allplanets-hollow wrote:
<< Mosquitoes like humidity also, >>
and...less we forget, the female mosquito must drink warm blood to create the
correct chemical balance for her eggs. Where there are mosquitoes there are
warm blooded creatures. - Laura
Scott,
You are certainly correct in your assessment of the type of vehicle
that we would need to reach the hollow cavity. It would have to have
reange and stealth. Actually, a wooden sailboat would be hard to
detect with radar, and it wouldn´t stand out too much if it were
camouflaged white and blue.
About energy- chapter 21 of Mr. Cater´s book has to do with free
energy, i.e., he outlines two self-sustaining generators and a
magnetic motor. I won´t go into it much because I´ve just read over
it and gotten the basic idea, but the self-sustaining generators are
based on the following idea- That soft particles permeate all space
and that they contain hard electrons, i.e., electricity. it is just a
matter of tapping the energy source.
And water can be utilized as a fuel for internal combustion engines
in a similar way. Water harbors lots of soft particles. It is just a
matter of introducing a catalyst. Imagine if you only needed to carry
a small amount of chemical catalyst and feed a little bit into the
tank every time you topped off with water. there is lots of fresh
water in the Arctic, of course.
Soft particles make chemical changes possible. Catalyst simply
provides the soft electrons necessary for chemical reactions to occur.
DD
Dick,
It only seems this way. I´ll explain, but first let´s go over the
experiment conducted by Churchward.
Both experimenters were
They were invisible to sight, but they were´t imperceptible to touch,
were they? That´s why they were identified as heat rays.
But what about latent heat which has been " turned off?" This is the
nature of the hard particle trapped within the soft one. It does get
released due to friction, but mostly due to friction with other
encountered particles of a similar frequency on their way through the
Earth´s shell. It is these hard particles, which finally get released
after so much penetration and friction, that get released and recover
their nature. Until that point, they are camouflaged in soft
particles.
The same phenomenon is experienced when UFO occupants pass through
walls and make their abductees pass through walls. The hard
particles, perceptible to touch, ar " turned off." How?
This is basically dematerialization. Mr. Cater, in Chapter 25 of The
Ultimate Reality, explains how this is ocurrs: " ... the flollowing
thigs happen to matter which has been dematerialized. First, its
inertial properties have either vanished or all but vanished ....
Second, atoms of the material can no longer generate a magnetic field
when given velocity. Third, THE ELCTROSTATIC EFFECTS OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES HAVE VANISHED SINCE, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, IT IS
THE ELECTROSTATIC EFFECTS OF THE HARD ELECTRONS AND PROTONS WHICH
MAKE MATTER TANGIBLE." [ Emphasis mine ]
The hard particles sit in this state as they pass through the matter
of the Earth´s shell- neutral, " turned off." this is why they
weren´t perceived in Churchward´s experiment.
Conversely, a clear "white" glass or chemical "Lense" would
stop all "heat" rays and allow only the light visible rays to pass
through. The gun cotton would not ignite. No matter how bright, the
temperature remained low.
The latent heat passed through as described above.
But latent heat in the form of " turned off " hard particles encased
within soft ones pass through the white stocking, the black one the
leg, the lady, et cetera.
This concept refutes the conclusions below.
Even so, we don´t exactly have to adopt an " Either or " attitude
towards Cater and Churchward. For example, Churchwards idea about
super-hot gasses passing through the shell of the Earth, shaping the
cavern worlds and defining strata and such. What has to be defined,
more than anything, is a source of heat. maybe the way in which soft
particles harbor heat, and the way in which they get stored in the
depths between plates acting as condensers, could provide a source of
heat for some of the processes which Churchward presents.
I can only give what I call " enough to go on." At a certain point I
hope that some of you will break down and pop $25 in order to pick up
The Awesome Life Force and see for yourselves.
I do have to run now.
Bye,
Dharma/Dean
particles.
Dick replies: The several separating (or filtering) of Heat and Light rays (carrying Forces) experiments by Churchward were done, not in a vacuum, but in the atmosphere, where friction between all elements is constant. If hard particles were trapped within soft particles, why would they NOT be released at that time? Why ONLY once the soft particles have passed into the crust, as you seem to imply in the above?
Dean, keep in mind I am NOT suggesting the Sun's rays that have passed into the crust at some depth, do not result in Heat, Luminosity and other believed phenomena. I was and am suggesting in my speculations, that SEVERAL, SEPARATE sets of Sun's rays, with DIFFERENT natures, may be SIMULTANEOUSLY penetrating into the crust together. I'm Speculating (because of Churchward's atmospheric experiments) that Cater may be quite innocently "lumping together" all rays (admittedly invisible to HIS and our perception) under his catch-all label of "soft particles."
