http://www.newage.com.au/ufo/venus.html
Yahoo Groups removed 1 attachment from this message (1 executable file, removed as unsafe)
Ralph,
I found the following on that site which talked about evidence for
civilization on Venus;
" It is scientifically possible for material plane beings to live in
an atmosphere on another planet, that is too hot or chemically fatal
to Earth humans, by constructing underground air-conditioned bases or
cities protected from the elements on the surface. It is also
feasible to create air---conditioned domes on the surface of other
planets that have artificial atmospheres exactly like on Earth, and
American scientists admit they already have the technology and plans
to create these bases on Mars and our Moon. Therefore
extraterrestrials with the superior technology to create disc--shaped
U.F.O.s, that are detailed in dozens of photos and documents in the
U.S. Air Force released Project Bluebook files, could logically
possess the advanced science to create such bases on the surface of
the planet Venus.
The physicists William Plummer and John Strong stated that Venus may
have large areas of bearable temperatures. The regions near the
Venusian north and south poles would be much cooler than the areas
reportedly monitored by space probes. Furthermore, according to
Professor Alexander Lebedinsky, in the Soviet Union, in data
suppressed by the United States Pentagon complex, the usual surface
temperature of much of Venus must be about 110 degrees Fahrenheit,
even though "radio---electric" measurements indicated 700 or more
degrees. Similar observations can be made on the relatively COOL
surfaces of gas tubes used in neon signs, because the radio--electric
equivalent of those tubes is also several thousand degrees!"
Ralph,
The truth is that I seriously doubt that Venus has the temperatures
which they ascribe to it. The Venera Nine orbiter supposedly sent a
lander onto the surface of Venus by parachute, so how could the
atmosphere have a temperature of 900* F?
And there is supposed to be heavy amounts of ammonia in the
atmosphere. With such temperatures, the surface, mixing with amonia
deposited from the atmosphere, would be melted and blob-like by now.
Really, I think that we can assume that temperatures are not an issue.
Dharma/Dean
I meant to say sulfuric acid.
DD
Members-
Here are some comments from Joseph H. Cater in Chapter 15 of The Ultimate
Reality. He explains how the floods could have been caused, how the cloud
canopy- which he calls mantle, fell- and how the orbit of the Earth could
have changed.
The idea behind his " levitation beam " is that it would simply be a beam
consisting of the gravity inducing frequency which is emitted from some of
those mother ship type of UFOs. the increase of the gravity-inducing charge
thus absorbed by the Earth's shell would shrink the radius of the Earth's
orbit. It would also and increase the amount of gravity, which would have a
stunting and stupifying effect on surface world inhabitants, as well as
reducing the duration of life.
Cavern worlds could be collapsed this way due to the excess acumulation of
gravity within. This thye of UFO interference may account for the legend of
Atlantis, and could account for the Gulf of Mexico collapse at one point.
As always, this is just a tidbit, but read on, it is good food for thought.
Cater:
" It is more than likely that giant UFOs have been deeply involved in
notable events of the past which have never been explained. For example, the
great flood of Noah's day seems to defy all the rules of elementary physics
and common sense. It was supposed to have been produced by a rain that
pelted the earth for 40 days and nights. How could such a rain cover entire
mountain ranges? The hardest rain on record, going continuously for 40 days
and nights, could not account for more than about 200 feet of water. Yet
this flood covered Mt. Ararat, which rises three miles above the surrounding
country. In any event, where would all the water come from that could
produce a violent rainstorm lasting for 40 days? Interestingly enough,
records kept by other peoples on other parts of the globe mention a similar
flood, and geological evidence confirms it. Rain could account for only, a
small percentage of the water involved in the flood. Where did this extra
water come from and where did it go after it receded?
The only answer is giant spaceships, with levitation beams that can move
planets from one place to another and to different orbits. A levitating beam
or beams of sufficient magnitude to move the earth to a different orbit
would displace large portions of the oceans, causing land masses to be
inundated. After the moving process was completed, the displaced oceans
would return to their former positions.
