Shambala Inner Earth City protected by Tibetan monks?

North Pole Hole


I posted some good info on why people think there is a hole at The North Pole in this thread...

Check it out, about half way down the first page, some really good pics too

reply to post by mopusvindictus


I think the best way to clear all of that would be a kind of "real tv expedition" where everybody can watch in real time the progress of the team to this famous (or those) hole(s). Will cost a lot but will be watched a lot too I guess. Any producer interested (with a lot of relations to get the appropriate authorization off course) ?

We definitely need an other report than this one (even if very interested).
Secret diary of Admiral Byrd

Or :
Donspiracist

Europeans have considered the possibility of a hollow earth for centuries. Plato wrote of huge subterranean tunnels below the Earth's surface. In the 17th century Sir Edmund Halley, of comet fame, was convinced that all heavenly bodies, including the Earth, were hollow. Decades later, a mathematician named Leonhard Euler produced a mathematical proof that the Earth must be hollow.

I am European an never heard about that...

I think we should stop trying to pinpoint/locate these entrances, and actually start looking very deeply into topic and all the other sub-branches of this topic. This will yield the best results, and then it will be easy to locate these entrances.

They're all hidden, and only those with this special knowledge can PROPERLY locate them without any error or misfortune.

I think this link is pretty interesting - and has articles spanning back to the beginning of the century regarding the hollow earth theory.

greyfalcon.us...

reply to post by Aleilius


Well Id say New Mexico, Nevada, and the Arctic would all be very good places to go looking for entrances to secret underground aliens

Well Id say New Mexico, Nevada, and the Arctic would all be very good places to go looking for entrances to secret underground aliens.

You'll spend ages looking for these entrances (unless you were meant to find it). If you were to take the path I mentioned, it may shorten your time, and could possibly help you PINPOINT the exact location(s).

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Aleilius]

Personally, I think the idea that the outer crust of the Earth is only 3 to 18 miles thick seems to be hard to believe. If you to look at a twelve inch diameter ball, the radius being 6 inches, then the Earths surface would be .03 inches thick on the continents, and .005 inches thick under the oceans which cover most of the Earths surface, far less than a sixteenth of an inch, far less than a millimeter. I just don't see how the Earths surface could remain intact at being so incredibly thin in ratio to the radius of the Earth. It seems that at this thickness, when the mantle broke through the surface, it would typically rend tears miles long, if not hundreds of miles long.

I think science has a very, very long ways to go in understanding the structure of our planet.

Basically, the current theory is that the Earths crust is on average about as thick as a typical balloon when inflated.

When contemplating this, my common sense meter goes off the scale in disbelief.

reply to post by poet1b


Well, that might be true, then again it might also be true they do know and just like to lie about it, afterall its yet another thing which cant really be verified by JP and the mushroom people.

reply to post by silver6ix


In other words, what lies beneath the surface of our very own planet is still anybodies guess at this state in the game. The idea that the outer surface of our planet is no thicker than the surface of a balloon is even more ludicrous than the concept that our planet has great underground spaces where ancient civilizations live. The latter seems far more plausible to me.

reply to post by spacebagel


If you want evidence, numerous posters have provided considerable evidence to support the discussion. If you want absolute proof, well, there is no such thing.

Prove to me that you are not a fiction of my imagination.

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by Essan

 

This is a discussion board, not a court room.

Oh ok, so that means anyone can make any wild claims they like without question? Cool.

There is enough nonesense on the internet as it is. Be nice to see some substance once in a while.

reply to post by poet1b


I find the subject fascinating but for the opposite reason; that any other explanation other than a solid mantle seems ludicrous. Some people claim there are giants living down there with giant fruit trees to boot, and an inner sun all supporting it. Kind of wish it was true, but unfortunatly real life is far too dull.

Brooks Agnew and Rodney Cluff were planning an expedition to find the arctic entrance, anybody know what happened to that?

So, a point of transparancy: I don't buy any of this, not because anyone told me, but because I have read the studies and laughed hard. However one thing I was wondering if anyone would speculate on:

If there is a hole in the north pole... aaaaand geologic information shows the world was swamplike at one point.. how did the oceanic water get back to the surface? And, which polar warming how long till it all goes down the drain-unless there is allegation of there being some sort of volcano like tower sticking up out of the north pole. (?)

