Jan Lamprecht wrote:
Jan,
Please share with the group how you became interested in the Hollow Earth.
Thanks for doing the group .... I expect to see more contact with our
Brothers and Sisters from the Inner Surface in the real near future.
If you have some files with good information on the Hollow Earth, please let
us know, we can find a spot for it somewhere on our web site
Joshua,
You're welcome to take anything which you think is useful and put it on the
WWW. We've only just started. Is your WWW page about your book or the Hollow
Earth in general or what?
Re: How did I get interested?
My original interest in the Hollow Earth was sparked back in the late 1970's
while I was studying the books and prophecies of T Lobsang Rampa. The main
reference is contained in a single chapter in the book "Twighlight". In it he
answers a reader's question and states that as far as Tibetans are concerned,
the Earth is Hollow and there are people living inside. The outer crust is
800 - 1000 miles thick and there is a hole at each pole of approximately
1,400 miles in diameter. Inside live the REMNANTS of Atlantis, Lemuria and a
couple of other civilisations. They are ruled by a man whom the Tibetans
call: The King of the World. According to the Tibetans, the Dalai Lama is the
Outer World representative. The Inside contains more land than sea, and the
population is approximately 800 million. Their flying saucers come out of the
Poles from time to time.
I kinda freaked at the time because it seemed so unbelievable. Later, in a
library I saw that famous composite photo of the hole as seen from above. I
could find no further books on the subject and let the entire thing rest.
Mentally I simply said "There's perhaps a 10% possibility that the earth is
hollow - I'll evaluate it at some later date". And for well over 10 years I
was happy to let it rest. I didn't REALLY believe that a hole 1,400 miles in
diameter could remain hidden for so long or go unnoticed in some way and was
thus somewhat skeptical about the whole idea of such a huge entrance.
Satellite photos gave nothing away.
My interest was rekindled late in 1993 when I was on Compuserve. I was
chatting to a fellow whom I regarded as one of my very best friends, and in
who's research I had a great deal of faith. His name is Jeff. He actually
kicked the whole subject off and we began talking. True to form, Jeff had
read lots of really OLD stuff about the Hollow Earth, and brought forth item
after item about it. I was very impressed and that set off an obsession which
has still not ended.
What was very sad for me was that in spite of Jeff's great knowledge, he
himself actually ended up rejecting the possibility of the earth being
hollow. But his objections didn't make much sense to me. He also suggested
that I do my own thinking on the matter, but from a mathematical perspective.
He said he'd like to see whether I could mathematically prove/disprove the
theory. I accepted the challenge. Astronomy had always been a favourite
subject of mine so I began thinking about the things I knew about astronomy.
I did some reading. Then I began to realise that there are some anomalies
which would make sense. For example, back in the 1970's two Soviet scientists
from the Soviet academy of sciences proposed the theory that the moon was a
Hollow Alien Spaceship placed in orbit around the earth.
I must digress at this point: Although Jeff rejected the idea of the Earth
being hollow, he actually accepts the Soviet proposal that the Moon may be
Hollow - even he admits that the edvidence for there being a Hollow Moon is
very strong. I had been aware of that book myself back in the 70's and my own
acceptance of the Soviet theory had somewhat softened my idea to the fact
that perhaps the Earth too was hollow.
There has often been speculation, even amongst Astronomers and scientists,
that Phobos, one of the Moons of Mars may be Hollow. Its strange orbit is
cited as one of the reasons - plus many strange markings on it and a "huge"
crater which covers about 1/4 of its surface area. I'd like to point out that
Sitchin (12th Planet) is quite comfortable with the idea that Phobos is a
hollowed out little moon (about 20 miles in diameter).