About soft particles or Photons from the Sun (you've interspersed the two in several of your recent emails), isn't it also Cater's belief that WITHIN our atmosphere they cause both Light and Heat? If so, isn't sufficient FRICTION involving atmospheric elements happening, to then "release," "separate" or "disintegrate" soft and hard particles WITHIN the atmosphere which then produces Heat and Light?
Surely Cater (like Churchward) has carried out personal, practical laboratory experiments, to prove his beliefs about hard particles (within) soft particles producing heat and light in our atmosphere. Are such examples in his book? I'm not trying to deny validity for Cater's notions (and yours) on the above points, but contradictions remain that your comment has not seemed to clear up. - Dick
Dick replies: We've all read of honest people who've say they have witnessed the above. It may or may not have happened in this "solid" dimension. Their experiences may have been astral or other dimensional, or may have been actual. As yet, we seem to have no "scientific" proofs either way. So why bother throwing in the above and the following to justify or fault scientific premises? Seems irrelevant to the discussion. - Dick
Dick replies: As with my reply just above, the Cater explanation is a HYPOTHETICAL and imaginary supposition. Unless he can produce several proofs of tangible, multiple witnessed dematerialization having occurred, his explanation is purely speculation, or may be entirely wrong.
Personally I believe dematerialization - and materialization - and a lot of other phenomena, happen, but I would never state such as facts in a book and claim to explain HOW they happen. If Cater interjects a lot of similar speculations as authoritative "facts" in his book, I can partly understand why a lot of establishment scientists may have gotten turned off, and ignored his other more valid, science-based ideas! If Churchward had put across such speculations as "facts," I might have gotten turned off about him! - Dick
Dick replies: I answered that in my preceding replies above. Dean, your explanation is is also just your speculation. It seems to me your "why" is too emphatic. You only THINK they MAY not have not been perceived. Same with your comment on stopping the passage of Heat rays following... - Dick
Dick replies: How can you AUTHORITATIVELY assert the above as FACT? Aren't you just speculating about "latent heat" and "turned off" hard particles?
Another possible piece of "evidence" that Churchward points to about the various rays from the Sun having DIFFERENT natures is the following...
Recall first, Churchward claimed that the Sun's rays carry its generated Light and Heat "forces," are AFFINITIVE to Earth's own Light and Heat "forces" permeating the atmosphere - and stored in even greater volumes inside the earth's hard crust. The Sun's similar "affinitive" forces STIMULATE or AGITATE (use your own words) earth's similar forces into ACTION. Without the Sun's forces, earth's forces are relatively inactive - and completely in an inactive state when stored in the crust (earth's storage house, her "battery.")
Like Cater, he says the Sun's rays penetrate into the crust, but the Sun's carried HEAT rays with Heat forces, passing into the crust, obviously do not agitate the Earth's heat forces in the crust, into action. If the Sun's Heat forces could agitate Earth's Heat forces IN the crust into activity, the crust would superheat, melt and life on earth would end.
Because this Heating does not occur in the crust, Churchward contended that Earth's (cold) stored volumes of Heat forces had to be first DRAWN OUT OF THE CRUST into the atmosphere where they could be stimulated into action.
He concluded that separate ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCES carried in the Sun's rays (not the Sun's Heat rays and forces) penetrate the crust, draw forth ALL electromagnetic forces stored in the crust (including earth's electromagnetic heat and light forces - and all other forces) and place them into the atmosphere. You can call the following his reasoned speculation if you wish, but Churchward believed earth's atmospheric particles have a "holding capacity" for all forces drawn forth. Each atmospheric element and each atmospheric can "hold" or be "associated" with only so much volume of forces.
When earth's atmospheric particles have become "saturated" with forces the Sun's magnetic rays have drawn out of the crust, they can "hold" no more and the Sun's magnetic rays, though present and reaching into the crust, become ineffectual. They can draw forth no more from the volumes of all forces still retained in Earth's crustal "battery." Also, if you believe Churchward, all magnetic rays and forces from the Sun have NO affect on earth's elements, no magnetic pull on earth's elemental surface. The Sun's electromagnetic forces affect ONLY affinitive forces in the crust and in the atmosphere. (He gives many proofs to substantiate that). From around noon, the Sun's magnetic forces can draw forth no more forces from crust, especially no more HEAT forces. The atmosphere is filled to capacity. Anymore added will "spill."
BUT obviously OVER-saturation in the atmosphere does occur or we'd have no clouds, no storms, maybe no rain. When more (of all forces) fills an area with more forces than the elemental particles can "hold," the excess volumes of forces "spill" away, moving to less saturated area, to EQUALIZE the atmosphere. If the excess volume of forces in the atmosphere is large, we may observe this equalizing as horizontal sheet lightning. If a large excess cannot find atmospheric areas to equalize to, the excess will return to the crustal storehouse as vertical bolts of lightning. How much Cater's notions are ALSO valid about lightning, I do not know. Possibly both men are correct in degree.
