time. Earth's cooling was slow and methodical, with never a back step or speedup.

EARTHQUAKES.
Most Earthquakes, according to Churchward, occur after a gas belt is emptied. Pressure gone, rocks may fall in from the roofs and sides of the belts, especially in narrow connecting passages between the belt chambers, blocking future movements of gases through the belt. When succeeding volumes of driven gases enter the belt and confront the block, they either FORCE the block ahead, melting the rocks (one source of lava), or forge AROUND the block, opening a new lateral tunnel through nearby chambers. Either way, the great violence VIBRATES the surrounding rocks in every direction, but especially directly above. On the surface we experience an EARTHQUAKE. The gases are clearing a block. Any residual debris in the belt or a new small block may also need clearing. On the surface we call these AFTERSHOCKS.

**COAL BEDS FORMED FROM INDIRECT EMPTYING OF GASES.
Shallow, but extended chambers under the "endless swamps" that covered early earth, especially during the carbonic era, had roofs just above the surface of the waters, They were covered with dense lush vegetation with fern like trees towering above. When a nearby (or distant) chamber erupted and blew out, many of them had their gases INDIRECTLY emptied through fissures connecting them with the blown out chamber. Their roofs would fall too, but the soil and vegetation on the roof would be largely undisturbed, settling to the chamber floor.

From all surrounding areas, great waves of water, gathering up all vegetation (and soil) in their paths, would converge on the INDIRECTLY emptied hole to fill it. The waves would form a vortex carrying some soil and clay to the bottom in the center, followed by the mass of carried vegetation settling on top (already mashed up by the carrying waves). Most of the pulverized soil carried by the waves temporarily remained in suspension in the waters. Then it too settled on top of the vegetable matter to form the SEAL or UPPER CLAY. The weight of the water above compressed the seal and encased vegetable matter. The original floor, the lower clay, of the chamber was still connected to volcanic heat (reaching as much as 3,000 degrees in temperature).rising with gases through the connecting fissures below. Through the underclay, volumes of the heat force entered the compressed vegetable mass. Through SMOTHERED COMBUSTION, the gases in the vegetable matter were driven out into surrounding rocks with the heat and the mass left became a coal bed. Succeeding future uplifts from overcompressed chambers below later raised the entire area (along with the above first coal bed and rock layers) above water again for a time forming a new surface and lush vegetable covering on top, until later, it too crashed below water to form a second submerged coal bed in the same manner as the first coal bed. These multiples of coal beds, formed thousands of years apart and one above the other are most obvious where several of them were upraised on an angle to form the side of a mountain raised much later.

From the preceding it is clear that Churchward understood HOW fossil vegetation became converted to form our coal beds. But he never mentioned how OIL came to be. I've always found this puzzling and an error of omission on his part NOT to describe the formation of Oil (from water entering a coal bed, I assumed). Earth's supplies of gases are INEXHAUSTIBLE. As he described, Earth's centrifugal force continues to empty the volumes of gases still remaining stored deep within the crust. Obviously Churchward was unsure HOW Oil was formed so chose to not write about it. Had he known in 1934 when he published his final 2 science books (as we now know), that Oil deposits have been found BELOW the fossil areas and even below the Cambrian rocks, he would have realized that SOME of the gases being worked upward through fissures by Earth's centrifugal force, combined to form hydrocarbon deposits of Oil, as well as combining to form volcanic gases. It seems to me that some of this forming Oil would collect in deep fissures, or substitute for gases to "pool" in the many large chambers whose former gases had been earlier driven out and higher upward by earth's centrifugal force.

I do not know what Gold describes about HOW the pools of Oil are moved upward to drillable levels, but he seems to think oil somehow "seeps" upward through fissures to higher levels. I take exception to "seeping" as I'm sure Churchward would. I hope Gold is not like Astronomer Jastrow who thinks CENTRIFUGAL FORCE is of NO importance in the Cosmos (and on earth) and is probably not a real force! Earth's very REAL and UNmeasurable inside centrifugal force is quite capable of driving all liquids in the crust toward the surface, just as it has with gases.

It seems to me that Dr. Gold's theory that Earth's GASES and OIL are primordial and "came with" the Earth at its beginning is supported by James Churchward's description higher up about how earth was formed.

And Churchward's tale in turn is supported by Gold's findings and theory that gases are primordial - (and that some of those gases also combined to form huge Oil deposits.)

