I just got back, the weather was good, the food even better, and those 12'
tall women...!
MM
Wow! Take me along next time.
# ; ^ )
DD
Members,
Chief posted this on the VNN Forum.
Frode, where is Svalbard?
Dharma/Dean
Friday, 1 September, 2000, 18:12 GMT 19:12 UK
Scientists test sex-change bears
By environment correspondent Alex Kirby in Svalbard in the Arctic
Scientists on Svalbard have found that more than one in a hundred of the
islands' polar bears are
hermaphroditic.
The condition, in which an animal possesses the reproductive organs of both
sexes, affects wildlife in
various parts of the world.
It is thought to be caused by exposure to chemicals which affect the
endocrine system.
The chemicals blamed for the Svalbard bears' condition are PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyls),
which are damaging their immune systems.
The phenomenon was unknown on the Arctic islands, which lie between Norway
and the North
Pole, a decade ago.
But 1.2% of Svalbard's bears, which total about 3,000, have now been found
to be affected.
PCBs were manufactured for use in electrical equipment, and although many
countries have now
banned them there is a reservoir of the chemicals that has escaped into the
environment.
Short food chain
Per Kyrre Reymert, of the Svalbard Science Forum, told BBC News Online:
"Tests have been
conducted on 40 bears, and these are now being analysed.
"There is a very short and simple food chain here - plankton, fish, seals,
and finally the bears
themselves. So it is fairly easy to track PCBs and other pollutants."
Seals are the bears' preferred prey. In spring, after emerging from
hibernation, they usually eat the
whole seal, though later in the year they will often slit the animal open
and simply eat the fat.
Although little pollution originates on Svalbard, the prevailing southerly
winds dump contamination
from industrial Europe onto the islands.
Elizabeth Salter, of WWF, the global environment campaign, told BBC News
Online: "It seems to
be the female bears on Svalbard that are acquiring male genitalia, a
penis-like stump.
"With other species affected by endocrine disrupters, it's more often the
males that have genital
abnormalities.
"And what's happening to the bears is happening to gulls in the Arctic, too,
because of PCBs, DDT
and dioxins."
Always armed
From 1950 until 1972 there were organised bear hunts for tourists who
visited Svalbard. Since then
killing them has been illegal, except in self-defence, and there are now
about as many bears as
people on the islands.
Since 1973 five people have been killed by bears, and virtually nobody sets
foot outside the few
settlements on Svalbard without a heavy weapon.
Ny-Alesund, the most northerly settlement in the world, has a population of
about 60, most of them
scientists.
In winter it is a rule that nobody locks their doors, in case somebody is
surprised by a bear and
needs to seek instant refuge.
Alarmingly, even a building is not always enough to deter a hungry bear. In
July this year a female
with two cubs poked her head through the window of a hut occupied by two
Polish scientists in the
south of Spitsbergen, the main island.
Melting ice
She would not be scared off, so they shot her. and as the cubs would not
move either, they were
shot too, as neither could have survived without her.
Per Kyrre Reymert fears there will be more encounters. He says: "Climate
change is likely to reduce
the amount of ice round Svalbard.
"With less ice, there will be more bears coming ashore. And they will be
hungry."
Norlan,
An excursion is somehing to consider, at least in the long run. You have to
consider the probability that it would be one-way, though.
I would still be interested in putting up any old articles analyzing the
Smokey God Story.
Dharma/Dean
Frode,
I'll ski if I have to, but there has to be a better way.
Firs we have to develop the invisible radiations and the other radiations
which I wrote you about.
Dean
Frode
Mike,
When you get to the HE, they are not even going to let you in the door.
And your wife won't let you out the door if you keep talking about the
ladies in other worlds!
DD
Couldn't the rays that reflect off the center to illuminate the interior also
reflect up through the openings? Also, maybe the Sun rays passing through the
various bodies of water which surround the earth have more to do with
lighting the interior. If the area around the equator is much thicker than
the polar regions, maybe it is acting more like a magnifying glass and
concentrates the light on the center. If the lit part of the central Sun
corresponds to the side of the outer Sun, it would support this theory,
therefore the central Sun would be acting more like a Moon; reflecting the
concentrated Sun light. This would account for a night & day situation inside
the HE, too.
MM
DD,
The HE people might let me in sooner knowing I need a good cleansing. But,
they might be more apt to keep me out than NATO.
As far as my wife, she'd probably help pack my bags (ha, ha!), as long as the
insurance is paid up.
MM
The point is, there is no day and night sequence on the interior of the
earth. This is the infamous land of continuous light, because of the central
sun configuration..
That's if there is continuous light, did the transcriber of Olaf's story
twist things around to suit his fancy, or didn't he? It does make more sense
though, that if there is a central Sun there would be continuous light, it's
just hard to change a paradigm; just because us outsiders have a night and
day, doesn't mean the insiders have to have the same or similar system.