As I looked at the numbers I began to realise that our estimates of mass are
really relative. If all the planets were hollow we wouldn't really know. It
also occurred to me that if Planet X, from which the asteroid belt had maybe
been created, had been Hollow, then its break-up could be all the more easily
explained. For example, if a planet like the Earth only has a crust and is
Hollow Inside, then a big whack from a large object would cause it to shatter
- and pieces would fly all over the place. If such a planet had been solid
then shattering would not likely occur. Sure a big chunk could be carved out
of it, but it wouldn't SHATTER. I had noticed too, evidence piling up,
proving beyond any doubt, that comets were merely asteroids with ice/gas and
that they were really one and the same thing. Much of the "missing mass" of
Planet X could also be accounted for if it was hollow. Another Soviet
Cometary specialist has stated that all existing comets, are really no more
than 100,000 years old. Comets and asteroids are becoming less. Of course
there may be a few which have great orbital periods of 10 or 100 thousand
years, but the vast majority have been swallowed up by the Sun, Jupiter, etc.
Another thing worth noting is that there are some flying saucers which travel
directly from the South Pole along S.America northwards. Some of them move as
regularly as clockwork. I also heard somewhere that Canada had a very great
number of sightings per capita.
It had always bothered me too: If Atlantis had ever existed, then where did
the people go? Why would such a simple catastrophe have wiped EVERYONE out?
Surely there must be survivors? Why didn't they just go and live somewhere
else?
I also decided that seismology is a MUST to go and have a look at. And
that's what I did. I read up about seismology to see if there was anything
which might have been misinterpretted and which might disclose that the earth
was hollow. I then discovered why it is they say the Earth's core is a
LIQUID. The reason is because certain waves can ONLY travel through SOLID
material. These waves can not travel through: liquids, gases or a vaccum.
However, scientists simply "assume" that the core is a liquid - they do not
explore the possibility that the core is a gas or even a vaccuum. I also
discovered that approximately 7,000 miles from an earthquake you will find a
"shadow" area where certain types of waves never appear. Could the
core/hollow be blocking out these waves? Then at about 10,000 miles or so
these waves reappear. I also realised the complexity of such waves and how
they are reflected and saw that it is quite easy to misinterpret them. Later
I acquired a very good seismic modelling program which runs under windows
(and which I'll upload if anyone wants). It is a most excellent program which
shows how the waves move through the earth PLUS, what the various monitoring
stations will actually see on their print outs. As you look at this you will
see that our methods of watching seismic waves leaves much to be desired.
When waves come up we have no idea where they were - we really can't tell
much. But look too and you will see a great many waves bouncing off the
"mantle" - we are told this is due to a change in density. Keep in mind that
a Hollow object makes the wave movements many many times more complex because
waves bounce back and forth between the two thin crusts and this will
complicate the hell out of the whole thing. And when you look at the seismic
model you will see that waves are reflected, re-reflected, re-re-reflected
and so on. The earth sometimes "vibrates" for an hour or two after a big
quake.
Probably the BIGGEST argument against the hollow earth is a PSYCHOLOGICAL
one. Most people, including myself, just can not believe that it could
possibly have been missed - or was it?
After Jeff kicked the whole thing off, another friend, Chris, managed to help
me locate a number of old books, written in 1908 and 1913 and 1920. Later I
was to learn that the Hollow Earth debate has been going on for about 200
years - but previously, prior to 1908, it was a debate in which scientists
took part. What killed the debate was when Admiral Robert Peary claimed in
1908 to have discovered the North Pole. That was really the death knell of
the whole idea. In 1914, the Austrians were going to send an expedition to
the North Pole. As part of its mission they were to check for the Hollow
Earth's entrance. They did this on the strength of a book by an American
called: Marshall Gardner. Gardner wrote one of the best books on the subject
ever. It is a 400 page book, of which I have a copy, which contains notes
from the journals of many famous explorers, including Amundsen, Peary, Lt
Greely and many others. Gardner has a patent registered in the USA as the
"discoverer of the Hollow Earth". Gardner pointed out the inconsistencies in
Adm Peary's own log. The fact that only he and an Eskimo are the only
witnesses that this was the North Pole. The fact that on one occassion he
wrote that you struggled like hell to even do 16-20 miles per day through the
snow, yet on the last 2 days of his journey he did a staggering 40+ miles per
day.- and so on. How he left the others of his team behind and they weren't
witnesses. Peary had also made previous claims of discovery on earlier
missions and these had been DISPROVEN. Months before Peary, another American
had claimed to have reached the Pole. His claim was refuted shortly
afterwards. Peary's claim was investigated by the US congress (in 1920 I
think) and TOTALLY REFUTED. Apparently these are public records which can be
obtained. The US Congress held a hearing and refuted Peary's claims. Yet, to
this day Peary is regarded as the discoverer of the North Pole.