Originally posted by Man_Versus_AntiMan

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by Essan

 

This is a discussion board, not a court room.

Oh ok, so that means anyone can make any wild claims they like without question? Cool.

There is enough nonesense on the internet as it is. Be nice to see some substance once in a while.

You people behave like you are bought paid and hired to run propaganda from Langley sometimes with your ridicule of the subject, talk of proof and evidence efet two seconds, balloon theories, this that and the next thing, its like you read from a book of "pre programmed debunks" for each given subject

I thought a discussion board was for discussion, which doesnt requires a D Cheyney signed document to make it valid im afraid.

Some people need to lay of the spookisms and realise that C.I.A stands for Cult of Ignorant.....well im sure you can guess the rest.

N.S.A = New Scapegoats Assembly.

Anyway, like I said, nobody owes you proof of anything, dicussion is discussion thats the point.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by silver6ix]

reply to post by lordtyp0


Because the centre of gravity is not the centre of the earth but the mass of the crust itself, so there would not be a 'plughole' effect, it would just cling all around it, like a cheap suit. Not sure whether this matches with our observations of the strenth of gravity to mass but thats the hollow earth explanation.

Another question would be 'what about volcanos?'

reply to post by silver6ix


So people who believe what they read without proof have their eyes and mind open do they?

Just wondering.

Originally posted by Man_Versus_AntiMan
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

Because the centre of gravity is not the centre of the earth but the mass of the crust itself, so there would not be a 'plughole' effect, it would just cling all around it, like a cheap suit. Not sure whether this matches with our observations of the strenth of gravity to mass but thats the hollow earth explanation.

Another question would be 'what about volcanos?'

Well, that doesn't match observations with Physics in general. Gravity is at the center of an object, not the outer layer. Part of why I had to laugh. The concept is dis proven by barycenter measurements.

Volcanoes I could see being dismissed as a crustal anomaly (in many way's that is true, but only when considering plate techtonics, which could crimp the hollow world idea).

Really cool quasi-related pic I just ran accross.
Crystal caves

[edit on 2-11-2008 by lordtyp0]

Originally posted by Man_Versus_AntiMan
reply to post by silver6ix

 

So people who believe what they read without proof have their eyes and mind open do they?

Just wondering.

Interesting you should ask that, i was wondering how you knew the other planets existed, how you knew the moon had no atmosphere, how you knew Mars had no life......ahhh wait, no, sorry I wasnt wondering at all, somebody else gave you your infromation and now you are dumping it out by the gospel gallon.

So yes, people who are willing to discuss, think and investigate for themselves are 100% better off than anyone taking your advice my friend.

reply to post by lordtyp0


I just read a bit about barycenter, not sure i quite understand the concept... for example doesnt the centre of gravity only corresponds to the centre of mass?

If the earth were hollow then wouldnt the attractive force of the floor (and possibly the centrafugal force of the earths rotation, if that would be a factor at all) counteract the pulling force of the ceiling (which would thousands of miles above your head) and therefore keep you standing and not sucked into the centre?

Or could the centre of gravity exist in free space?

Originally posted by lordtyp0


Well, that doesn't match observations with Physics in general. Gravity is at the center of an object, not the outer layer. Part of why I had to laugh. The concept is dis proven by barycenter measurements.

Volcanoes I could see being dismissed as a crustal anomaly (in many way's that is true, but only when considering plate techtonics, which could crimp the hollow world idea).

LOL Gravity is at the centre of an object?

I think you will find science hasnt even proven what gravity is yet or that it even exists at all, so its a little ironic you seem to suggest you know where it is.

If gravity is real, then its everywhere, particles called gravitons need to exist, chargless sub particles that nobody has ever seen, even more mythical than UFOs

Plate techtonics indeed, and what exactly would you know about geomechanics? Im assuming someone told you the world was round right? What else did they tell you?

[edit on 2-11-2008 by silver6ix]