I can't wait 'till someone comes forward and tell us their experience
directly. I think that time will come soon. Too many people are finding out
about this information, it is only a matter of time.
MM
Right on.
Hi Dean!
Have been away for some days.
Svalbard is a group of islands that is apart of Norwegian territory. Spitsbergen is the main island, and some maps have only that name. You might have heard of the UFO crash on Spitsbergen.
Frode
Of course!
Frode
Forde,
Oh, ok, Spitsbergen- I am familiar with their location.
No, I never heard of the UFO crash. I can just imagine. Those are the
islands that Olaf and Jens Jansen started off from. A month or so of poking
through the ice and they were noticing the inner sun, so Spitsbergen can't
be too far from the opening.
Dean
List Members,
Remember that you can peruse through old postings, in order to get some
background, at the controlling site of the list. First click here:
http://www.egroups.com/group/allplanets-hollow
Then click on " Messages," which is found on the left-hand column.
And there you are. You can access a certain posting by filling in where it
says " jump to."
For example, I would like to call your attention to post # 178. This post
was presented to illustrate the idea that the heat of the Sun does not have
to be a matter of a nuclear reaction. The heat is naturally generated by the
normal activities of the atoms in the interior; in a large globe, the
surface area is not sufficient enough to allow the heat to ventilate, hence
a buildup. Here are Cater's words from that post:
" The larger the body, the greater its mass or volume in proportion to its
surface area. This means that, as the size increases, it is less probable
that the energies produced by the normal activities of the atoms in the
body's interior will escape from the surface without a resultant increase in
the temperature of its surface." ( Page 185, The Awesome Life Force )
This is not so hard to pick up on this basic concept.
But what I want to additionally communicate is that this concept also
accounts for the heat which emanates from the giant, outer planets of the
solar system. This is a conundrum because those planets emit more heat than
they take in from the sun! Only if we factor in the heat which builds up
from the normal activities of the fundamental particles of the atoms within
these planets can we account for this phenomenon.
This constitues further evidence for the idea that the Sun is NOT a nuclear
process. The Sun could easily be a plasma body; a plasma is a super-heated
gas. This could account for the Sun's heat as well as the nature of its
rays. It is just unfortunate that we are conditioned to conceive of the sun
as a nuclear process.
By the way, if the sun of our solar system is not a nuclear sun, then why
would the inner sun of any planet be nuclear? I've made the points that a
fission inner sun could conceivably be fueled by some supply of hydrogen.
One would have to explain how the hydrogen accumulates in a ball in the
center of the inner cavity, and where the supply of hydrogen came from, but
it might be possible, except that the radiation from a fission process would
kill all life. Were the sun of the solar system a nuclear sun, sustained
life on our planet would also not be possible. A fusion sun within would not
kill all life, but would have to be fueled in the center of the inner sphere
by heavy water. How?
It is not likely that any sun is nuclear- this means that not only do
astronomers have to adjust a few concepts which they have, but a few schools
of hollow Earth thought might olso want to go through some introspective
revision.
List Members,
Here is something from Jan Lamprecht, from Hollow Planets.
When it comes to cataloguing empiric evidence, he does a great job.
Yahoo Groups removed 1 attachment from this message: WHEN THE INNER SUN SHINES.doc (application/msword)
Let's see if this attachment gets through. I am trying to send two with some
text, but they keep coming back because egroups has size limitations.
Dean
Yahoo Groups removed 1 attachment from this message: Magnetic lines across.BMP (image/bmp)
Hey All,
Scroll on down to where it says " here." .
Here is something on the matter on how the magnetic lines of force run from
the book The Hollow Earth, page 66; I have included the drawing as a
separate attachment. It seems that I can only get graphics through to
egroups by means of my Adobe Reader, which means I have to write separately.
Ray Palamer is being quoted in the book.
" We have available, in the form of records of several hundred years, in
Russian archives, a history of Arctic exploration which proves our most
important point beyond further question: i.e., that the North Magnetic
Pole is not a point, but (deduce the Russians) a `line' approximately 1000
miles long. Before we go further,
we might suggest that we think they are wrong in this deduction, and that
instead of being a line, it is actually a circle. Because of lack of space
to place it on the globe, the Russians have been forced to compress their
observations into a two dimensional area. They had to squeze the circle from
two sides and make a line out of it"
What Ray Palmer says about squeezing the circle from two sides can be seen
in the image from page 65 of the book, and a basic
idea of what the actual circle might look like, before they compress it on
their maps, can be seen in the drawing by Sadek Adam. In stead of an
absolute circle, I tend to feel that the opening would be an elongated oval,
following the basic line of the picture from page 67.
Norlan,
You ask why does the magnetic pole shift at all. Cater gives a basic answer
here. He seems to be saying that the low frequency electrons flowing out of
the inner sun, through the egress, exhibit a stronger flow where the
supposed magnetic pole is located, and that this point of stronger flow is
determined by the rotational velocity of the Earth. Maybe there are minute
fluctuations in this regard. I don't know if his newer book gives any
additional info in this regard. Maybe Frode can say.