No doubt prior to the flood the earth was in a different orbit, in full view
of the binary sun, and perhaps closer to the sun than it is now. Its surface
would be protected by a great mantle of water vapor as is the case with the
planet Venus. When the earth was moved into its present orbit, this mantle
of water vapor quickly condensed as rain."
hi i'm new here. i'm 21 and live in australia. here goes!
i think you missed the bit where it says "the fountains of the deep were broken up". this seems to say that vast amounts of water rose up from under the earth's surface and this is probably what accounted for most of the sea level rise.
Paul
Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] Cloud canopies collapsed by gravity beams
Paul
Paul,
Mr. Cater seems to be suggesting a jostling as the planet moved in to a
closer orbit.
" A levitating beam or beams of sufficient magnitude to move the earth to a
different orbit
would displace large portions of the oceans, causing land masses to be
inundated. "
By levitating beams he seems to be refering to beams or radiations which
would increase the gravity charge within the Earth's crust. Mr. Cater
presents gravity as an electromagnetic radiation.
Is there some other part of his book where he speaks of " fountains of the
deep?"
It is late on the East coast of Brazil. Good night for now, Paul, and
welcome to the list!
Dharma/Dean
(From Dick) Dean... From below, Cater says: "The only answer is giant spaceships, with levitation beams that can move planets from one place to another and to different orbits."
I cannot kindly comment about the above (and the rest of what Cater wrote below) "giant spaceships" moving earth with "levitation beams" is science-fiction fantasy, an imaginative invention in Cater's mind. His opinion.
What are Cater's SOLID scientific real-world PROOFS to support his idea about spaceships and levitation beams? If he provides such, why haven't you included them? He doesn't state his ideas as a "possibility," or his "theory," he states his ideas as FACT, the "only answer" to the biblical flood, so he certainly should provide us some reasonable evidence.
And while on Cater's ideas, you mentioned earlier that Cater says our visible Sun is a BINARY, with the other binary Sun hidden from our view on the opposite side of our visible Sun. What are Cater's PROOFS, his EVIDENCE that such a 2nd Sun exists? Or is that another of his ideas like the giant spaceships with levitation beams?
I recently posted you Thomas Gold's "theory" (on Col. Prouty's website) that GASES and vast pools of oil (below fossil layers - a fact) came with the Earth at its birth. Churchward's description of how the earth's crust support Gold's theory...and Gold's theory gives general support to Churchward's. But BOTH men provide a lot of real world EVIDENCE to support their theories.
Cater, unless you have failed to include his evidence, provides nothing to prove his spaceships, levitation beams and binary sun viewpoints. Please provide them for us if they exist. - Dick
1 Like
I'm not sure about the levitation beams. As far as I'm concerned, they are a legitimate theory, but no more. As for the binary sun, he provides considerable evidence based on the temperatures on the planets. In fact, I believe that it is very likely that our sun is a binary, strange though it may be.
At 05:54 PM 7/27/2001 -0700, you wrote:
Dharma/Dean wrote:
52bb2f.jpg
Nathan Gundlach
email: [email protected]
AOL Instant Messenger: JarJarBinksSith
MSN Instant Messenger: [email protected]
Yahoo! Instant Messenger: jarjarbinksjedi
ICQ nickname: NDG
ICQ number: 102965545
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Cloud canopies collapsed by gr
Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] Cloud canopies collapsed by gravity beams
(From Dick) Dean... From below, Cater says: "The only answer is giant spaceships, with levitation beams that can move planets from one place to another and to different orbits."
I cannot kindly comment about the above (and the rest of what Cater wrote below) "giant spaceships" moving earth with "levitation beams" is science-fiction fantasy, an imaginative invention in Cater's mind. His opinion.
-
Dick,
-
You never do comment kindly on Cater. It is unusual that you never agree with him on anything.
-
Anyway, that's the way he is. He is short and to the point. He has offered a good explanation which is congruent with his entire presentation. Just as gravity is a matter of total electromagnetic charge within the Earth's shell, if you increse that charge, then there will be more gravity and the planet's orbit will shrink. Levitation radiation, or beams, in that sense. He explained what he meant. Take it or leave it.
What are Cater's SOLID scientific real-world PROOFS to support his idea about spaceships and levitation beams? If he provides such, why haven't you included them?
