The Quake Machine

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

I inserted only a small portion from the article because it is what caught my eye regarding Mr. Cater, the explanation in his book on what causes earthquakes and earth changes. Also touches on a question I had "does artificial light effect the earth in a similar fashion as sunlight ? --artificial light has to go somewhere, just like the Sun's, so does it also penetrate into the earth's crust?" The whole article can be found at URL#

Leslee

The quake machine

http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/ns-tqm062701.html

The Earth needs a good massage to release all that pent-up tension and
prevent catastrophic quakes. But do we dare try it? Nicola Jones reports

<snip>

But is there another way to avert destruction and death? If you can't
predict the "big ones" or brace against them, then how about stopping
them in the first place? De Rubeis is coordinating an international team
of geologists who think they may have found a way to do just that. They
want to gently ease the stress out of the Earth a little at a time-by
skewering the ground with artificial lightning and triggering their own
mini-quakes.

<snip>

Dennis, great article
2

Leslee... I just read "THE QUAKE MACHINE" URL you posted..
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/ns-tqm062701.htmlhttp://www.eurek alert.org/releases/ns-tqm062701.html

Another long comment from Dick... These tension-remover people must have studied with the NASA guys who want to "nudge" the earth into a new orbit.

By the way, notice that to this day so far as I'm aware, NO scientist, orthodox ORr unorthodox, has felt moved to RIDICULE the NSAA "nudge' earth proposal.
I am left to believe that possibly none of them understand WHY the Sun's satellites orbit the Sun at precise distances. Is it possible ALL scientists, including Van Flandrin, agree with NASA and think orbits come about by "accident" or "chance?" And that is why they have failed to speak out! What a sad picture of today's scientists if that is true!

I'm personally more shocked by the ABSENCE of ridicule from other scientists than by NASA's original kindergarten thinking and inability to understand how and why our Sun holds its satellites in their orbits. I posted Churchward's simple explanation before so there's no need to repeat that.

About the URL you posted... This orthodox ASSUMPTION that volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. result ONLY from tensions in the crust, leads them to think they can inject "stuff" to ease tensions. (Maybe they should inject Jesse Jackson to ease tensions! Probably have as much success!)

Certainly outside factors, magnetic sun spots, other radiation from space, etc., even movements of those (really superficial) lateral vertical cracks (like the San Andreas "fault") are contributing factors.

But (again only if you give some credence to James Churchward and his 50 year study of earthquakes, volcanos, mountains and their common cause) all those phenomena may result from horizontal MOVEMENT of overcompressed volcanic gases in subterranean GAS BELT TUNNELS.
Earth's centrifugal force is periodically emptying gases from the crust, forcing volumes of gases along in the tunnels toward their safety valve outlets - volcanos - at points on the top of nearby or directly above, mountain ranges. That has been and is happening IF you believe Churchward was correct. If you don't, quit reading further ana don't wasted any more of your time.

If you're still reading.... When the moving compressed gases also force up the roofs of the belts, it lifts, moves and affects the nearby cracks above them (the faults). The rock sides of the faults will shift, shaking the surface with minor jolts or "earthquakes."
But please notice carefully, volcanic gases and plumes and any "magma" rock melt being carried along with the gases moving in the belts, do NOT flow upward, erupting out of the faults! (If they did, the surface above would be in big trouble, worse than any earthquake, for the entire area might be ready to erupt into a new and giant volcano!)

Fortunatley, up to now, eruptions have not happened with any of the so-called "faults." The closest thing to this is when a main vertical volcanic cone becomes so clogged gases cannot escape through the crater and the gasses open NEW holes on the side or at the base of the old volcano. With enough added pressure from below, this might result in the entire top of the mountain and even its sides being blown off in a massive gas explosion. That was partly what happened with Mt. St. Helens.

This lack of volcanic gases flowing out of "faults," alone should cause thinking scientists to suspect the tensions in the vertical rock "faults" to which they attribute most cause, may be coming from MOVEMENTS deeper, many miles deeper than the faults. In fact, 10 to 15 miles deeper, according to Churchward, in the connected pockets forming gas belt tunnels, except where they rise near their usual volcano outlets. The sometimes great volumes of overcompressed explosive gases being moved along in these tunnels under immense pressure, lift the tunnel roofs above them to some degree, as described above, and shake miles of rocks and the "faults" above them.