But getting back to the earth's forces (also carried by earth "rays" of course) after they are drawn forth and "saturate" earth's atmospheric elements, Churchward believed that only THEN, in the atmosphere, did the affinitive Heat and Light forces from the Sun, agitate Earth's affinitive Heat and Light forces into activity, producing light and warmth. Where the Sun's Heat rays were in more direct line (from Sun to earth) with the extracted "lines" of earth's Heat forces, temperatures are warmest.
But once the rotating afternoon, then early evening surface passed around from WEST to EAST out of "sight" of the Sun, out of contact with the Sun's Light rays and forces, Earth's Light forces held in the atmosphere began becoming inactive, began being REDRAWN back to their crustal storehouse by earth's "central" magnet, deep in the crust. During the night only small quantities of various forces remained active in the atmosphere. So too with most other forces originally magnetically attracted from the crust beginning with the dawn quadrant that came in line with the Sun's rays and forces.
As I speculated earlier, I do not think this negates Cater's theory that the Sun's rays penetrate the crust and deep down and on to the hollow, ALSO create Heat, Luminosity and other effects. But for at least a considerable depth of our crust form the surface, the Sun's rays carrying HEAT forces (separate forces OR as Cater's "disintegrating" soft particles releasing hard particles) apparently do NOT become active. If they did become active in the upper miles of the crust, the crust would melt. For whatever reason (unsuspected to Churchward), Heat rays do not become active again until much deeper in the crust. - Dick
---------------------------
Dick replies: Nether Cater nor Churchward can be PROVED conclusively. Cater theorizes and speculates. Churchward theorized and speculated. Which man is MORE correct? Which is wrong? It's up to each of us to decide for ourselves which. It may well be both guys are partly wrong and partly right. Maybe both are describing similar phenomena with different terms. I'm not certain. BUT I am convinced that both thinkers are closer to REALITY with their observations than the mass of scientists in today's orthodox "science."
About the SOURCE OF EARTH'S INTERNAL HEAT.... If Churchward is correct, the hard crust rests upon a layer of MOLTEN matter, rotating slower than the crust. (which also supposedly creates Earth's Gyroscopical force). The molten matter can cool no further because the crust above is already SATURATED with all the volumes of heat forces that can be withdrawn from the molten matter. A neutral zone of cooling was long ago arrived at, making the molten layer permanent.
But the subterranean, explosive volcanic gases originally trapped in pockets throughout the granite crust, carry some of that heat with them as they are forced up through cracks and fissures by earth's great centrifugal force from rotation.The heat forces "saturating" these deep gases being emptied upward under pressure, plus their explosive compound natures, produces much of the heat from them in volcanic eruptions. Possibly some of this deep heat in the gases comes from Cater's notion of heat being released deep in the crust. That seems quite possible to me.
But about "plates," Dean. I'm sorry, I cannot buy this tectonic "plates" idea. I find it a fantasy, including VERTICAL "plate" movement which may be a misunderstanding, better pictured as Churchward's gas chamber roofs were pushed up by gases, blown open, emptied and submerged again. Churchward's explanation covers every phenomena, tectonic plate movement does not. I remind you Pratt gave the analogy about so-called plates, that earth's crust is about as flexible as a brick in a wall. -Dick
Dick replies: Churchward's 5 books will cost you more (unless you find them in a used book store). I hope you too will read them. - Dick
Hi, Laura, and All.
Laura. Regarding the existence of mosquitoes in polar regions. I think that you will find that there are plenty of mosquitoes in both polar regions, especially along the northern coasts and islands of Arctic Canada, Alaska, and Siberia, where they thrive in their myriads. They are a terrible pest to all the warm-blooded wildlife which abounds there - including the Eskimos, too!
The ony humidity that they require is in the breeding season, when parts of the permafrost thaws sufficiently in the polar summer forming small pools of water. In these their eggs can be laid and are then able to develop swiftly into adults. The hot blood of their victims; caribou, musk oxen, polar bears, and the small polar mammals; is adequate for all their heating, fluid and nourishment needs from then on.
It appears the Antarctic species of mosquitoes are wingless, and breed among the colonies of penguins, especially targeting the soft younger chicks. These wingless mosquitoes are far less numerous than the Arctic "mossies" and they appear to live among the warm under-feathers of the penguins for most of their lives.
Thus they are even able to survive whilst their hosts are submerged in the icy ocean when diving for fish - thanks to the birds' waterproof and warmth-retaining outer feathers ! I hope this helps in resolving the question!
Gerry