- What do you want? 14 " by 11" glossies? Aren't UFOs rather secretive about their movements? Why would they reveal their activities from the past if they avoid attention to their current visits?
He doesn't state his ideas as a "possibility," or his "theory," he states his ideas as FACT, the "only answer" to the biblical flood, so he certainly should provide us some reasonable evidence.
- Take it or leave it, that's his personality. He does provide explanations for his soft particle physics all through his book. Now you are seeing an application.
And while on Cater's ideas, you mentioned earlier that Cater says our visible Sun is a BINARY, with the other binary Sun hidden from our view on the opposite side of our visible Sun. What are Cater's PROOFS, his EVIDENCE that such a 2nd Sun exists? Or is that another of his ideas like the giant spaceships with levitation beams?
-
Again, what do you want? A spacship tour of the far side of the Sun? He actually offers logic for the sun being a binary in his book. I can't reproduce his whole book for people. It is a matter of getting enough to go on from this list, then reading the book if it so piques your interest.
-
But since you have asked, I will pass on at least one of the comments which I remember.Hesays that given the distance of Mars from the Sun that the temperature should never rise above freezing, not in the spring, nor in the Martian summer. That there is melting of the ice caps suggests that there is another source of heat, i.e., a binary. Otherwise, what is the source of heat? You can't say that the atmosphere traps heat because there isn't supposed to be much of an atmosphere. If our Earth even tilts a little bit, like at thepoles, we end up with sub zero temperatures, what to speak of a planet so far removed with such little ( supposedly ) atmosphere. The irradiation from the sun should have thinned out quite a bit by the time the orbit of Mars is reached.
-
The speed at which the moon just so happens to rotate the earth such that the moon always shows its face to us is more than uncanny. It is practically impossible for that to happen just be chance. This suggests that orbits are ajusted with precision.
I recently posted you Thomas Gold's "theory" (on Col. Prouty's website) that GASES and vast pools of oil (below fossil layers - a fact) came with the Earth at its birth. Churchward's description of how the earth's crust support Gold's theory...and Gold's theory gives general support to Churchward's. But BOTH men provide a lot of real world EVIDENCE to support their theories.
Cater, unless you have failed to include his evidence, provides nothing to prove his spaceships, levitation beams and binary sun viewpoints. Please provide them for us if they exist. -
-
I think that it is relatively easy to prove the existence of oil in the strata below. Accept Cater's explanations as an educated guess, a good explanation about how things could have happened given some non-othrodox physics.
-
And Dick, you don't have to make a career out of opposing Cater. Once you've made your points, if other people don't feel the way that you do, let it slide. Your time would be better spent posting some of Churchward's discoveries and such on the web and calling people's attention to it on the various appropriate lists.
Later,
Dean
Dick
------------------
Members-
Here are some comments from Joseph H. Cater in Chapter 15 of The Ultimate
Reality. He explains how the floods could have been caused, how the cloud
canopy- which he calls mantle, fell- and how the orbit of the Earth could
have changed.
The idea behind his " levitation beam " is that it would simply be a beam
consisting of the gravity inducing frequency which is emitted from some of
those mother ship type of UFOs. the increase of the gravity-inducing charge
thus absorbed by the Earth's shell would shrink the radius of the Earth's
orbit. It would also and increase the amount of gravity, which would have a
stunting and stupifying effect on surface world inhabitants, as well as
reducing the duration of life.
Cavern worlds could be collapsed this way due to the excess acumulation of
gravity within. This thye of UFO interference may account for the legend of
Atlantis, and could account for the Gulf of Mexico collapse at one point.
As always, this is just a tidbit, but read on, it is good food for thought.
Cater:
" It is more than likely that giant UFOs have been deeply involved in
notable events of the past which have never been explained. For example, the
great flood of Noah's day seems to defy all the rules of elementary physics
and common sense. It was supposed to have been produced by a rain that
pelted the earth for 40 days and nights. How could such a rain cover entire
mountain ranges? The hardest rain on record, going continuously for 40 days
and nights, could not account for more than about 200 feet of water. Yet
this flood covered Mt. Ararat, which rises three miles above the surrounding
country. In any event, where would all the water come from that could
produce a violent rainstorm lasting for 40 days? Interestingly enough,
records kept by other peoples on other parts of the globe mention a similar
flood, and geological evidence confirms it. Rain could account for only, a
small percentage of the water involved in the flood. Where did this extra
water come from and where did it go after it receded?