Gas Belt Blocks. When in-between movements of gases with pressure relieved, the rocks of the tunnel roofs or sides may fall inward at points, blocking the tunnels. Causing "belt blocks." Blocks are usually no great problem. The next movement of gases will push or melt through them with little effort. Maybe the vibrations of these at greater depths, spreading outward, and seemingly originating elsewhere, are what Seismologists think are deep earthquakes, that seem to affect nothing on the surface.

But if the next movement of volumes of gases along the 10 to 15 mile deep tunnels encounters a long EXTENDED belt block, they will either VIOLENTLY force through or melt through the block - or violently forge AROUND it. The great shaking and "seismic vibrating" of miles thick of rock slabs above - and in ALL directions - can be enormous... a MAJOR earthquake on the surface! The gases forcing through smaller blocks still impeding, can produce AFTERSHOCKS on the surface.

The above is roughly Churchward"s explanation of earthquakes - and volcanic eruptions. And where volcanic magma comes from; the melt of rocks in the belt tunnels or from the sides of the vertical volcanic cone... NOT from earth's deep molten layer as some orthodox geological tracts still state.
Accept the preceding or reject it. All very simple - for simple people like me. Churchward claimed the "ancients" scientists perfectly understood this simplicity over 70,000 years back and recorded it. He could read their records. Apparently the only author who could.

Churchward may be entirely wrong and everything I've described above his and my fantasy. And only Cater, with his notion - or today's scientists with their notions - are correct in their opinions. Judge for yourselves. But at least consider what I've written above. Maybe Churchward (through my relating) makes some sense. Maybe he's not completely right, but "in the ballpark." And worth reading and studying (and debating with simple guys like me).

But I suspect these tension relieving "scientists" have about as much hope of success as the puerile thinkers at NASA with their "nudge" the earth proposal. Worse, these tension removers may inject "artificial lightning" and triggering their own mini-quakes, that may, in unexpected reactions, bring about some localized cataclysmic destruction! Ye Gods! And we're paying them with our taxes! For God's and our sakes, don't give these guys some nuclear devices to play with!

  • Dick
    -----------------
    Leslee wrote....

I inserted only a small portion from the article because it is what caught my eye regarding Mr. Cater, the explanation in his book on what causes earthquakes and earth changes. Also touches on a question I had "does artificial light effect the earth in a similar fashion as sunlight ? --artificial light has to go somewhere, just like the Sun's, so does it also penetrate into the earth's crust?" The whole article can be found at URL#

Leslee

The quake machine

http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/ns-tqm062701.htmlhttp://www.eure kalert.org/releases/ns-tqm062701.html

The Earth needs a good massage to release all that pent-up tension and
prevent catastrophic quakes. But do we dare try it? Nicola Jones reports

<snip>

But is there another way to avert destruction and death? If you can't
predict the "big ones" or brace against them, then how about stopping
them in the first place? De Rubeis is coordinating an international team
of geologists who think they may have found a way to do just that. They
want to gently ease the stress out of the Earth a little at a time-by
skewering the ground with artificial lightning and triggering their own
mini-quakes.

<snip>

3

http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/ns-tqm062701.html

Hi Dick,

I am not sure how to answer your response to the post I sent through. I am not a scientist, but for some reason, I grasped Mr. Cater's explanation of things in his book. I probably do not explain them properly, but in my mind I can visual them, understand them.

The reason this particular post caught my eye was because scientists were going to use artificial lightening to induce small quakes.

Now, I am not in agreement with many of the ideas scientists come up with for playing around with Earth. Who knows what the ramifications will be? So, I agree with you that these guys are playing around with fire, and it just may be us who gets burnt.

A few months after reading Cater's book I was sitting in my living room at night, so the lights were on. I looked down at the floor and thought, where does the artificial light go once it hits the floor, it certainly does not end there. So, I thought, I wonder if artificial light works in similar ways as light particles from the Sun, and penetrates into the Earth's crust. I was curious. Couldn't find anything on it, but it made sense to me (remember I am not the brightest bulb in the class), because light just does not end once it hits a floor. Then I wondered what effect this might have on the Earth, if artificial light were to also penetrate into the Earth's crust, then that might be a partial explanation on why---if Cater is correct in his statements--the man in Etidorhpa refers the HE as always lit. Now myself, being a astral traveler into the earth, (which of course is in by no means scientific), I always see light, a charged light. But, where is the source of the light--Cater is the only one who makes sense for me in this particular question I had.

