Pollen on the ice

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

Members,

Last night I passed around some comments from Nansen about the areas covered
with pollen which he encountered on the Arctic ice. Just to show you all
that it was not an isolated incident, I'll include these commentsfrom page
139 ofGardner's book:

" By August first he had reached a point near the Petowik glacier which lies
just northward of the "Crimson Cliffs" of Sir John Ross. This is so called
from the fact that on the snow-clad cliffs and glacier surfaces at this
point Sir John Ross, in 1818, discovered a red deposit which had fallen
about and mixed with the snow, giving it a reddish color which was pretty
widely distributed. What was it? For a long time this was a mystery, but it
was at last proven to be of vegetable origin: now, the point- to be taken up
in detail later- is simply this: where could any vegetable matter, either a
pollen from larger plants or a very humble sort of red mossy or spore like
growth, come from? There is no other case in the whole realm of botany that
would justify us in assuming that a plant can grow on ice-bergs or on snow.
A plant requires certain elements and certain temperatures. Evidently,
somewhere those factors must be in existence. Where, we shall see later."

" Where " is the hollow portion. The pollen falls on icebergs there and
floats out, or blows out and then sits on the ice.

Nansen found his pollen way in the middle, just on the Siberian-European
side, and the above-mentioned place was close to the Northern tip of Canada.

Dharma/Dean

2

Dean!

HOORAY FOR DEAN!!! ( shout this three times for good measure! )
As much as I like Atlantis and stories of other "happenings", the purpose
of
this list has to do primarily with the hollow earth theory. After a long
draught
someone brings to attention some pretty daunting evidence about colored
snow.
I read on a web site in the last couple years that someone thought that
plankton
had something to do with all of the off color snows found in places in
the high
arctic. I don't buy that story for an instant. If you think about it a
minute, the
only sea based life that takes to the air most anywhere is the flying
fish, and to
the best of my recollection they are not native to the high arctic.
Pollen is on the contrary uses a natural air bourne vehicle of
reproduction.
Many different arrangements are made in nature for their being lifted up
on the
prevailing winds and carried for considerable distances.
However, as Jan pointed out in his impressive volume, the winds
from the
horse latitudes are not usually found to penetrate all the way to the
pole. On the
other hand though, it is quite common to find pockets, areas of air
inversions in
the high arctic where the warm air is high and the cold air is low just
the opposite
of what it should be especially since there is a decided lack of
mountains which
might affect the formation of air flows up high that are warm enough to
glide on
top of other cold air masses below. Given the lighter air and buoyancy of
pollens
in general, what a perfect fit for the polar opening and a rising warm
air plume to
be the distributor of pollen which eventually cools down with
condensation from
the interior warm airs to result eventually in colored red, black and
other strange
colored snow.
Perchance, maybe someone ought to perform some genetic matching
on
the pollens of regionally close flower and plant producing regions of the
outer
northern hemisphere. It might be a stretch, but could a plant of flower
native to
only the interior be identified with this comparison?

Scott

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 19:31:06 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" [email protected]

3

Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] Pollen on the ice

Yes/yes/yes.

SNIP

It might be a stretch, but could a plant of flower

Scott,

Your points about pollen were all good ones. I can at least mention that the
expedition of Adirmal MacMillan to Northern Greenland catalogued two species
of flower which do not exist anywhere else.

I'll also mention that it snows in the Arctic, as anyone can imagine. During
the summer it rains, too. So any pollen on the ice tends to become covered
over. So any pollen covering that we do find could be indicative of more
pollen that got covered with snow, and the fact that it typically passes by
that cliff near the point where Greenland and Canada touch each other
suggests the the opening isn't too far from there. Straight up from the
magnetic pole isn't too far, and that is where everyone suspects the opening
to be, al least one corner of it.

Mr. Cater wrote this back in 1982. He explained that the magnetic lines of
force have the characteristics of a flow. He explained that, as the opening
is offset from the geographic, spinning pole, the magnetic flow tends to get
slung around ( my paraphrasing ) and spills out from a certain point- the
magnetic pole. actually he says: " The flow of ethers which produce the
magnetic field will follow the lines of least resistence, as is the case
with any fluid." So the magnetic pole is indicative of and near to the
opening. I think that if I put my finger in a milk bowl and started to sling
around the bowl, the milk would flow out from a certain point, right?

