Yes, but you're all so predictable, so mind controlled, so under the thumb
as it were. What good little new world order subjects ...just the way you
were meant to be.
They have written and ok'd all the science books, all the geology books and
created all the "approved" theories for centuries.
I can guarantee you that not one of you has actually read anything on the
hollow earth theory, and why proponents think its hollow.

For one thing, there is NO north or south pole. The point where the compass
points downward is a big circle 1000 km or so in circumference -- so its not
a point but an actual line or a magnetic circle. The slope that goes into
the hole at the north pole graduates so slightly that people don't notice
when they're in it. The aurora boralis is the light from the inner sun which
gets broken up like a prism when it shines through the fog in the hole.
Other facts are that when explorers go past a certain latitude 75 deg or
whatever, the temperature begins to warm up and many explorers have noticed
that. Also as you go north there are insects, pollen, and bird life.

Do some reading. I dare you.

And what does anybody actually know about all the DUMBS (deep underground
military bases) around the world which amount to well over 100. What goes on
in them?

We know virtually nothing about what goes on under the ground except what
they want us to know.

You have a computer. You can build your own seismometer. (You should
build your own instead of getting a "real" one. You could build it from
a kit: that way you can examine all the parts and confirm that it works
as advertised.) Gather your own data. Think about what seismic waves
should look like when they come from earthquakes in various different
places in the world, both with and without a hollow Earth. Compare the
data with your hypotheses and come to your own conclusions.

But there is one reason why you should NOT build your own seismometer.
As long as you have not gathered and analyzed your own data, you can, in
ignorance, believe whatever you want about the "secrets" of the interior
of the Earth. If you build a seismometer, you will have to come the
conclusion that the Earth is solid (as in not hollow) and abandon your
hollow-earth hypothesis.

"Carole" <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote innews:48137c5c$0$1604$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:

Yes, I know what you're going to say ... gere she goes again with one
of her whacky theories.
But is it really so whacky?

Yep.
Ask someone who has studied physics about mass and gravity.

Please, before you cut and paste more drivel, do a little checking, OK?

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4813e38d$0$13948$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
..


Chapter II
THE HOLLOW EARTH
http://www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Underground-Bases/Hollow-Earth/adml
byrd.txt

The total surface of the Earth is 197 million square miles and its
estimated
weight is six sextillion tons. If the Earth was a solid sphere, its weight
would be much greater.

"Carole" <hubbca@iimetro.com.au> wrote in message
news:4815bb1c$0$8128$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4813e38d$0$13948$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
.


Chapter II
THE HOLLOW EARTH
http://www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Underground-Bases/Hollow-
Eart
h/adml byrd.txt

The total surface of the Earth is 197 million square miles and its
estimated
weight is six sextillion tons. If the Earth was a solid sphere, its
weight would be much greater.

It is - you're only out by a factor of 1000 - but don't let that worry
your idiotic brain.
6x10^24 = 6 heptillion if you wish to use a dubious/ambiguous way of
quoting it.
cheers
Bill

And you want us to take you seriously?

1. The idea that somehow someone is ALWAYS going to tell about a
conspiracy is moronic. The higher the conspiracy, the MORE MORONIC it
is! The whole purpose of a conspiracy is to get away with deception.
People who do this are VERY clever, Very imaginative, and completely
without morality or ethics. Usually they are politicians which means
they are expert liars as well.

straight face and tell us that a conspiracy backed by all the money,
power and personnel of the government (or other major power grouping)
that is willing to simply kill anyone who crosses them, who controls
all the media everything released publically about it can't keep
something secret?

Just who do you think you are fooling?

On Apr 27, 3:20 am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:

You have a computer. You can build your own seismometer. (You should
build your own instead of getting a "real" one. You could build it from
a kit: that way you can examine all the parts and confirm that it works
as advertised.) Gather your own data. Think about what seismic waves
should look like when they come from earthquakes in various different
places in the world, both with and without a hollow Earth. Compare the
data with your hypotheses and come to your own conclusions.

Sure, building your own seismometer is a great idea. Of course the
interpretation of what you see there is a bit less than trivial.

But there is one reason why you should NOT build your own seismometer.
As long as you have not gathered and analyzed your own data, you can, in
ignorance, believe whatever you want about the "secrets" of the interior
of the Earth. If you build a seismometer, you will have to come the
conclusion that the Earth is solid (as in not hollow) and abandon your
hollow-earth hypothesis.

And your assertion that the earth is solid is based on what
credentials and hard data? Please post references to the appropriate
scientific articles showing this. And then please discuss for us your
interpretation of the data showing how "spoofing" generators suggested
as a theory in another post simply cannot be producing the data in
question. With only a simple assertion by you of what is "truth" your
opinions remain as hollow as the hollow earth!