Now, just my own musing, but my next thought was that the only other explanation for the constant light in the HE may be that the light particles from the Sun move through the Earth crust's like a slow drip, therefore, not needing 24 hour sunlight to keep the flow even. That is, they move slow enough that the amount of daylight we do get seems to be just enough to keep the particles moving.

When I saw the article, and cut the one paragraph from it to post, I was looking more at the idea of using artificial lightening, and how it would be used. In a sense, if it were to work, then I might have an answer that, yes, indeed, artificial light does effect our planet. It effects people, so why not? But, is it for good, or bad? Does it cause havoc, or does it produce light within the HE? Now I have more questions.

When I posted I should have explained what I was trying to figure out, instead of writing and posting on the fly. I was not trying to take away anything from Churchward, or any other author, or the other ideas that are discussed on this group. I was simply thinking out loud, a bad habit, and I am sorry that I misrepresented the post.

Now Dick, I do want you to know I am reading bits of Churchward here and there, I think some of his ideas and Cater's parallel each other, with different forms of expression from each writer. But I am not an expert on his ideas like you are, therefore, I am in no position to comment on him yet, simply because I have not had time to read & absorb all he has written. One day, time allowing, I will be able to read all the books that need to be read so that I will be able to form a better perspective of the workings of the world. Until then, I imagine I will be making some hits and misses, and many mistakes.

Best,
Leslee

Another long comment from Dick:

About the URL you posted... This orthodox ASSUMPTION that volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. result ONLY from tensions in the crust, leads them to think they can inject "stuff" to ease tensions. (Maybe they should inject Jesse Jackson to ease tensions! Probably have as much success!)

Certainly outside factors, magnetic sun spots, other radiation from space, etc., even movements of those (really superficial) lateral vertical cracks (like the San Andreas "fault") are contributing factors.

But (again only if you give some credence to James Churchward and his 50 year study of earthquakes, volcanos, mountains and their common cause) all those phenomena may result from horizontal MOVEMENT of overcompressed volcanic gases in subterranean GAS BELT TUNNELS.
Earth's centrifugal force is periodically emptying gases from the crust, forcing volumes of gases along in the tunnels toward their safety valve outlets - volcanos - at points on the top of nearby or directly above, mountain ranges. That has been and is happening IF you believe Churchward was correct. If you don't, quit reading further ana don't wasted any more of your time.

If you're still reading.... When the moving compressed gases also force up the roofs of the belts, it lifts, moves and affects the nearby cracks above them (the faults). The rock sides of the faults will shift, shaking the surface with minor jolts or "earthquakes."
But please notice carefully, volcanic gases and plumes and any "magma" rock melt being carried along with the gases moving in the belts, do NOT flow upward, erupting out of the faults! (If they did, the surface above would be in big trouble, worse than any earthquake, for the entire area might be ready to erupt into a new and giant volcano!)

Fortunatley, up to now, eruptions have not happened with any of the so-called "faults." The closest thing to this is when a main vertical volcanic cone becomes so clogged gases cannot escape through the crater and the gasses open NEW holes on the side or at the base of the old volcano. With enough added pressure from below, this might result in the entire top of the mountain and even its sides being blown off in a massive gas explosion. That was partly what happened with Mt. St. Helens.

This lack of volcanic gases flowing out of "faults," alone should cause thinking scientists to suspect the tensions in the vertical rock "faults" to which they attribute most cause, may be coming from MOVEMENTS deeper, many miles deeper than the faults. In fact, 10 to 15 miles deeper, according to Churchward, in the connected pockets forming gas belt tunnels, except where they rise near their usual volcano outlets. The sometimes great volumes of overcompressed explosive gases being moved along in these tunnels under immense pressure, lift the tunnel roofs above them to some degree, as described above, and shake miles of rocks and the "faults" above them.