Here is the whole quote from Cater: " The Reasons the Earth's Magnetic Poles
are not Located at the Geographic Poles

The fact that the Earth's magnetic poles are far removed from the geographic
poles. and that they tend to shift, has always been a puzzle to
geophysicists and other experts. The concepts revealed in this treatise
provide a simple answer to this dilemma. A magnetic pole is defined as the
point where the magnetic inclination, or the angle at which the compass
needle points downward, is 90 degrees.This is the direction of the magnetic
lines of force or the general flow of ether particles. At the north magnetic
pole the flow is downward, and is upward at the opposite pole.

In actuality, the so-called poles are not sharply defined. The lines along
which the inclination is very close to 90 degrees are quite extensive, and
follow a closed path around [ within ] the lip of each of the large egresses
into the hollow earth. The flow of ethers which produce the magnetic field
will follow the lines of least resistence, as is the case with any fluid.
Since these openings produce a void, so to speak, the flow of ethers
concentrated in the higher latitudes [ of the inner shell ], will
concentrate at these openings. The concentration of soft electrons at any
area fluctuates. Consequently, the so-called magnetic pole will also have a
tendency to shift.

A high concentration of soft electrons is radiated out of the openings from
the interior. This means an inordinate concentration exists around the
openings. Since the openings are not located at the geographic poles, they
will assume the rotational velocity of the Earth in these areas. Therefore,
an additional magnetic field will be produced in these regions and in the
same direction as the general flow of ethers. Similar nodal points, or
lines, encircle the Earth at the lower latitudes, as mentioned in Chapter
20, because ether flows tend to follow circular paths going in and out of
the Earth's shell. Such nodal lines will be much weaker. A similar case
exists along a bar magnet of considerable length."

4

Original subject: uphill struggle

All,

I just partook of the discussion on colored snows and pollen
and suggested a genetic comparison between flowering plants known
to exist on the outer surface. Dean promptly mentioned that two types
of pollen or flower that were or had been unknown to the outer world
having no match. One would think that if there were some reasonable
and provable explanation how that pollens and colored snows might
exist aside from the hollow earth theory, the establishment would make
great fanfare out of publicizing that example. Apparently, this has not
been done and perhaps they are quite because it would only add fuel to
our fires to prove our theory to the world.
The establishment toots its horn loudly when it comes to the null
gravity concept within a shell planet structure. I have been working on
this particular weakness of the HET for some time now and have devoted
a considerable amount of time and effort to the examination of this
mathematically supplied evidence. My first attempts showed they were
totally wrong, but my second attempt using a modification of my prior
technique appears to uphold the claim the establishment has on this. I
won't go further into that now but my hunch is that gravity works in ways
inside the earth that haven't even been anticipated by the establishment
and that it is still guesswork on every bodies part.
Dean, bless his soul, takes an almost ecstatic delight in beating
up
on Newton due to evidence he thinks is reasonable in suggesting that
Newton is all wet. I am not sure whether or not we need to dump Newton
completely and when I hear talk of doing so, I get a bit edgy since my
approach has to been to fully embrace Newtonian formulas and laws of
gravity first and then work from the inside out to see if everything
fits.
Gravity is not something that we understand completely and I see
paradoxes in taking any one particular view on mass products for example.
Pari Spolter suggests that for the mass products to be correct, the Sun
would have to recognize each individual planet in its orbit has a
different
mass and to remain consistent with the Keplerian laws of planetary motion
it, (our Sun 93,000,000 miles away) would have to apply a different
gravitational force to each body since they all differ in their masses.
So, from Pari's particular viewpoint, she is quite correct. Mass
has
and hence the mass product concept of Newton makes no sense. On the
other hand, if a Sun radiates a consistent degree of gravitational force
omni-directionally, its strength would decrease via the laws of inverse
squaring, a concept Pari recognizes and embraces totally. To me she
is quite right in suggesting that mass products may be ignored. On the
other hand, my insight into this is that the mass product idea is an
ingredient
which cannot be done away with. Two differing sized mass bodies in space
orbiting with a common eccentricity and semi-major axis would both orbit
the planet at the same velocity and period of orbit. There are a number
of different ways of considering how this could be:

