Pranayama

ALLPLANETS-HOLLOW Yahoo Group (Old Posts)
,
41

Original subject: Olaf's description of the inner sun

Norlan,

When I wrote to Cater about a nighttime in the hollow Earth, he wasn't very
big on the idea. He kind of left open a possibility, though:

" The side of the central sun facing the real sun will receive slightly more
particles from the inner shell than from the opposite side. As a result,
that side might be brighter than the opposite side." This could account for
some kind of nighttime, although maybe not a pitch black nighttime like we
have. I mean, Olaf described the brightness of their day as two full moons
of light, so their nighttime could be maybe one full moon, who knows.

In this first description of the inner sun, from within, the tone of the
narration doesn't break stride or change really.

" In the meantime we had lost sight of the sun's rays, but we found a
radiance 'within ' emanating from the dull-red sun which had already
attracted our attention, now giving out a white light seemingly from a
cloud-bank far away in front of us. It dispensed a greater light, I should
say, than two full moons on the clearest night. In twelve hours this cloud
of whiteness would pass out of sight as if eclipsed, and the twelve hours
following corresponded with our night. We early learned that these strange
people were worshipers of this great cloud of light. It was ' The Smoky God
' of the ' Inner World.'".

In the second description, he breaks the storyline to give a brief, simple
explanation of gravity, but I don't know if I would conclude that it was
here where the narrator got involved. I mean, the short explanation which he
gave, just in one sentence, contains a concept about gravity which current
science soundly rejects, but which is much in keeping with Cater's concept-
Olaf reported that gravity does, in fact, exhibit repulsion. Now, how did he
know that? And why would the narrator have said such a shocking,
unacceptable thing if he were trying to water down the story and make it
more acceptable. That litle explanation about gravity, explaining why the
central sun stays in place, simply made it more difficult for the modern
mind to accept.

Cater's musings above leave open the possibility of a darker side and a
type of night, so it might have just been this which was meant by Olaf.

I do not discard the possibility, though, that the narrator tried to make
the narration more palatable in some places, maybe even with Olaf's
approval. I mean, for the rigid mindsets of those times, and given the
treatment that Olaf had when he initially tried to communicate his
experience, maybe they felt they had a reason to tone it down. For example,
the name of Olaf's guide, Jules Galea, sounds very Westernised. But I'll
have to get a hold of a person who knows Sanskrit ( anybody? ) and ask
about some of the vocabulary used, because Olaf reported that their language
was similar to Sanskrit.

Dharma/Dean

42

Dean,

According to Olaf...

""The Smoky God," therefore, with each daily revolution of the earth,
appears
to come up in the east and go down in the west the same as does our sun on
the external surface."

When I first read The Smoky God, this was the text that caused me to cast
doubt on the whole story. Obviously, it would be impossible for the inner
sun to rise or set, or even appear to rise or set. I also find the reference
to stars rather hard to swallow. I suppose it's possible that the narrator
misunderstood something when relating the tale. While I really want to
believe Olaf's tale, I'm not inclined to accept any science based on second
hand observations from the narrator. Meaning, I'd rather believe Cater's
science than Olaf's narrator. On the other hand, if what we read in the
Smoky God is accurate, the inner sun must operate on physics level that we
don't understand or haven't considered.

Blake

43

From Vedic Culture Remains in the Hollow Earth:

http://skyboom.com/hollowearthpuranas/index6.html

What exactly about Olaf's report was suggestive of Puranic culture, as it
was before the beginning of Kali Yuga, in the hollow Earth? Well, we already
know that Olaf reported giant human beings. Among other things he also
reported that they enjoyed a life span of around 800 years, had photographic
memory, great intelligence, that they spoke Sanskrit or a close derivative,
were of a Northern European stock of race, worshipped the inner Sun and a
pantheon of gods at least similar to the Hindu, if not the same. ( Remember
that he was young when he went there and could not communicate too well with
them, nor absorb everything that he saw around him. So it might have been
hard for him to interpret exactly what he saw. ). He reported that the
flowers all had tremendous fragrances and that the fruits were more tasty
than on the surface.