The only answer is giant spaceships, with levitation beams that can move
planets from one place to another and to different orbits. A levitating beam
or beams of sufficient magnitude to move the earth to a different orbit
would displace large portions of the oceans, causing land masses to be
inundated. After the moving process was completed, the displaced oceans
would return to their former positions.
No doubt prior to the flood the earth was in a different orbit, in full view
of the binary sun, and perhaps closer to the sun than it is now. Its surface
would be protected by a great mantle of water vapor as is the case with the
planet Venus. When the earth was moved into its present orbit, this mantle
of water vapor quickly condensed as rain."
Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] Cloud canopies collapsed by gravity beams
I'm not sure about the levitation beams.
-
Nathan,
-
See my replies to Dick. By " levitation beams " is simply meant a radiation of the gravity charge on a large scale. We can also reproduce that charge if we wanted to, I don't know on what scale, but the idea is that it isn't impossible to reproduce that radiation. If fact, artificially produced gravity may be able to artificially produce earth quakes. If the gravity radiation is produced and directed to a cavern below, or tunnel or something, and it collapses due tho the artificial " weight," well, there goes another earthquake.
Dharma/Dean
Nathan wrote: I'm not sure about the levitation beams. As far as I'm concerned, they are a legitimate theory, but no more. As for the binary sun, he provides considerable evidence based on the temperatures on the planets. In fact, I believe that it is very likely that our sun is a binary, strange though it may be.
Nathan and all (from Dick)... "legitimate THEORY, but no more." makes your point - and mine. Cater's spaceships and levitation beams are his THEORY. Fine. I can accept that. Still think it is just his fantasy, but theories often are until proven with reasonable evidence. But Cater states his idea as FACT: "The only answer...", not his "theory."
The binary sun THEORY too. It MAY be, but before I can consider it, I would like to read that "considerable evidence based on the temperatures on the planets," - IF NASA and/or Telescopes can even accurately "measure" the actual temperatures of the planets and the Sun itself, which I greatly doubt. Jupiter apparently (again, if their measurements are accurate) radiates many times more "energy" than it supposedly receives from the Sun, seems an anomaly, if the Sun is THE sole source of "energy" (and light?) for the solar system's planets. I's appreciate reading some of Cater's reasoning about temperatures proving our Sun has a hidden "twin."
Also, I noticed in several astronomy books, that although there seem to be some binary stars rotating around a "common center" between them. most binaries apparently consist of a smaller star orbiting around a larger star. Does Cater's binary "sun" orbit AROUND our visible sun? If it is following the laws of other orbiting bodies in the universe and this solar system, it will be moving west to east, like earth and our other planets on the same general plane of our visible sun's equator, won't it? How could it remain invisible to us? Is it somehow rotating ENORMOUSLY slow? Practically standing still? That doesn't make sense. Or is it in some unexplainable way sitting just beyond our visible sun, not orbiting at all, but fixed at some small distance by our visible sun's gravity? That would defy all known natural laws. Please explain how a binary is " 'very' likely?"
Cater wrote further: "No doubt prior to the flood the earth was in a different orbit, in full view of the binary sun, and perhaps closer to the sun than it is now."
"No doubt?" That's just sheer fanciful SPECULATION on Cater's part. WHY would Earth be in a different orbit? Do planetary orbits come about in some capricious manner? No reason other than chance? Planets can just as well be orbiting closer to the Sun or much farther away? They are positioned in their precise orbital planes by accident? That seems to be the implication of Cater - and the implication of NASA's "nudge" the earth theorists following...
NASA's recent idiotic puerile idea that they can "nudge" the earth into a new, "cooler" orbit around the Sun, does not differ much from Cater's fantasy that giant spaceships "nudged" Earth into a different orbit. I must now presume Cater sees nothing in error about NASA's proposal (to use a comet though, not Cater's giant spaceships).