  1. Mass product makes no difference and a consistent gravity field of
    the
    Sun makes all objects orbit alike. where as in number

  2. Masses of different size have different degrees of inertia which must
    be
    overcome in order to accelerate that single cohesive body through space
    to
    orbit the sun with a standard period, velocity and eccentricity. Here,
    the mass
    product concept must be considered since it is that greater inertia which

stays in direct ratio with the mass an orbiting body has such that when
we
calculate a mass bodies product with the mass of its primary (orbited Sun
or planet)
the force of gravity calculated stays relative to the force required to
over
come inertia of any body in space to remain in motion or at rest.
Changing
the velocity and/or direction of orbiting bodies requires the use of
force which
will always mirror the inertial value of its motion or lack thereof.
Lastly

  1. A combination of 1 and 2 is really what is really going on making
    those
    who adhere to either of them both correct. This includes Pari Spolter
    and
    myself for example. Mass product isn't required in her scheme of things.
    She
    favors #1 which resembles the need Kepler had to consider just how
    massive
    a body in calculating orbits which is none. I claim mass is very
    important.
    How could I maintain that we are both correct. It is very simple. If we
    remove
    the idea of mass product we can do so if we consider that all orbiting
    bodies are
    sets of individual atomic particles which would have the tendency to
    orbit the
    Sun exactly in the same way that a large gas giant would. Planets all
    behave the
    same in their orbit of the Sun because they are nothing more than
    aggregations
    or groupings of individual atomic particles which are susceptible to
    gravity from
    the Sun. This makes all bodies that orbit irregardless of size to behave
    alike. It
    makes the idea of a mass product unnecessary since the fundamental
    reaction of
    all matter is at the subatomic particle size which is subservient to the
    gravitational
    influence.
    With this in mind, why do I still insist on the importance of
    gravity as a function
    of mass products? It is simply a question of perspective. In
    mathematical laws, 1 is
    the multiplicative identity. All individual subatomic particles
    subservient to the laws
    of gravity are simply added together with the same result ie. that all
    bodies that orbit
    which are groupings of a single multiplicative identity behave alike
    whether the body
    is a single particle or a set of 10,000,000,000,000 same sized particles.
    It is in the
    study of how large bodies all react against the rules of inertia that the
    mass product
    is necessary. Leave it out and mathematicians would have no idea how
    much force
    would be needed to deflect a rouge asteroid or comet were it feasible to
    go out into
    space and steer it away from a cataclysmic impact upon the Earth.

Seeing how these two theories of gravity are in reality, the
opposite side of the
same coin, I wish to point out what originally induced me to compose this
e-mail to
the group. We revisited evidence of the hollow earth in the colored
snows and pollen
in icebergs. Do the group members agree with me that it is a most
amazing world?
We see promoters of biological evolution state in no uncertain terms the
absolute
truth of their theory of evolution. It happened as far as they are
concerned and nothing
anybody says will dissuade their opinion. Were we hollow earthers to
trot around and
proclaim as boldly as they do that the HET was absolute truth, they would
assign us
all to the funny farm in a hurry. What a paradox. The evolutionists
have been saying
(forever?) that all that needs be found is the missing link. They have
looked for a very
long time and still haven't found it. You see evolution is a purely
religious experience
for them. They cling to it and since they have the blessings of the
media and establishment
on their side, they can do no wrong! (You may have noted that I enjoy
beating up on
evolution from time to time.)
If we only had to satisfy the degree of proof that the
evolutionist mob has to
satisfy, we would have proven our theory much more than evolution. A
single example
is something that they really don't possess in regard to the theory of
evolution, at least
examples which find no challenge. So, in finishing my comments, it is
too bad we cannot
thrive on the paltry, miserably, implausible standard of proof which
passes for vindication
in the establishment with evolution. Funding our hoped for expedition
would be a snap.

Scott