" Vegetation grew in lavish exuberance, and fruit of all kinds possessed the
most delicate flavour. Clusters of grapes four and five feet in length, each
grape as large as an orange, and apples larger than a man's head typified
the wonderful growth of all things on the "inside" of the earth. The great
redwood trees of California would be considered mere underbrush compared
with the giant forest trees extending for miles and miles in all
directions. In many directions along the foothills of the mountains vast
herds of cattle were seen during the last day of our travel on the river."

It suffices to say that to anyone familiar with the puranic descriptions of
human beings before the advent of Kali Age, Olaf's testimony provides a
shocking correspondence.

44

Blake,

If you change the words for get light in the East and Dark in the West, then
the text isn't so problematic in view of Cater's physics. One side of the
inner sun, the side facing away from the sun of the solar system, would get
dimmer. This is because the stream of photon aggragates, which feeds it by
filtering through the shell, would be diminished. So one side would be
darker.

I found the part, about what seemed to be stars, hard to swallow, too. But
remember, he was a kid at the time, he didn't speak their language so well,
not after two years, I mean, really! And he was writing in his old age from
memory. In fact, he dictated the book from his notes while on his death bed.

He did mention that the stars were wider. That suggests to me that the dark
side of the inner sun gets " burned out " at night, like deep embers below
the ashes in a fire place. Some light still peeps through holes in the ashes
and casts a beam or two across the room against the walls. Maybe in some
kind of similar way, the dimmer, half burned-out inner sun still projects a
few stray points of light.

I suppose it's possible that the narrator

But Cater didn't absolutely deny the possibility, and even suggested how one
side of the sun would get dimmer when faced away from the photon stream,
away from the Sun of the solar system.

In other words, the type of sun which Cater outlines accomodates Olaf's
description without too much problem.

You just have to define what night is, how dark, and what is meant by stars
that were " wider." Do you see what I'm saying? In the first place, Olaf
didn't describe a pitch black night. We even say " nighttime " on the
surface when the Moon is out. I have read at night under the moon. An inner
sun which only gets dimmer than THEIR daytime, which was only as bright as
two full moons anyway, is not hard to imagine. The particle stream from the
outer sun slackens on the night side, and then that side of the inner sun
gets dimmer, and Olaf calls it nighttime.

I'm not just stretching things- if you understand Cater's model for an inner
sun, then you'll see how it is possible. Even Cater wouldn't deny the
possibility.

On the other hand, if what we read in the

Cater's physics covers it. I don't think you caught my original post exactly
right.

This is some great discussion, by the way. I have never witnessed this type
of discussion on Olaf or the inner sun. It's high time.

Dharma/Dean

45

Dean,
I think we may better serve the recognition of the Inner Earth reality by
dispelling the very limited if not cell -like anatomy given to us by Olaf
Jansen. I believe we are of a direct ability now to ascertain that the nature
of the makeup of the Inner Earth is fertile with millions if not an unlimited
number of species. That the 'giants depicted by Olaf' make up a small yet
required number of 'zookeepers or caregivers' of these many species. Those of
the surface can not grasp nor handle the real nature of the Inner Earth, so a
manufactured digestible format was more probably agreed upon by the coharts
Nansen and Emerson, to give to the public at large in a novel form.

Telling people of 'giants in the earth', expands the layers of credulity but
is still withstood through the powers of Biblical narration, which most
people of that time were more accustomed to. Now, with science, of course no
one believes or cares about the Inner Earth. Science is the new religion, the
new opium of the masses. You better believe it.

Greg

Subj: Olaf's descriptions of inner Earth

http://skyboom.com/hollowearthpuranas/index6.html

What exactly about Olaf's report was suggestive of Puranic culture, as it
was before the beginning of Kali Yuga, in the hollow Earth? Well, we already
know that Olaf reported giant human beings. Among other things he also
reported that they enjoyed a life span of around 800 years, had photographic
memory, great intelligence, that they spoke Sanskrit or a close derivative,
were of a Northern European stock of race, worshipped the inner Sun and a
pantheon of gods at least similar to the Hindu, if not the same. ( Remember
that he was young when he went there and could not communicate too well with
them, nor absorb everything that he saw around him. So it might have been
hard for him to interpret exactly what he saw. ). He reported that the
flowers all had tremendous fragrances and that the fruits were more tasty
than on the surface.