Cater continued: "Its (Earth's) surface would be protected by a great mantle of water vapor as is the case with the planet Venus. When the earth was moved into its present orbit, this mantle of water vapor quickly condensed as rain."
Again, the preceding seems just imaginative, science fiction speculation by Cater. WHY would Earth's surface be protected by a great mantle of water vapor "as is the case with the planet Venus"? Does Cater explain HOW that mantle came to exist above Earth? Also, I'm aware Venus is covered with CLOUDS, but Cater is CERTAIN Venus' clouds are also a mantle of WATER VAPOR (soon to condense as rain?). Does he have EVIDENCE of this for Venus that orthodox science should be made aware of?
I find it amazing that Cater, who was disinterested in studying the GEOLOGICAL history of earth's rocky crust and seems to apparently know little about it, leaving such matters to geologists (according to Dean), still asserts to know ALL about Earth's planetary orbit being changed capriciously by (nasty?) giant spaceships, earthquakes, volcanos, gravity, Noah's biblical flood - and just about every other Earthly phenomena!
Or have I in error joined a SCIENCE FICTION list?
L. Ron Hubbard in Scientology (who also was a science fiction author), sometimes spoke of experiences on the "whole track." "Thetans," his term for Beings like us, have existed as individuals for billions of years. Along the way we have become "enturbulated," our consciousness surrounded with mentally SOLID concepts and ideas that we were just "MEST," Matter, Ebergy, Space and Time, not Spirtitual Beings "outside" and superior to things in the physical universe. To free individuals from all these encumbrances was the original purpose of Scientology, and apparently still is judging by literature I just read.
But some of the stories about "SPACE OPERA" that Beings took part in over those "billions of years" that I used to hear from people close to Hubbard, were incredible. No Serpent ETs, as I recall... but Pirate Space ships raiding planets, blasting competition and other space ships to pieces, Planets being blown up, etc. And millions upon millions of Beings (Thetans) were enslaved by other Beings and given brainwashing that has lasted to the present. Earth was supposed to be one of the "prison planets" where the brainwashed were dumped off. And many of us are still here, according to Hubbard's confidants.
Did I believe the preceding. Hell, no! And even more hell no during the years I remained a Scientologist. Hubbard had some incredible fantasies to entertain people with in private that I don't think he believed himself. If any parts of those tales were true, aside from prison status for earth, all the space wars and planet blasting seemed to have been outside this solar system and way, way back in "time." But incredibly entertaining science fiction fantasy.
More science fiction.... Robert Morningsky, the Indian, heard often on Art Bell (my wife enjoys his Hopi Indian dancing), creatively "borrowed" Sitchin's Annunaki characters (Anu, Enki, Enlil etc.), and wrote his own tale, some of you may have read. Morningsky threw out the 12th planet completely, and put Anu and his bunch on a distant "fixed" planet ruling this "quadrant" of the galaxy. He also increased the AGE Enki and Enlil and friends could live, from the paltry (apparent 500,000 or so years imagined by Sitchin) to nearly a million years.
Instead of Sitchin's Nibiru moon crashing into giant Tiamat and busting it in half, Morningsky told of planet sized spaceships (The first Star Wars movie had already appeared) battling in this area of space. (Such battles were common in the Galaxy. Serpent people and other races were trying to control everyone else.)
One of the planet sized spaceships was mortally wounded and decided to suicide crash into Tiamat (occupied by the opposition) and the crash of that planet sized space ship busted the planet in 2 pieces! Then, rejoining Sitchin, Morningsky had the larger busted off half, "reforming" to (miraculously) become our Earth, and the smaller busted off half disintegrated further to become the asteroid belt. I don't believe Sitchin has ever read Morningsky's tale or he would have exploded in anger. But frankly, I personally like Morningsky's version better than Sitchin's. Morningsky is more imaginative and writes better! But with BOTH their tales, they're still largely science-fiction fantasy, in my opinion.
The incredible thing about the preceding is that some sincere people continue to absolutely believe Hubbard's billions of years extent "space opera" tales, plus Sitchin's and Morningsky's Sumerian stories.