It may not be healthy for us to keep using Oil and Gas but evidently such deposits in the crust are NOT scarce, but nearly inexhaustible and the International Oil giants probably are also well aware of it! No wonder Gold's theory was not given the news it deserves.

  • Dick
Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty: Oil is an abiotic mineral - NOT a "fossil" fuel
10

Dean,

All right, lets get something straight. I have never succumbed to
the state in which I would not carry on a conversation with you and as
far as my being "frustrated with you" I have tended to think the shoe
was on the other foot. I sent you an e-mail or two which you didn't
bother to even answer but that might have been the mistake of the
e-mail system and not yours or mine.

  • Scott,

  • My comment was not intended in any critical tone. I put a wink after it:

# ; ^ )

  • The truth is that Norlan had made a comment to the effect that we interpret seismographs according to Newton's equations. I had always thought in terms of a faulty interpretation of the Cavendish experiment. I was really hoping that you would make an illuminating comment or tow.

Now, It has been brought to my attention time and time and time
and time again, that Newton is wrong or appears to be wrong and
that everyone ought to jump ship onto the Cater express. In a private
e-mail to Rod, I stated my concern that despite all of the bally-hoo
about Cater's change in frequency, hard particle, soft particle stuff, I
have not even heard one mention of the null gravity scenario as is
envisioned by those opponents of the hollow planet theory. They state
that there is no motive gravitational force from any location and in any
direction and that this proves that the hollow planet theory is left
without a gravity field to glue ones feet to the interior surface were
one to travel there.

I have made a great study out of this and it is a benchmark of my research.
WHY HAVE YOU NOT ANSWERED THIS CHARGE YOURSELF?

  • Well, I think that we have gone over this before. The gravity-inducing radiation is produced in a strata underneath the surface, even underneath the inner surface. It does not reach across the cavity to the other side because the redistribution of frequency goes on- as the frequency of the radiation changes, it leaves the gravity-inducing frequency and no longer brings about gravity effects. There is no cancelling out of gravitational attraction, the gravity from opposing surfaces do not interfere with each other because they don't reach each other. You are thinking like a Newtonian, you are not putting yourself in the shoes of one who conceives of gravity as an electromagnetic radiation.

  • Although gravity diminishes the further one procedes towards the center of the cavity, it is still enough to push the soft particles towards the center, due to repulsion on all sides. They don't seem to stick together too much, they break up into their constituent particles of light and release the hard, heat-giving particles within, and form the inner sun.

I recall your consideration of the Pari Spolter book and how she claims that
the inverse square law is now and has ever been found infallible in the effects
of gravitational force at a distance. Mass products, electromagnetic induction,
or whatever gravity really is has not answered this problem and neither has
Cater or you would have proudly displayed his answer to the null gravity
question.

  • I hope that the above is what you are referring to by the null gravity question. The way to resolve things on a list is by open discussion, you can tell Rod, too.

  • Mr. Cater's model is well represented on my hollow Earth Science site. Mr.Cater's model is highly cohesive.

DD

OPEN INVITATION TO THE GROUP

I am in search of a couple of people to go over the program I have written
which discusses in depth the null gravity question. I have not expounded
everything I have thought about it but there is much there to wet the whistle
and I would really appreciate some feedback. The program is more advanced
than the last copy I sent to Dean and a few others in my seismic group. So,
if I could have some volunteers that will agree to two simple conditions, I will
sent the program to them. The conditions are stated below:

  1. Not to send or share this program with anyone else. I have more ideas and
    things to add to it and I share it in its incomplete state so that I have a sounding
    board in addition to myself about what is right wrong or otherwise about it. I
    feel that this is a wise step because it does no good to put my name on something
    without having at first critiqued it extensively.

  2. Not to keep me waiting. I want quick concise reactions to the program
    that are either praise, criticism or indifference. I want partial reactions within a
    couple of days and a full reaction within a week or 10 days at the most, so
    if you know you don't have time for it now, wait to ask for it at a time when you
    know you will be able to spend a little time going over it.

E-mail my personal address listed below with a statement of agreement to these
terms and I will send it to you. It will be in the form of an extractable DOS file
a little over 200 KB in size. It extracts out to a program of 955 Kb plus two
source files. Just follow the simple directions and it ought to work fine for you.