" Vegetation grew in lavish exuberance, and fruit of all kinds possessed the
most delicate flavour. Clusters of grapes four and five feet in length, each
grape as large as an orange, and apples larger than a man's head typified
the wonderful growth of all things on the "inside" of the earth. The great
redwood trees of California would be considered mere underbrush compared
with the giant forest trees extending for miles and miles in all
directions. In many directions along the foothills of the mountains vast
herds of cattle were seen during the last day of our travel on the river."

It suffices to say that to anyone familiar with the puranic descriptions of
human beings before the advent of Kali Age, Olaf's testimony provides a
shocking correspondence

46

This is just a real long shot...please bear with me. I just received Cater's
book today in the mail, so I have yet to read it, I'm just going by what I've
read on the net so far. I did read "Olaf's" story though.

Could there possibly be a way that the Sun's rays, after coming through the
surface of the Earth, converge in the center of the earth, similar to the way
a magnifying glass concentrates the Sun's energy, onto a solid object in the
center, therefore illuminating it, and acting more like a moon giving off
light, and fading in and out on the inside as the Earth revolves around it.

After all, if the Earth is supposed to be hollow and more like a geode,
wouldn't that mean the inner part is more crystal like, acting more like a
prism with the Sun light that makes it through, and maybe causing it to
concentrate in the center?

Just a wild idea. Let me know what you think, I have thick skin.

MM

47

Mike,

A model has to explain all aspects. How would such a model account for
invisible rays shooting out of the polar openings to cause the auroral
display?

The Earth is like a geode in the sense of shape. I don't know how far you
can taike the analogy.

Dean

48

I think that Olaf was just giving an overview- me, too.

# : ^ )

Dean

49

Three points.
One: the description of the brightness was upon the first observation of the
inner sun. This was at the initial point around the circumference of the
hole which would have been a very non-direct angle from the suns full face.

Two: He also described that it was overcast or hidden in a large cloud bank
far away. He didn't say far above them, but rather far away, indicating in
front of them, indicating this initial sighting which placed the sun in front
of them and not directly above them as it would constantly be while one was
on the interior surface. The sun at that point was twice the light of a
full moon, whatever that means, but, that doesn't mean that the inner sun
maintained that same brightness the entire time they were in the interior.
In fact, it would stand to reason that the sun would get brighter as one
moved more directly underneath the sun rather than on such an initial angle.
This brightening process could have had its own subtleties. Olaf was rather
preoccupied with things after they traveled further into the opening and
neared land and civilization. Later, he claims to have read there and
conducted a series of observations, while never complaining about the amount
of light (or lack thereof) that he had while there. I think it would be
presumptuous to assume too much from Olaf's initial description of the
central sun.
Third: This feeling is supported by the magazine article which was in
Palmer's Flying Saucer magazine. The Land of Azareth I believe was the
series which touched on it in subsequent follow-up stories, where the
night/day and twinkle star descriptions were attributed to the reporter's
inferences. As far as the gravity comments, I didn't mention them as being
suspect. I was mostly refering to the twinkle star reference depicted later.
Someone who knew the reporter author claimed he admitted to adding a little
of his own input.
Something to think about.
Norlan

50

Exactly my point Blake. It's much more than the initial observation of
Olaf's that I was refering to. Cater's revolving orb with a light and dark
side is one thing, but the rising and setting doesn't wash. Point made, I
hope.
Norlan