Gas Belt Blocks. When in-between movements of gases with pressure relieved, the rocks of the tunnel roofs or sides may fall inward at points, blocking the tunnels. Causing "belt blocks." Blocks are usually no great problem. The next movement of gases will push or melt through them with little effort. Maybe the vibrations of these at greater depths, spreading outward, and seemingly originating elsewhere, are what Seismologists think are deep earthquakes, that seem to affect nothing on the surface.

But if the next movement of volumes of gases along the 10 to 15 mile deep tunnels encounters a long EXTENDED belt block, they will either VIOLENTLY force through or melt through the block - or violently forge AROUND it. The great shaking and "seismic vibrating" of miles thick of rock slabs above - and in ALL directions - can be enormous... a MAJOR earthquake on the surface! The gases forcing through smaller blocks still impeding, can produce AFTERSHOCKS on the surface.

The above is roughly Churchward"s explanation of earthquakes - and volcanic eruptions. And where volcanic magma comes from; the melt of rocks in the belt tunnels or from the sides of the vertical volcanic cone... NOT from earth's deep molten layer as some orthodox geological tracts still state.
Accept the preceding or reject it. All very simple - for simple people like me. Churchward claimed the "ancients" scientists perfectly understood this simplicity over 70,000 years back and recorded it. He could read their records. Apparently the only author who could.

Churchward may be entirely wrong and everything I've described above his and my fantasy. And only Cater, with his notion - or today's scientists with their notions - are correct in their opinions. Judge for yourselves. But at least consider what I've written above. Maybe Churchward (through my relating) makes some sense. Maybe he's not completely right, but "in the ballpark." And worth reading and studying (and debating with simple guys like me).

But I suspect these tension relieving "scientists" have about as much hope of success as the puerile thinkers at NASA with their "nudge" the earth proposal. Worse, these tension removers may inject "artificial lightning" and triggering their own mini-quakes, that may, in unexpected reactions, bring about some localized cataclysmic destruction! Ye Gods! And we're paying them with our taxes! For God's and our sakes, don't give these guys some nuclear devices to play with!

  • Dick
    -----------------
    Leslee wrote....
    I inserted only a small portion from the article because it is what caught my eye regarding Mr. Cater, the explanation in his book on what causes earthquakes and earth changes. Also touches on a question I had "does artificial light effect the earth in a similar fashion as sunlight ? --artificial light has to go somewhere, just like the Sun's, so does it also penetrate into the earth's crust?" The whole article can be found at URL#

Leslee

The quake machine

http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/ns-tqm062701.html

The Earth needs a good massage to release all that pent-up tension and
prevent catastrophic quakes. But do we dare try it? Nicola Jones reports

<snip>

But is there another way to avert destruction and death? If you can't
predict the "big ones" or brace against them, then how about stopping
them in the first place? De Rubeis is coordinating an international team
of geologists who think they may have found a way to do just that. They
want to gently ease the stress out of the Earth a little at a time-by
skewering the ground with artificial lightning and triggering their own
mini-quakes.

<snip>

4

Leslee... Reply to your thoughtful comments following...

I am no "expert," even on Churchward. I think I understand him fairly well. But I do hope some really bright minds, like Pratt, Dean and others that write in, will someday thoroughly read ALL the guy's few books (5 only), compare his notions with their own, and then make comments pro - and con. To enlighten me if nothing else!

Sadly, I am not a conscious "astral traveler" (unless doing so in the sleep state, then totally blocking it all out, which is probably unlikely). Not a native ability it appears.

I feel sure you are accurately perceiving HE light. I'd better study your ideas on your web site. Like to be able to look in there myself. Just lazy getting around to trying.

Leslee, I agree, Cater and Churchward seem to have some parallel insights, but interpreted differently with different words. If you, astrally, or people's thoughts and mental energy can penetrate anything (I believe that), why cannot "light" rays, including artificial, penetrate seeming solid "barriers?"

Even old Churchward pointed out that immensely powerful rays (and "forces") emanate from distant celestial bodies and pass through our earth without notice or apparent effects. Those same celestial forces passing through us unnoticed... magnetic, repellant and whatever else, have a "range." (call it frequency like Cater if you wish). Churchward coined the word "specialized."