Axiously awaiting requests,

Scott

11

Original subject: OIL/GAS primordial. -Thomas Gold

Dick,

Incredible info, incredible.

DD

Subject: [allplanets-hollow] OIL/GAS primordial. -Thomas Gold

Dean, Ralph, Norlan, Scott, Frode, Forster and everyone else...
Some of you may already be aware of the following. But for me it was an eye opener about Thomas Gold's assertion that Earth's OIL and Gas are PRIMORDIAL. Didn't even know the famous Colonel Prouty had a website and was supporting ALTERNATE views on science. Prouty's website was among those in that huge collection recently posted by Ralph from Barkayren's site. Whether this data also supports Cater, Etidorhpa and the HE, I am not certain. It doesn't conflict. But it certainly lends credence to Churchward's notion that the enormous volumes of gases within the crust are PRIMORDIAL. Yet Churchward apparently was not aware that OIL too was primordial and undoubtedly formed by various gases chemically combining deep in the earth to form the liquid hydrocarbons we call OIL. (See my added comments below following all the text on the Prouty website). Awaiting comments by the rest of you. - Dick
----------------------

12

The Guide in Etidorhpa, in chapter 16, comments on the flow of energy through the shell of the Earth: HugeDomains.com

" The child ignorant of letters wonders at the resources of those who can spell and read, and, in like manner, many obscure natural phenomena are marvelous to man only because of his ignorance. You do not comprehend the fact that sunlight is simply a matter-bred expression, an outburst of interrupted energy, and that the modification this energy undergoes makes it visible or sensible to man. What, think you, becomes of the flood of light energy that unceasingly flows from the sun? For ages, for an eternity, it has bathed this earth and seemingly streamed into space, and space it would seem must have long since have been filled with it, if, as men believe, space contains energy of any description. Man may say the earth casts the amount intercepted by it back into space, and yet does not your science teach that the great bulk of the earth is an absorber, and a poor radiator of light and heat? What think you, I repeat, becomes of the torrent of light and heat and other forces that radiate from the sun, the flood that strikes the earth? It disappears, and, in the economy of nature, is not replaced by any known force or any known motion of matter. Think you that earth substance really presents an obstacle to the passage of the sun's energy? Is it not probable that most of this light producing essence, as a subtle fluid, passes through the surface of the earth and into its interior, as light does through space, and returns thence to the sun again, in a condition not discernible by man?" He grasped my arm and squeezed it as though to emphasize the words to follow. " You have used the term sunshine freely; tell me what is sunshine? Ah! you do not reply; well, what evidence have you to show that sunshine ( heat and light ) is not earth-bred, a condition that exists locally only, the result of contact between matter and some unknown force expression? What reason have you for accepting that, to other forms unknown and yet transparent to this energy, your sunshine may not be as intangible as the ether of space is to man? What reason have you to believe that a force torrent is not circulating to and from the sun and earth, inappreciable to man, excepting the mere trace of this force which, modified by contact action with matter appears as heat, light, and other force expressions? How can I, if this is true, in consideration of your ignorance, enter into details explanatory of the action that takes place between matter and a portion of this force, whereby in the earth, first at the surface, darkness is produced, and then deeper down an earth light that man can perceive by the sense of sight, as you now realize? I will only say that this luminous appearance about us is produced by a natural law, whereby the flood of energy, invisible to man, a something clothed now under the name of darkness, after streaming into the crust substance of the earth, is at this depth, revivified, and then is made apparent to mortal
eye, to be modified again as it emerges from the opposite earth crust, but not annihilated. For my vision, however, this central light is not a necessity; my physical and mental development is such that the energy of darkness is communicable; I can respond to its touches on my nerves, and hence I can guide you in this dark cavern. I am all eye."

" Ah!" I exclaimed, " that reminds me of a remark made by my former guide who, referring to the instinct of animals, spoke of that as a natural power undeveloped in man. Is it true that by mental cultivation a new sense can be evolved whereby darkness may become as light ?"

" Yes; that which you call light is a form of sensible energy to which the faculties of animals who live on the surface of the earth have become adapted, through their organs of sight. The sun's energy is modified when it strikes the surface of the earth; part is reflected, but most of it passes onward into the earth's substance, in an altered or disturbed condition. Animal organisms within the earth must possess a peculiar development to utilize it under its new form, but such a sense is really possessed in a degree by some creatures known to men.