Gardner's studies were detailed - but he wasn't the only one. I later
discovered that the Smithsonian Institue was originally formed in 1842 to
fund an expedition by Lt Wilkes to find the entrance to the Hollow Earth. Lt
Wilkes failed.
What you must understand is this: The poles are not just flattened, they
curve inwards. Now keep in mind that all navigational methods are based on
the assumption that the earth is a sphere. Nowhere on the face of the earth,
except the poles, does the earth depart from this shape. Thus navigation
works everywhere except there. As you go over the lip of the entrance and
begin the inward descent you think you're on the other side of the earth -
you are totally unaware that you are entering a huge hole - a hole so big
that the Space shuttle on its highest orbital level of 750 miles could
comfortably fly inside. Although you can not see the other side, there is a
new phenomenon known to all Polar explorers: The Water sky. If you look at
the sky, it acts like a mirror and you see BEYOND the horison. This
phenomenon is mentioned by all Polar explorers. Lt Greely even noticed the
shortening of the horison. He found he could never see very far. Many many
abnormalities were noted by explorers:
- Warm winds from the north<- coloured snow containing huge amounts of
pollens from unknown plants animals moving NORTH for winter polar bears
moving north away from their prey enormous flocks of birds numbering in the
millions (coming from the north) temperatures far warmer than expected.
I later discovered that a Polish scientist had calculated the temperature of
the earth taking into account latitude as the determining factor. From 40
degrees north and south the real temperatures begin to differ from the
predicted temperatures. By the time we get to the poles we find the poles to
be a staggering 30 degrees warmer than they should be.
Also, during that initial exercise of mine, I studied geomagnetism. I had
never felt comfortable with the "dynamo-in-the-core" theory. The idea that
currents in the core could create a magnetic field. I have many reasons for
rejecting this idea. For example, in order for there to be convection
currents in the first place, there have to be temperature differentials of a
big enough degree. IOW, some magma in the core must be a lot hotter than the
other. This must also imply some sort of cooling process or some process
which keeps one part warmer than the other. Without an adequate temperature
differential currents won't arise in the first place. We can rule out
cooling, because some scientists have found that the earth is not cooling.
But even if we do have these currents, I still don't see how magnetism is
generated. Heat is not a friend of magnetism. As a substance is heated, so it
loses its magnetism - of course that's not quite an appropriate argument
here. More appropriate is: Can a liquid/semi-liquid generate a magnetic
field? As far as I know this has never been done. The core is also,
supposedly under great pressure and we are dealing with molten iron - so I
don't think it has much in the way of fluidity or speed. Surely, a
snails-pace movement is not adquate to generate a magnetic field which
stretches beyond the Moon? Also, why should there be a single focal point for
this magnetic field anyway? The core is rotating along with the rest of the
earth - there can't possibly be any friction (in the same way that the
atmosphere rotates with the rest of the earth. If the atmosphere did not move
along with the earth we'd have 1,000 mph winds blowing at the equator -
instead, even a 100 mph wind is a great rarity). I wondered instead, if a
nuclear sun positioned in the core could be the source of the geomagnetic
field. There seemed to be evidence which could support this. All lava is
slightly radioactive. Scientists speculate that the earth's heat is derived
from radium which decays. But hold on: Radium is the lesser brother of
Uranium. Decaying uranium becomes radium. So if there's radium then it might
we have been uranium to start with. In West Africa there can be found a
"natural nuclear reactor". A place where sufficient uranium occurred
naturally to kick off a nuclear explosion. So I surmised: Wouldn't it be more
logical, during the formation of the earth for heavy substances like Gold,
Uranium, Lead to have been in the core instead of iron? But, you don't need
much Uranium to kick off a nuclear reaction. Also sometimes these things are
self-enriching if enough of it is around. This would explain why in
prehistoric times, huge volcanoes spewed out lava which filled entire
continents. It would explain why there is evidence of the earth expanding by
20% (continents don't fit perfectly as continental drift theory would have us
believe, but if the earth is shrunk 20% then there is a PERFECT fit between
South America and Africa). I discovered too that the Aurora baffles science.