On the other hand maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe Hubbard, Sitchin and Morningsky have been telling a lot of truths. And maybe Cater is also correct about giant spaceships with levitation beams moving the Earth to a new orbit, causing the water mantle to fall in time for Noah's boat trip. And maybe it is "very" likely our sun has a hidden binary twin. And maybe giant spaceships blasted all those "shallow" craters on the moon and Mars (target practice?), another idea of Cater, I seem to remember Dean mentioning.
I apologize for seeming such a spoil-sport, demanding a lot more evidence to support various claims now in my later years. - Dick
Yahoo Groups removed 2 attachments from this message: 52ba90.jpg (image/jpeg), 52bb2f.jpg (image/jpeg)
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Cloud canopies collapsed by gr
Members,
Here is an off beat hollow earth interview on Conspiracy Journal.
Dharma/Dean
Dean... I guess you're right about that. But you've dismissed some of my comments in which I suggested I think Cater MIGHT be correct on certain matters. But those statements of his which you've posted that I have trouble finding validity for, I have pointed out... and frequently requested you EXPLAIN them or provide Cater's PROOFS for same. A few times you have done so, but not often, as you have with my comments below. I responded to Nathan's reply,.so won't bother repeating those parts here. Check it out. This is your Hollow Earth list of course, but I find it more of a Joseph Cater List much of the time, or an Etidorhpa list.
I was originally drawn to this list because I was impressed with Jan Lamprecht's explanations on Punnett's radio program about hollow planets - AND because I was aware of James Churchward's scientific explanations of HOW a great hollow came to exist in the earth in the first place! It appeared to me and still does, that none of the Hollow Earth proponents, including Cater, have had a clear idea HOW the hollow was formed. Just that it exists. When new people come along how can you answer that primary question in their minds, if none of you understand it yourselves? And if Churchward was correct how the hollow came to be, perhaps thoughtful researchers should examine his OTHER data about this planet and its geological history. They too, may possess some truths to consider. More below... - Dick
Dean... once more you state the Cater theory above about gravity as absolute FACT. He may be partially correct, but it completely tosses out all other viewpoints, Newtons, Churchward's and of course orthodox science. - Dick
------------------------
Dean... Hell yes! If Cater doesn't have reasonable EVIDENCE (not your silly "glossies" crack) to support his UFO ideas, he should caution readers that they are his UNproven theories, not FACTS. - Dick
----------------------------
Dean... what the heck do mean "Now you are seeing an application."? and "that's his personality."? So he provides explanations for his soft particle physics all though his book. That doesn't satisfy the lack of proof about his spaceships moving the earth with levitation beams. - Dick
--------------------------------.
Dean... Certainly you can't reproduce his entire book. Just enough to support his binary theory. I have not yet read enough of your Cater assertions to inspire me to buy his book. On the contrary, right or wrong, many of his assertions have seemed just imaginative speculations, such as the giant spaceships moving this planet. Who were they? Good guys? Bad Guys? Surely Cater must have an idea. Why is it antagonistic to ask questions about his spaceships assertions? - Dick
-------------------------------
Dean... Again, orthodoxy THINKS Mars, earth and the other planets get their HEAT (and "energy") solely and directly from the Sun. But Jupiter apparently radiates more heat and "energy" than it supposedly receives from the Sun. We all theorize that MARS, like Earth and Venus is hollow, with light and energy flowing visibly out the poles. Maybe Mars is nice and warm inside. What do such anomalies do to Cater's calculations he uses to support his theory of a SECOND Sun radiating heat? If Mars, Jupiter, Venus and Earth somehow GENERATE forces (and HEAT) in ways Cater has not conceived, his theory of a binary may be just a figment of his imagination. - Dick
----------------------------
Dean... it may seem "uncanny" and I haven't the slightest idea how it came to orbit Earth (Capture?). But it is a relatively DEAD body, it's rotation insignificant. Isn't it obvious that Earth's surface centrifugal force (throwing the moon and every other particle outward) is nullified by Earth's central magnet (pulling the moon and all inward)?