51

Dean,
It is much easier for me to accept the reporter interjection problem than to
go along with this far reaching dialogue. When we have to resort to
rewriting the manuscript to fit the argument, then we are falling prey to the
very fault that most physicists succumb to, "defending the theory at all cost
and despite all facts." It is completely illogical to suggest that if we
change what the author said then it isn't wrong anymore. The description of
a rising and setting sun was not a misstated comment from a minor, nor a
misinterpreted observation from a language barrier. It was as I had
originally suggested, a simplistic implant from a second or third party to
the original. Once again, don't suppose that the original observation of
brightness of the inner sun was the continual state of bightness in the inner
earth. It's like saying that dawn or dusk is as bright as it gets at noonday
on the surface. The light of a full moon still gives everything the
appearance of greyscale in its limits. In other words, moonlight reveals
very little color. And I would assume that twice thereof wouldn't reveal
much more. But Olaf talks of detailed embroidery of beautiful colors in the
fabrics of the clothing of these people. And the colors of the flora and
fauna that depicted a brightness of a grand nature. These observations could
not be made in moonlight with such billiance attached to their description.
When we start arguing that it depends upon what the definition of "is" is.
Then you lose me. You keep refering to Cater as not ruling out this
lighter/darker concept, but, remembering his first take was not very
receptive, then let's not try and rewrite the physics of Cater to fit the
flaws in the Smokey God. Let's be reasonable here. Anyone can win any
argument by changing the premises at will. Let's stick with the facts of
what was said in the text. If not, we could digress quite extensively. Like:
Maybe what Olaf meant to say was that these were little green men, not large
giant men, thus proving that Martians, being known to be green, inhabit the
inner earth.
Point made?
I think I understand your point perfectly. A rotating orb with a darker and
lighter side. Possible, but improbable. To begin with, why would it rotate
different from the earth's rotation. Why on exactly a corrosponding 12 hour
cycle like on the exterior? Why the twinkle star phenomenon in the first
place which would simulate the heavens of the exterior? Why all of these
phenominal miracles of physics would converge to emulate the same aura of the
exterior world? Simply put, because someone from the exterior world had to
assign a familiar setting to this phenominal inner world.
It's okay, Dean. We can agree do disagree. And if we're going to start
changing the text to make a point, then we strongly disagree. Let's stick
with the facts, they're intriguing enough. I stand my ground, though. There
are flaws of logic in The Smokey God, and I don't think Olaf was the source.
Norlan

52

All ideas are worth the thought, MM. But I rely of a multiple of factors
when deriving my understandings of the inner sun. There is some evidence,
however derived, that the central sun is of a solid nature. Solid like our
sun of the exterior. Seismographic readings indicate a central core, even
though these readings are generally misinterpreted by the seismologists.
Still, it is there, and it shows up as having some sort of solid mass.
Cater's theories are fascinating, and they give great insight into the
possibilities of understanding the mysteries of the earth's cosmogony, but
let's not abandon all other facts and knowledge to promote one appoach or one
piece of the puzzle, regardless of how large that piece might be.
But what you're saying is that the inner sun in more like a moon that isn't
the source but only a reflector of the light source? Interesting. But . . .
all things considered . . .Hmmmm . . . thanks for the thought, interesting
idea.
Norlan

53

Ditto.

54

Members,

I took that drawing of Cater's inner sun formation and sent it around last
night, but I was trying to get out of here, and sent it out so fast that I
didn't write any label. Now I am thinking that maybe some of you thought it
was a virus or something and zapped it.

Anyway, I stuck it on my site at:
http://skyboom.com/hollowearthpuranas/index7.html

It is at the bottom under a second blue header field. I don't know how long
I'll leave it there, because it doesn't fit in with the rest of the
graphics.

Dean

55

Norlan,

So far I'm with you. Here is his description from that point, still high up
on the circumference.

" It could hardly be said to resemble the sun, except in its circular shape,
and

when not obscured by clouds or the ocean mists, it had a hazy-red, bronzed

appearance, which would change to a white like a luminous cloud, as if

reflecting some greater light beyond."

The sun at that point was twice the light of a

angle.

Even after they were found by the ship Olaf referred to the Sun as being
surrounded by some kind of cloudiness.

" The ship's speed, at

tomes, surpassed that of any railroad train on which I have ever ridden,
even

here in America. It was wonderful.