That particles similar to those from the Sun are somehow appearing in the
upper atmosphere of the Poles - but there are far too many of these particles
to be accounted for by the Sun alone. So where do they come from? They come
from the Inner Sun - which is also the source of the Aurora and the light.
This also explains why the Aurora is linked to the geomagnetic field. The
geomagnetic field is not stable. In fact, it wobbles A LOT, and at a high
rate. It moves large distances within short periods of time. This can be
explained by having a central Sun wobbling around a central point. In short,
I pose this question: If scientists are willing to accept that decaying
radium causes most of the earth's heat - then does it take much leap of the
imagination to suppose that just a little bit more radium/uranium in one
point deep within the crust could have kicked off a self-sustaining nuclear
reaction? Even a Sun of as little as 28 miles in diameter would weigh many
millions of tons. It would hollow out the earth easily and all the lava would
pour out on to the surface. Later things would cool down inside.
Gravity is an issue all by itself, but rest assured that Newtonian gravity
works like a DREAM even in the Hollow Earth scenario. I have tested that idea
to its fullest.
Eventually, I decided that the evidence, to my way of thinking, was in favour
of the Earth POSSIBLY being hollow. I could see no great objections to the
idea. It would explain many things which scientists currently regard as
anomalies and which they are HARD PUT TO EXPLAIN.
Since then I have discovered so much more.
Sadly, very very sadly, my friend Jeff just fobbed off the best arguments I
put forth. He countered with his own arguments - which to me did not make
much sense. In a nutshell, the main thrust of his argument was this: If
there's this huge hole, then why don't people end up wandering into it and
seeing the Inner world? How can two teams, crossing the Antarctic, manage to
meet at one point?
Answer to the first question:
The hole is very very big. From the Outer lip to the Inside of the sphere you
are looking at a circle (through the crust) with a diameter of 800 - 1000
miles. To get even half way, you have to travel about 1200 - 1300 miles in a
straight line. If you wander even slightly to one side or the other the
journey will become much longer. Also, compasses tend to go haywire so you're
really in a quandry. If you go in at a skew angle you could walk into the
hole, by several hundred mile and out again, perhaps crossing a distance of a
1000 or more miles and never once even know that you were in the hole. This
is a feature of enormous size and larger than most countries. If you do not
consciously go looking for this hole and taking careful bearing using the
stars (until they disappear), etc you can easily miss the mark.
Question 2: The standard procedure when your compass goes haywire is to move
away from the pole in question (north or south). When your compass behaves
normally you then carry on with your journey. The "north/south pole" is
merely 90 degrees latitude - and since we assume the earth is a sphere we
assume therefore that only one spot in each hemisphere can give us a reading
of 90 degrees latitude (by the Sun or any other heavenly body). The manner in
which 2 teams coming from opposite sides can meet is simply because they will
be moving away from the rim whenever the compass goes crazy. It is not to say
that these expeditions met on a spot marked "X". As they zig-zag around this
rim they will (unknowingly) be moving in a circle and it is easy to see how
they will run into each other. NB: The expeditions in question did not
approach each other directly from 180 degrees, so it is easy to see that they
must meet. If they approached directly from 180 degrees, then the possibility
exists that the one team may go one way round the rim while the other goes
another way round the rim.
Jeff also posed the question: If the US base at McMurdo sound is a mere 400
miles from the Pole then how come they didn't notice anything? To me this was
a stupid question.
Answer: The US base at the Pole is not "at the Pole". It is on the rim of the
"Area of Inaccessibility". This means that the South Pole base is on the rim
of a hole 1,400 miles in diameter and you are at least 1,200 miles from the
1/2 way mark going inside. So you can wander 1,000 miles on either side of
the South Pole Station and see nothing. McMurdo Sound is 400 miles further
away still. There's no way, that at a distance of 1,200+400 miles that anyone
at McMurdo sound will see/notice a thing.