Powerful distant Stars or Suns radiate "specialized" rays and forces that affect ONLY their satellite Stars, Suns and planets. The great body that magnetically grips our Sun and holds our Sun in a precise orbit around Her, rotates our Sun on an axis and oscillates our Sun's poles back and forth during 11 and 22 of our earth years, yet has NO APPARENT EFFECT on earth or other planets in our solar system! Our elements and electromagnetic forces seem unaffected by that great distant body. Its immensely powerful "specialized" magnetic, repellant and other rays and forces seem "ULTRA" to us, beyond our "range" of reception. I find that keen observation of Churchward, brilliant.

Consider this... If the magnetic and/or electromagnetic forces of that distant body able to control our Sun, could directly affect earth's material elements and had direct AFFINITY for earth's magnetic forces, our planet would be drawn directly into Her influence and be orbiting Her, not our Sun. That doesn't happen. Earth remains under control of our Sun. That distant Sun's forces are ULTRA to us. What better proof is there that "specialized" rays and forces exist? What other physicist has ever pointed out this obvious physical universe phenomena?

That distant Sun's "specialized" rays and forces affect the Sun's but also "cause" to be drawn forth from our Sun's body, other rays and forces that radiate from the Sun and affect ONLY our Sun's satellites, our Earth and other members of our solar system! This is truly remarkable. And it suggests similar effects are occurring with other celestial bodies, everywhere in the universe.

The significance of this "specialization" of rays and forces upon each Sun's satellites gives added conviction about other notions of Churchward...

He asserted, both deductively and observationally, on the basis of the preceding "immunity" of earth to that distant body's forces, that no satellite can be magnetically drawn away by another Sun from its own Sun's control. This "specialization" of forces put in place by the Great Designer, gives ORDER, not chaos, throughout the known universe. By our personal observation of the heavens, it seems a self-evident fact for this universe. There may be chaotic seeming exceptions, but the general rule seems to be universal order and regularity.

It seems to me that if Churchward was correct about the preceding, it also means that Newton's accepted orthodox general notions that gravity is large MASSES "magnetically" attracting smaller MASSES (matter attracting matter) need revision. As Pratt pointed out in his Gravity critique, there are many exceptions to Newton's "laws" when ONLY considering the apparent masses of celestial bodies.

Dean referred to some who think the gravitation effect between elemental bodies is electrostatic (electrostatic forces WITHIN each body, reaching across to each other, in attraction - or repulsion.). Obviously this must be partly true or we would have to conceive that particles of gross earthly matter, "see" each other at a distance and decide to travel over and join together for a "party."

Though the electrostatic attraction between earthly elements may be true on earth, it may not totally apply to what happens between our magnetic Sun and its satellites. "Specialized" magnetic rays (ELECTROmagnetic, specifically) with their forces radiate from our Sun to earth, affecting not our elemental surface, but "affinitive" forces in the atmosphere and forces stored in the crust

Right or wrong, Churchward contended that the Sun's "electrostatic" emanations have no direct affect upon those specialized "electrostatic" qualities within earthly elements that we call the "force of gravity" on earth.

His deductive "proof" of this is that IF the Sun's great magnetic (electrostatic) forces could directly magnetically affect and HOLD ONTO the elemental particles of matter on the earth's surface, the Sun could hold that facing surface still, and earth would not rotate. The fact that earth's surfaces continue to rotate west to east OUT OF the Sun's direct magnetic hold, indicate the Sun does not have a DIRECT magnetic grip on earth's elemental surface.

What then are the Sun's "specialized" electromagnetic (or electrostatic) forces affecting if not earth's matter directly? According to Churcward, the Sun's forces have "specialized" AFFINITY for "specialized" forces generated by earth, stored in the crust and also permeating every particle of matter. Additional volumes of these specialized earthly electromagnetic "forces" including light and heat, are magnetically "attracted" out of the crustal storehouse into the atmosphere where other "specialized" affinitive rays and forces from the Sun stimulate them into action. Churchward maintained that much of this "stimulation," such as light, radio waves and electricity, take place in the un-analyzable thin elements of earth's "specialized" ESSENCE (or ether), within which the general grosser atmospheric elemental particles float.
He believed earth's "essence" (ether) was not composed of the same elements as the ether permeating space outside earth's envelope. The essence or ether of outer space was much thinner or finer. He claimed the ancients recorded their belief in this distinction.

