Are you being serious? Or, is this just chewing the fat? Do you really think guns and ammunition are required. I just can't see this myself. If you go in shooting, you think anyone is going to welcome you? Especially if you think they are higher evolved than those inhabitants (humans) who live the surface of the Earth, according to Olaf's tale. How many do you think reside in the HE? Or, how many communities? And then, if attacked, how many do you think you could kill before they blew you all away? Just a question that needs to be analyzed, cuz I think if you are unable to go in peace then you won't make it in at all anyway. Karma or otherwise.
Leslee
Leslee,
With all due respect to Russ, I think that we have nothing to fear from Hollow Earthers. If they are the forefathers of the Aryan civilization which we still remember ( vaguely ) on the surface, then they are extremely principles and good, although capable of giving a fight.I just don't think that we would have to worry about them.
But what if we got stranded along the way in wilderness? What if the plane went down? I read four years in the White North by Admoiral MacMillan, and Furthest North by Dr. Nansen. The Arctic is certainly no joke. One day while marching with sledges, MacMillan and company looked up and 12 wolves were dead-heading towards them, fast. They barely had time to raise thei rifles, they didn't shoot a couple of them until they were right at their feet. Even mammoth are probably docile, but what about a pack of hyiennas? Don't they run in packs of 50 or so? They are not Arctic, but what if they opulate that band of forested area within?
I'd rather fly all the way in and just pass over that stuff. The biggest discomfort I want to experience is maybe having to go potty. But just in case, I imagine that some type of weapon would be necessary; but not against the actual residents.
Unless you're thinking about those Eskmos that live on the other side. But again, what's a couple guys with guns against a whole troop of Eskimos?
Calm down, Russ. You're going to get some list members whacked out of shape!
I retract my statement. I can see the guns if for survival. I misunderstood and was thinking, like an American??--that the men would go in shooting and ask questions later. Sorry. Keep on planning.
Not beating myself up at all. And, I am not anti-guns in the least, although my response may have sounded like it. I was just surprised is all. But, I can see the point being made if traveling far and into unknown territory. And for protection is also good. I jumped to soon in making my original reply.
Leslee : ^ )
Subject: Re: [allplanets-hollow] To shoot or not to shoot- that is the question?
Guns are not bad, and neither is thinking like an American.
It is how guns are utilized, and if Americans never had guns, we wouldn't be
Americans; we would be British. Don't beat yourself up, if you are....
I think an airplane would solve the problem. Then you wouldn't have to get
philosophical about whether or not to wipe out a polar bear family, e.g., "
It's either me or this oversized, white bunny with the long, black snout,
and it ain't gonna be me."
Seriously, if someone tramps over the Arctic ice, they'll have to defend
themselves constantly. Both Nansen and MacMillan, for example, had to shoot
on several occasions when they didn't even want to, when they had more meat
than they could handle.
Notice that Jens and Olaf Jansen went by sailboat and didn't need to shoot.
Either plane or ship.