In the meantime we had lost sight of the sun's rays, but we found a radiance

"within" emanating from the dull-red sun which had already attracted our

attention, now giving out a white light seemingly from a cloud-bank far away

in front of us. It dispensed a greater light, I should say, than two full

moons on the clearest night."

From Jehu, he was still describing the Sun as being situated within a cloud
bank of some kind:

" The great luminous cloud or ball of dull-red fiery - fire-red in the
mornings

and evenings, and during the day giving off a beautiful white light, "The

Smoky God," - is seemingly suspended in the center of the great vacuum

"within" the earth, and held to its place by the immutable law of
gravitation,

or a repellant atmospheric force, as the case may be. "

As such, I don't know how much brighter the sun would have gotten, one can
certainly read well under the light of two full moons.

The only thing I presume and feel fairly strong about is the idea that the
sun was dimmer than the surface sun, softer light.

This fits in well, too, with the Cater's idea of the inner sun being some
type of lower electron/photon aggregate, which has attained a lower
frequency.

I won't really argue much against the idea that the narrator made the more
more " palatable " in his mind and fooled with a few things. Rising and
setting of the interior sun, stars, a base for the sun to sit on high in the
sky- these are things that could have been fooled with as the tone of the
narration changed.

A dimmer side of the inner sun is feasable, but I don't think that any
hollow Earth model depends on it, certainly Cater's doesn't, he didn't feel
comfortable with the idea.

Third: This feeling is supported by the magazine article which was in

Would it be possible to access that series of critiques? I think that
modern-day hollow Earthers have not been exposed to these older analyses. It
would be a good idea to give them some exposure. I've got space on my site.

I do appreciate these discussions and re-affirm that I am happy to entertain
ideas opposite from my own.

Dharma/Dean

56

I'll go along with any rising and setting of the inner sun as being without
much support, and being likely due to the intereference of the narrator.

Dean

57

Norlan,

I don't want to be a wrangler, I am just trying to examine the story from
all aspects and troubleshoot, so to speak.

I have to admit that the statement about the inner sun simulating some kind
of rising and setting doesn't sit well with me. If the sun is held in pace
by some sort of electrostatic force, and if it principally consists of
electron particles, it would have much weight to it, in spite of whatever
mass. Consequently, it might experience some typical swings from one side to
the other, but to stretch this into a rising and setting is beyond me.

And your mention of the color descriptions given by Olaf do suggest a
certain amount of brightness. So I am re-thinking the brightness issue. I
could have been that the inner sun always seemed to be shrouded in a fog,
just that the brightness increased the further they penetrated. Why not? Any
fogginess around an inner sun could be accounted for by the breakup of
photon aggregates due to friction. In fact, this makes sense when we
consider the following description:

" it had a hazy-red, bronzed

appearance, which would change to a white like a luminous cloud, as if

reflecting some greater light beyond."

Another point: even when we conclude that the narrator might have
interpolated in order to make the book more palatable, we are speculating.
We don't know that for sure, although it seems likely.

I don't want to scare off any newcomers. There are reasons why Olaf himself
might have wanted to tone down the story. When he babbled on and insisted on
his story to the ship's captain who rescued him from the Antartic Ocean, all
that his frankness won him was a private suite in the ships brig, in chains.
They thought he was nuts.

Then when he went back to Norway, they locked him up again. Once burned,
twice shy. So nobody should refrain from giving the story serious
consideration.

As far as the rotating orb idea, with a darker side, it is possible, but I
can't swear by it. How do I know that at that particular point, the narrator
got involved? Still, I am willing to seriously consider a land of constant
light.

Dean

58

Norlan,

Cater's central sun would consist of an electrostatic charge, which should
extend around it. Could such seismographic readings be due to this
phenomenon. The problem is always in interpretation.

Dean

59

Dean,
Good points and observations on all accounts. Too bad we have to rely on
third person speculation anyway. Hey, how about an excursion to the earth's
interior and we'll clear up all these matters! Anyone up for it? . . .
Wouldn't it be nice. . .
Norlan

60

Do you want to go skiing too?

:slight_smile:

Frode