Depending on the residual affinitive magnetic forces in the moon, the moon orbits at a specific NEUTRAL ZONE orbit where Earth's magnet cancels out Earth's centrifugal force. Not rotating appreciably, Earth's magnetic forces are "glued" to the side of the moon facing us. If earth became a dead planet, not revolving, the Sun might well magnetically "hold" one side facing it, as Earth holds the moon. This may seem "uncanny" but it happens to be the way it is. And apparently has been so throughout recorded history. Do you think NASA or Cater's fantastic spaceships could MOVE the moon closer or further from earth without upsetting the delicate balance? Apparently you think so. - Dick
-------------------------------
Dean... Cater's explanations. I'll do just that, accept them as an educated guess, but not as FACT unless provided with accompanying reasonable evidences. - Dick
Dean... Didn't realize you felt I was making a "career out of opposing Cater"
Didn't think I was. Perhaps you're right. But you quote him so often as absolute truth (some of which I do not agree about) my choice is to remain silent or respond. It is clear my responses are irritating to you. So I will probably remain silent from here on. - Dick
Dean...
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 21:19:58 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected]
writes:
Dean,
Something about this strikes me as backwards. You seem to be
suggesting
that the planet Earth used to maintain an orbit that was farther away
from the Sun
than it is today. Is this what you figure? I have no particular opinion
about that but
I was under the impression that the Sun used to be much closer to the
Earth than it is today.
I have two reasons for believing this:
-
Some mention in various books that the Earth used to be very much
warmer than it is
today and that some of this heat was a necessity for the dinosaurs and a
different more tropical
world wide climate. There is talk of the polar regions being much more
livable than it is today.
All the mammoth remains frozen in the upper Siberian and island chains
point to even more life
there than there is now. Either it was very much warmer than it is now
or there was a pole shift
of some sort, or everyone has misread the geographical climatological
models. All other things
being the same, a closer orbit would have been more likely the source of
a tropical paradise.
I recently read somewhere where the oxygen content is down to
only 18% and that if it slips
to 15% then we will be in for a real disaster. One of the reasons for
the declining oxygen content
would be the decimation of the rain forests in South America and
elsewhere where forestation is
being replaced by erosion, bad land mismanagement and abuse. My point is
simple. With less
tree and vegetation growth there is less supply of oxygen and the balance
is toward more percentage
of CO2. The very lack of vegetation and thus photosynthesis is a reason
for the greenhouse gases
to increase and bring on heat rises. The amount of ice and snow in the
arctic is in decline as can be
found when any source discussing the ice pack is referred to. This ties
in with the out of balance
O2 to CO2 producers in nature. Now if in the past the Earth was wetter
and with a great deal more
forestation and rain forests than we have presently, something would
have to account for the increase
or stabilization of heat. One possible source of this heat is that all
things being the same, the Earth
may have been closer to the Sun and not farther away. -
The second reason I hesitate to agree with your idea that the Earth
was once farther away from the sun
as it is now and as was inferred by Mr. Cater in his book, is that the
calendar stone of Tihuanaco (spelling?)
in South America. You may wish to have Rodney pipe in his two cents as
to the accuracy of this "fact"
but my memory had it that there were less days in a yearly calendar than
the present 365 days per year
of our present calendar. Consult with Rod about this. I might have my
facts wrong on this and Rod may
have something to contribute also.
Scott
" A levitating beam or beams of sufficient magnitude to move the
earth to a different orbit would displace large portions of the
oceans, causing land masses to
be inundated. "
By levitating beams he seems to be referring to beams or radiations
which would increase the gravity charge within the Earth's crust. Mr.
Cater presents gravity as an electromagnetic radiation.
Is there some other part of his book where he speaks of " fountains
of the deep?"
It is late on the East coast of Brazil. Good night for now, Paul,
and welcome to the list!
Dharma/Dean
Scott,
Atmospheric temperatures, in Mr. Cater´s scheme, don´t just
correspond to distance from the sun. The nature of the atmosphere is
also deterministic of temperature. For example, Mr. Cater points out
that the Moon´s surface receives 12 days of sunlight at a time, but
doubts that the surface temperatures are as high as astronomers tell
us. Mr. Cater says that an atmosphere characterised by soft particles
would absorb many the hard particles which provide heat. According to
Mr. Cater, soft particles capture hard ones much in the same way that
carrier cells in biology can absorb other cells.