Here are Cater's comments:
" 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 a 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."
Original subject: Archives
Dean,
These are all fine and interesting observations, however, many of the
conclusions your assume are just assumptions. You spend a lot of effort in
trying to refute the idea of the inner sun being a non-fission process. You
even suggest that the external sun, that of our solar system, is also a
non-fission sun. Why the great determination to insist upon this view? It
is not critical to any HE Theory that either sun be a non-fission sun. There
is much evidence that indicates that both suns do exemplify a fission process
and do produce a nuclear residue as a result. True, the external and
internal suns do not necessarily function in exactly the same process or are
necessarily composed of exactly the same proportions of matter, but it is
presumptuous to assume that this nuclear process would naturally destroy all
life. Nature has accommodated for a means by which we are protected from
this radiation which in fact allows for life on this planet, both inside and
out. Nuclear reactors on the exterior of the earth which generate
electricity, don't, by their mere presence, destroy all life around them.
There are safeguards and protective systems by which this nuclear reaction
and the radiation generated from this nuclear process are contained to allow
life to exist at relatively close proximity to this function. Such has
nature provided for equally effective screens or protective systems to
nullify this otherwise life-fatal energy source. Ozone layers, the Van Allen
Belt, terrarium-like cloud coverage of the inner "Smokey God" sun. All of
these unique systems, which are absent on the surface of dead planets, do
exist on this living planet. These filtering systems protect us from the
otherwise deadly radiation of our external sun, which are quite possibly the
very byproduct of our internal sun processes, i.e., the mirror bottle process
of the plasma generating system, which is what the Van Allen Belt is. Thus,
it seems rather mute to try and dispel that process by which the very nature
of the systems that make this planet uniquely prepared to support life are
based. Granted, it may not be the case, but, there is as much, if not more,
"evidence" that it very well could be the case. It worries me that your need
to dispel the interior sun's possible nuclear process is so driven that we
have to suggest that the exterior sun of our solar system is also non-nuclear
in function. This positioning of yours reminds me of your positioning in
explaining away the fallacious reference to the interior sun's rising and
setting in the "Smokey God" book. You may be perfectly correct in all your
suppositions. They are certainly well thought out. But they may be
incorrect as well. There are many possibilities, let's be open to
considering them all. The suns of this planet may or may not be nuclear in
their processes, but they may be just that. And either way doesn't deminish
the overwhelming support that nature provides for the Hollow Earth Theory.
Norlan
You
It
Norlan,
I disagree. A hollow Earth model which includes a nuclear inner sun can be
brushed aside- I've been presenting arguments to this effect- and all of the
other efforts to present evidence could go down the drain with it.
The concept of a nuclear sun was arrived at before the sructure of plasmas
were understood. The heating mechanism, involving the fundamental particles,
as Cater outlines, is still not understood.
Somebody has to stand up and vigourously present the non-nuclear model.
Cater's book originally came out before the internet revolution, and none of
the hollow Earther's on the net seem to be familiar with this alternative
model a all.
There
There are people who don't feel that nature could filter the effects of our
solar system sun were it nuclear- like Cater. Have you seen Goodfellows
article? I'm not saying that he has it perfectly figured out, but he seems
to be close, if not right there.
Nuclear reactors on the exterior of the earth which generate
Reactors do have enough filtering, agreed.
Such has
Not agreed.
Ozone layers, the Van Allen
Filtering systems exist, but this doesn't mean that it is a nuclear sun
which is necessarily being filtered. If the sun were nuclear, would those
systems be sufficient to cope?
which are quite possibly the
Thus,
You are the one who walked into the book and insisted that this and that
part were interpolations. I was much more moderate- I suggested that maybe
night and day is what was meant instead of an actual rising and setting. You
changed what was presented in front of you much more than I did.
Actually, if the inner sun experiences " swings ", due to repulsion, from
more negative particles filtering in from the sunward side, then that might
explain the comments. And the inner sun could experience some dimming on the
side away from the solar system's sun. So a logical argument can be put
ogether without saying that something was interpolated. We can't prove that
it was. When we do so, we are changing that which is in front of us in order
to accomodate our concepts.
At the same time, it is difficult to argue from the book Smokey God. Olaf
isn't around anymore, he dictated the story on his deathbed, the notes,
which were going to be sent to the Smithsonian, are missing, and the author
could have very well changed something to make the book a little more "
palatable." I don't rule this possibility out.
I think that, in relation to the book Smokey God, therefore, we can offer
tentative explanations of some of the more difficult points, but it is hard
to insist on any interpretation. The book is on Greg's site for anyone
interested: http://www.onelight.com/hollow/library/smoke1.html
You may be perfectly correct in all your
Back to the nature of the sun, I think that this is a good line of
discussion.
Dharma/Dean