You get lost at the Poles - be sure of that. Amundsen, discoverer of the
South Pole, got thoroughly lost near the north pole. Amundsen's diaries
showed that he got TOTALLY LOST FOR 6 MONTHS! He tried to go from Franz
Joseph land to Spitsbergen and got totally lost. When he finally got back to
territory he recognised, he was hundreds of miles from where HE'D CALCULATED
HIS POSITION TO BE.
During the BBC documentary "Pole-to-Pole" a number of people including the
BBC crew were on a small plane going across Antarctica. As they looked out,
they made some very telling remarks. One guy said "Gee isn't it amazing how
those old explorers could find their way across this continent? Just look how
flat and featureless it is, no land marks to go by except the occassional
hill. Amazing." He doesn't know how right he may have been.
And even today its no different. That BBC reporter got his distance from
Tromso, Norway to the North Pole wrong, as did the UPI release for the
distance from Port Barrow to the north pole.
Cartographers also got it wrong. US Navy cartographers were pissed off with
US Army cartographers, because their maps didn't match. Entire mountain
ranges had to be thrown into the dustbin. Explorer after explorer discovered
islands, mountains, seas, which others couldn't ever find again.
I am convinced though that the US Govt, the Russians and maybe a few others
know what's going on there.
The Hollow Earth thing was sad for me in a way, because Jeff and I fought
about it a great deal, and as far as I was concerned he just wouldn't listen
to reason, to independantly acquired facts or anything else. He shot it down
on the basis of a few arguments which underestimated the navigational
problems. He said, yeah, but the earth is flattened at the Poles. Well, that
just doesn't match the facts. Go and look in any book. The earth's polar
diameter is only given as a mere 26 miles less than the equatorial diameter.
26 miles in a distance of 7926.5 is nothing. If I were to draw a scale
drawing of the earth you wouldn't even notice that it wasn't a circle.
Anyway, scientists of old debated the existence of a POLAR BASIN - that the
entire Polar region was DEPRESSED. Some thought it was depressed and others
thought it lead to a hole inside. But that does not explain it all. Amundsen,
while in his ship, The Fram, found himself viewing a red SUN - the "mock sun"
at a time when the Sun wasn't supposed to be above the horizon. Many
explorers have had a glimpse of the Inner sun - the "mock sun" - because it
appeared in places where the Sun could not possibly be.
In the end, this whole interest of mine probably broke up my friendship with
this guy - which to me was quite a blow.
I had another interesting episode which also harmed another close friendship.
Another guy I know, who once worked for the NSA, and who loved photography
responded when I told him about the Hollow Earth. He said he had a photo
which he'd obtained at Goddard Space flight centre in the 1970's. This photo
was of the earth. He'd borrowed some negatives and made copies one weekend.
When I remarked that I was wondering if the earth was Hollow, he of course
turned to his big colour photo. And there on it he saw the hole - a side
view- with clouds flowing into it. He scanned part of it in black and white
and e-mailed it to me. He'd always been friendly, but warned me not to talk
too much because the NSA monitors all computer communications. He'd always
said that making a copy and mailing it to me would be no problem. As soon as
he had a chance (he was the CEO of a company) he would mail me a copy. But
suddenly he began acting weird when I pressed him on the issue. Later he more
or less disappeared and only resurfaced at odd times. He behaved in a weird
manner which others noticed too. Some of us wondered whether he'd been
"silenced".
Later, Dennis Crenshaw also told me that a similar thing had happened to a
buddy of his who was making progress with Hollow Earth research. Dr Laslo
Spengler, another researcher I recently met has warned me too of the
subversion of UFO organisations and of the BENEFITS of going it alone - doing
your research without others peeking over your shoulders. As I will later
show, the same happened to Al Bender back in the 1950's - and you will see
how Al was silenced.