The hollo-earth hypothesis is vastly more unrealistic. Your expect us to
believe that there are tube-shaped holes that reach from the surface at
the poles to the hollow interior, wide enough for the north and south
ends of the Earth to look "flattened"[1], but without any seismic
evidence for their existence.

How do we know the earth is "flattened at the poles"? Satellite data?
How come no satellites, even privately-owned ones, have seen these
holes. Could you find them on Google Earth?

On Apr 27, 4:49 am, David Moss <q0320...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au
wrote:
"Carole" <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote
innews:48137c5c$0$1604$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:

Yes, I know what you're going to say ... gere she goes again with one
of her whacky theories.
But is it really so whacky?

Yep.
Ask someone who has studied physics about mass and gravity.

I'm glad you noted that it's "personal opinion only". And the best
you seem to come up with is "proof by assertion"! Please show your
credentials so we may decide if you have any credibility at all!

And as for "asking someone who has studied about mass and gravity" I
guess I'd qualify for that one. So is the theory "whacky"?
Well, hard to tell. It certainly doesn't break any laws of physics

and is definitely not any MORE "whacky" than the theory (widely
accepted by science) that the earth has a core of molten iron. There
is just about as much proof of that one as there is of proof of a
"hollow earth"!

The only difference is that the "core" of the planet
is about as hard to reach as the "hollow part". That makes both
theories equally unprovable except by inference.

But if we assume
that for some reason those in power have a vested interest in
discrediting the hollow earth theory, that makes proof of that one
exceptionally difficult and ALSO throws the "iron core" theory into
doubt as well, given that one must assume that ALL data out there has
been fudged and "spun" for political purposes!

On Apr 27, 3:20 am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:

You have a computer. You can build your own seismometer. (You should
build your own instead of getting a "real" one. You could build it from
a kit: that way you can examine all the parts and confirm that it works
as advertised.) Gather your own data. Think about what seismic waves
should look like when they come from earthquakes in various different
places in the world, both with and without a hollow Earth. Compare the
data with your hypotheses and come to your own conclusions.

Sure, building your own seismometer is a great idea. Of course the
interpretation of what you see there is a bit less than trivial.

But there is one reason why you should NOT build your own seismometer.
As long as you have not gathered and analyzed your own data, you can, in
ignorance, believe whatever you want about the "secrets" of the interior
of the Earth. If you build a seismometer, you will have to come the
conclusion that the Earth is solid (as in not hollow) and abandon your
hollow-earth hypothesis.

And your assertion that the earth is solid is based on what
credentials

and hard data?
Please post references to the appropriate
scientific articles showing this.

And then please discuss for us your
interpretation of the data showing how "spoofing" generators suggested
as a theory in another post simply cannot be producing the data in
question. With only a simple assertion by you of what is "truth" your
opinions remain as hollow as the hollow earth!

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:51:36 -0700, Timberwoof wrote:


And you want us to take you seriously?

Do you really expect me to take you seriously?

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:50:16 -0700, Timberwoof wrote:


The hollo-earth hypothesis is vastly more unrealistic. Your expect us to
believe that there are tube-shaped holes that reach from the surface at
the poles to the hollow interior, wide enough for the north and south
ends of the Earth to look "flattened"[1], but without any seismic
evidence for their existence.

A great many structures in nature are hollow. Why must planets be
different?

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the seismic evidence you are touting
is easily cooked, the presence of physical modeling systems can explain
this.

How do we know the earth is "flattened at the poles"? Satellite data?
How come no satellites, even privately-owned ones, have seen these
holes. Could you find them on Google Earth?

Google Earth is itself a simulation - do you expect us to accept a
simulation as evidence?

On Apr 27, 4:49 am, David Moss <q0320...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au
wrote:
"Carole" <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote
innews:48137c5c$0$1604$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:

Yes, I know what you're going to say ... gere she goes again with one
of her whacky theories.
But is it really so whacky?

Yep.
Ask someone who has studied physics about mass and gravity.

I'm glad you noted that it's "personal opinion only". And the best
you seem to come up with is "proof by assertion"! Please show your
credentials so we may decide if you have any credibility at all!

And as for "asking someone who has studied about mass and gravity" I
guess I'd qualify for that one.

So is the theory "whacky"?
Well, hard to tell. It certainly doesn't break any laws of physics
and is definitely not any MORE "whacky" than the theory (widely
accepted by science) that the earth has a core of molten iron. There
is just about as much proof of that one as there is of proof of a
"hollow earth"!

The only difference is that the "core" of the planet
is about as hard to reach as the "hollow part". That makes both
theories equally unprovable except by inference. But if we assume
that for some reason those in power have a vested interest in
discrediting the hollow earth theory, that makes proof of that one
exceptionally difficult and ALSO throws the "iron core" theory into
doubt as well, given that one must assume that ALL data out there has
been fudged and "spun" for political purposes!