A cloud canopy would bring about the redistribution of frequency
necessary to create soft particles in an atmosphere. Actually, Mr.
Cater feels that the planet was closer to the sun, but protected by a
cloud canopy much as Venus. When the Earth was dragged to its present
orbit, by artificially-induced gravity, the cloud canopy would have
mostly condensed in the form of rainfall.
So Venus seems to be a similar example of what the Earth used to be-
That the Earth was closer to the Sun but protected by a cloud canopy
which produced a stronger percentage of soft particles in the
atmosphere which absorbed much of the Sun´s heat. In this way, Venus
could have milder temperatures.
DD
Ralph, I have attached some comments by Daniel Ross from The Complete Evidence from Space in relation to the comments below about thepossibility oflife on Venus.
Dharma/Dean
Subject: [allplanets-hollow] Evidence of Civilization on Venus 2
http://www.newage.com.au/ufo/venus.html
Why did a number of American orbiting spacecraft transmit data that Earth itself is too hot for human life with a deadly atmosphere, insufficient oxygen, and hostile elements, and then they expect us to believe their Venus probe data is accurate? Temperatures up to 180OF. have been recorded in Earth's ionosphere 180 miles up. Could it be that the NASA official temperature readings on Venus originated in the Venusian ionosphere.
The temperatures given to the public from the American and the Soviet Venus probes contradicted each other by hundreds of degrees, and the temperatures given off by different American Venus rockets also were in conflict, proving all this data is very unreliable. If a probe orbiting Earth sent back a temperature reading of Alaska that was as conflicting as the Venus data, we could be told it was 200 degrees there in the ice!
We were told that the atmosphere of Venus is over 100 times denser than Earth, so how would it be possible for a parachute to be used to slow the landing of the Venus craft, when in pressures that great the space rocket would FLOAT slowly to the surface without the need of a parachute like boats sink in an ocean? That pressure is like trying to parachute the spacecraft 2,000 feet to the bottom of the ocean! Why also did NASA contradict these releases by claiming that a parachute would not work on the moon Titan, because the atmosphere there(similar to Venus) is too dense(just like Venus). That data was in a press release December 12, 1980 with space expert James Murphy.
Yahoo Groups removed 1 attachment from this message: Probes.doc (application/msword)
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Cloud canopies collapsed by grLobsang Rampa write that Moon was place here, near of our planet.
Moon is from another part of universe.
If Carter said, its possible to move earth , maybe its not a strange idea
I dont remenber which book TLR write this.
Tunguska explosion is made by a anti material, with a size a ball of football. This explosion was a impact on all this planet, because this ball, has a meteorite, with a high velocity. If we bring several balls of anti material, slowly, near our surfage, possible we can move this planet from this orbit.
Luis Aparicio
Estoril Portugal
Re: [allplanets-hollow] Cloud canopies collapsed by grLuis,
I used to hear things about the Moon being an artificial satellite, artificially placed in orbit and such, and think that it was all fanaticism. But, you know, I have changed. I've been thinking about the rotation of the Moon- it rotates exactly such that the same face is always turned towards us. That does not seem to be anything haphazard or chance.
The Moon's gravity " adjusts " our orbit about the sun to its present point. I mean, if the Moon weren't there, the Earth would have a different orbit. And there is supposed to be a binary on the other side of the sun, or else Mars would never heat up above freezing, not even in the Martian summer. It is usually in view of the binary, right? So maybe the Moon's orbitadjusts our orbit about the Sun; we are this close, but never burned by the binary.
This could be what's going on, but why?
Dharma/Dean
Subject: [allplanets-hollow] Moving Planets
Lobsang Rampa write that Moon was place here, near of our planet.
Moon is from another part of universe.
If Carter said, its possible to move earth , maybe its not a strange idea
I dont remenber which book TLR write this.
Tunguska explosion is made by a anti material, with a size a ball of football. This explosion was a impact on all this planet, because this ball, has a meteorite, with a high velocity. If we bring several balls of anti material, slowly, near our surfage, possible we can move this planet from this orbit.
Luis Aparicio
Estoril Portugal