I have long held the opinion, and many will hate me for saying this, but
UFOlogy IS GOING NOWHERE. People are rushing down the wrong path, watching
Area 51, chasing reptilians, looking at crop circles and trying to catch
cattle mutes. No big coverup is needed because people are already looking in
the wrong place for the wrong thing. Back in the early days, the researchers
were on even ground with the US Govt, but once the Govt's silencing campaign,
in the form of MIBs had succeeded, the need for silencing became less and
less and today they only silence the VERY FEW who DARE go against the grain
and who dare postulate that the Earth is hollow and that an advanced
civilisation may be on our doorstep. These few are the only people who
actually stand a chance of upsetting the cart. I have no doubt that as one
gets closer to the truth, the US Govt will begin to play rough.
Finally, I have only spoken about The Hollow Earth so far. To me, there are
other issues:
- Subteranean civilisations.
- Hollow Planets/Moons.
(2) If the Earth is hollow naturally, then we no longer have to buy into the
theory that the Moon is hollow artificially - it could easily be a hollow
construct naturally. It opens up a whole new field: Where are all the Aliens
who claimed to come from Venus, Mars, etc? Was Adamski a liar? Were all the
others liars? Maybe NOT! Maybe they were telling the truth, but because we
believe the planets to be devoid of life we think that the Aliens are lying.
Perhaps it is that the Aliens are telling the truth and it is we who are
being lied to by our side. Let me prioritise some Planets/Moons in order of
evidence that they may be hollow:
- Moon.
- Earth.
- Phobos.
- Mars.
- Mercury.
- Callisto(?) (Moon of Saturn)
- Venus.
- Neptune/Uranus.
If other planets are inhabited, in this Solar System, then many things in
UFOlogy (which didn't make sense before) now begin making A LOT OF SENSE. For
example, you can easily see why Hollow Earthers would get mighty upset at the
thought of 3 superpowers near the poles having a vast number of nuclear
weapons. At the ease with which nuclear attack submarines like "Scorpion" and
"Thresher" can easily sail into their world underneath through the pack ice
and sneak around underwater being able to instantly launch nuclear missiles
which can blow up their cities.
You can see why Aliens might take a dislike to Russian and American probes
near the planet Mars. You can begin to understand WHY THE US GOVT MUST ENGAGE
IN THIS ENORMOUS COVER-UP.
It opens up a line of thinking and questioning which people have been
ignoring for DECADES.
Re: Subteranean civilisations....
I see Subteranean civilisations as a whole different kettle of fish, and as a
much more difficult subject. It is a subject which does not sit comfortably
with me. I have read of Richard Shavers, Teros(?) and Deros and I do not take
it seriously at all. Legends of Leprechauns, etc may be based on truth, but
no real accounts exist of these things (that I know of).
If you'd asked me about subteranean civilisations 3 months ago I'd have
basically told you to go to hell. As far as I was concerned there was no
evidence whatsoever of even the faintest kind, that such a group of people
could exist. The problems are even worse for them. No sun, no water - what do
you eat, drink, etc? I just couldn't see it as a viable option. The Hollow
Earth is a different concept. There's sunlight, equatorial temperatures
globally, safe from comets, etc. Great stuff. Its the ideal place to live.
Subteranean civilisation - bah humbug.
However, I acquired a very old book: The Coming Race, written in 1871, by the
Rt Hon Lord Lytton. Lytton's story is so amazing that I can't believe that
UFOlogists haven't dug into it in detail. Here is a man describing something
akin to nuclear power; and giving commentaries on a wipe out of the surface
civilisations - and all this happened back in 1871. There is just so much in
that book. But, worse still, while combing through anomalies I DO find
evidence that indeed Lord Lytton may well be telling the truth.
And so I am prepared to consider that some races do have little underground
villages in which they live and come out from - from time to time. The people
Lord Lytton met are known to us today as "The Mothmen". He predicted that
they would come out and begin looking around - and they did. The earliest
Mothmen sightings I could find were in 1877 - and they have been seen even in
the 1960's.
Lytton's book is another which I'd like to discuss and go through with all of
you. I regard Richard Shaver type stuff as rubbish. Lord Lytton's book is
something else altogether!