I see nothing wrong with Cater's further notion that some (maybe most) of the Sun's rays, then penetrate and pass through the crust, lower in vibrational frequency and beyond 50 miles deep, affect earthly elements and particles and create the phenomena of luminosity. And at lower depths and in the hollow itself aggregating into a pseudo-"Sun."

But not the same nature as our Physical Sun. For if the "Sun" in the hollow center was the same in nature, our Sun would be no more than an aggregate of "Soft Particles" and Photons, an insubstantial ball of "lightning" which I personally believe is not true. But maybe I'm wrong...

Anything we can imagine is a reality in our personal universes - and possible, even if not probable in this, our particular mutual universe. You know,as well as many list members and I, that this exterior reality originates first in our personal imaginations, and IF enough others inwardly agree with our images, even bizarre events can manifest "outside."

And "The Big Kahuna" (how's that term, Frode?) is probably constantly creating NEW particles for us all to play with in this infinite space. If we're "part" of "Him" we should be able to do the same, in some degree...eventually spinning together Suns and planets. You know I'm not kidding.

I'll get Cater's book eventually. Maybe I'll change my mind on some points.

  • Dick

allplanets-hollow wrote:

Leslee... I just read "THE QUAKE MACHINE" URL you posted..
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/ns-tqm062701.htmlhttp://www.eure kalert.org/releases/ns-tqm062701.html

Hi Dick,

I am not sure how to answer your response to the post I sent through. I am not a scientist, but for some reason, I grasped Mr. Cater's explanation of things in his book. I probably do not explain them properly, but in my mind I can visual them, understand them.

The reason this particular post caught my eye was because scientists were going to use artificial lightening to induce small quakes.

Now, I am not in agreement with many of the ideas scientists come up with for playing around with Earth. Who knows what the ramifications will be? So, I agree with you that these guys are playing around with fire, and it just may be us who gets burnt.

A few months after reading Cater's book I was sitting in my living room at night, so the lights were on. I looked down at the floor and thought, where does the artificial light go once it hits the floor, it certainly does not end there. So, I thought, I wonder if artificial light works in similar ways as light particles from the Sun, and penetrates into the Earth's crust. I was curious. Couldn't find anything on it, but it made sense to me (remember I am not the brightest bulb in the class), because light just does not end once it hits a floor. Then I wondered what effect this might have on the Earth, if artificial light were to also penetrate into the Earth's crust, then that might be a partial explanation on why---if Cater is correct in his statements--the man in Etidorhpa refers the HE as always lit. Now myself, being a astral traveler into the earth, (which of course is in by no means scientific), I always see light, a charged light. But, where is the source of the light--Cater is the only one who makes sense for me in this particular question I had.

Now, just my own musing, but my next thought was that the only other explanation for the constant light in the HE may be that the light particles from the Sun move through the Earth crust's like a slow drip, therefore, not needing 24 hour sunlight to keep the flow even. That is, they move slow enough that the amount of daylight we do get seems to be just enough to keep the particles moving.

When I saw the article, and cut the one paragraph from it to post, I was looking more at the idea of using artificial lightening, and how it would be used. In a sense, if it were to work, then I might have an answer that, yes, indeed, artificial light does effect our planet. It effects people, so why not? But, is it for good, or bad? Does it cause havoc, or does it produce light within the HE? Now I have more questions.

When I posted I should have explained what I was trying to figure out, instead of writing and posting on the fly. I was not trying to take away anything from Churchward, or any other author, or the other ideas that are discussed on this group. I was simply thinking out loud, a bad habit, and I am sorry that I misrepresented the post.

Now Dick, I do want you to know I am reading bits of Churchward here and there, I think some of his ideas and Cater's parallel each other, with different forms of expression from each writer. But I am not an expert on his ideas like you are, therefore, I am in no position to comment on him yet, simply because I have not had time to read & absorb all he has written. One day, time allowing, I will be able to read all the books that need to be read so that I will be able to form a better perspective of the workings of the world. Until then, I imagine I will be making some hits and misses, and many mistakes.

Best,
Leslee