Where are all the north pole center pics!!!!????

Seismograph recordings placed on the moon's surface by the Apollo missions indicate that the moon is also hollow.


you guys want to research this and see if it holds any weight, i would but my opinion isn't as strong as your own..



pretty interesting read regardless if its true or not see if any of these statements hold water.

subterraneanbases.com...

Originally posted by gmac10001
Seismograph recordings placed on the moon's surface by the Apollo missions indicate that the moon is also hollow.


you guys want to research this and see if it holds any weight, i would but my opinion isn't as strong as your own..



pretty interesting read regardless if its true or not see if any of these statements hold water.

subterraneanbases.com...

edit on 6-3-2011 by gmac10001 because: adding link

Let me tackle two of the points mentioned on that site you linked. I could actually go over all of them, but that would require a lot more effort than I'm willing to give this topic, so this will suffice.

1. The site claims:

In 1962, Dr. Gordon McDonald of NASA, published a report in the July issue of Astronautics, in which he states that according to an analysis of the astronomical data, the Moon appears to be hollow: "If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the Moon be less dense than the outer parts. Indeed, it would seem that the Moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere." (ASTRONAUTICS, July 1962, pp. 14, 15)

This "fact" is repeated verbatim by every Hollow Earth/Hollow Moon site out there. However, the first problem comes from the get-go, with the man's name. It appears that the man who published this article was, in fact, Dr. George McDonald, though he was also a NASA scientist. Dr. Gordon MacDonald (note the switching of the last names) published another paper in FATE magazine the previous year (1961), and was also a NASA scientist, but his article had nothing to do with a hollow moon. In fact, it mentioned unexplained "lumps" found inside the Earth.

The next problem is from the fact that his article was published in 1962. Even scientists believed a lot of crazy things in 1962. In that year, Frank B. Salisbury published an article in Science called "Martian Biology".
Before Charon was discovered, astronomers believed Pluto could be as massive as the Earth. Obviously, they were a bit off.
An obscure article published in 1962, when only 2 unmanned Saturn missions had so far been to the moon, should not be given much consideration nearly 50 years later.

The third problem comes up when we note the reasons Dr. McDonald concluded that the moon must be significantly less dense toward its center (and possibly hollow). According to his calculations, he found that the moon should be about half as dense as the Earth (3.34 g/cm^3, as opposed to 5.5 for the Earth), which, considering its typical crust density, indicates a significantly less dense interior.
His calculations were accurate. However, his reasoning was not. He failed to account for the fact that the Earth has a higher interior density. He also failed to note that the density of the moon is much greater than the density of the crust of the Earth - about 2.5 g/cm^3. In fact, the core of the Earth has a much greater density, of about 13 g/cm^3.
The moon cannot be compared to the Earth. Its density is completely reasonable and is no indication that it's hollow.


2. Then there's what I've been saying in this thread over and over again.

... since planets are formed in rotation, with a foundational spiritual bubble located at the central sphere of gravity, this causes the material to be thrown outward from the center of rotation by centrifugal force leaving a hollow shell precipitated on the central sphere of gravity with a hollow interior and central core. Space dust, rocks and gases also accumulate on the outside portion of the central sphere of gravity augmenting the thickness of the earth's hollow shell.

This is ignorant of the magnitude of centripetal force compared with that of gravity. For the inner centripetal force to form a hollow planet, it needs to be greater than the force of gravity at that location (inside the planet). Centripetal force decreases with linearly with depth, becoming zero at the center. However, gravity does this as well. That means, if the centripetal force is greater than the force of gravity at some point below the surface, it is also greater than gravity at the surface. Consequently, the "hollow" would be the size of the planet, itself, meaning the matter that was supposed to form the planet would fail to coalesce. The apparent outward force of the rotation would counteract the inward force of gravity and no planet would be unable to form at all.

Consider how fast something like a water bottle needs to be spinning to force the water out to the sides. Now, scale that up to the size of the Earth. If the Earth were rotating that fast, it would tear itself apart.

The only way to get a hollow at the center of a planet is for one to be artificially created. If the Earth is found to be hollow, then I will be more than happy to say aliens did it... because it certainly didn't happen naturally.


Also, your own assertion that seismographs left by the Apollo missions have indicated that the moon is hollow is also wrong. Seismographs were left by Apollo 14, in 1971. Recently, the data collected by these seismographs has been comprehensively analyzed, and there were no such findings. In fact, they show that the interior structure of the moon is comparable to that of the Earth, with a solid inner core surrounded by a liquid outer core.

This nice little app gives locations of every know satellite that's ever been launched (at least the official ones)

check it out here -

www.gano.name...


Its been a while since i downloaded and played around it looks a lot more snazzy than it did a few years back

this may help solve the problem about which satellites do fly over the poles etc.

hope it helps
7anked

reply to post by IAMSEEKER


i like the way you think they're friend
i never thought about it like that so it still could be plausible i guess anything is possible
hmm i have alot of reading to do ive been gone for a day and the thread has jumped up quiet a few pages

thanks karma

Why would anyone take an arial photo of a cloudy place covered in ice and snow?
Whiteout like this:

(if I leaned out my kitchen window and took a photo you wouldn't spot the difference...)

If anyone doubt the existence of the North Pole; please describe the contents of these pix!

reply to post by nakiel


why would we take pics of red dust on mars or white dust on the moon why do they take ariel pics of the south pole why do people feel the need to go on holidays to this white clouding nothing?? who knows i was just asking why there are not hd pics of the poles center and why did hitler and russia and the states have a need to go on expeditions there?

Hollow Earth and Moon, why is it that these people reject what we do know as facts about planetry motion and gravity, the mass of the Earth and moon are known to quite exact amounts by known constants of motion and mass, ie Earths tides are pulled by the Gravity of the sun and moon plus its orbit is in relation to Earth by its motion and distance from Earth due to its Mass, as is the Earth in relation to the Sun, Its all Newtonian mathematics, , So if the Earth and Moon were Hollow then they would not be where they are and do what they do, Simples ,

Yea,i could listen to someone saying this isnt true. Or i could believe what my eyes seen when i went on google earth and seen that the hole goes on forever. Could this be a bottomless pit?

Originally posted by 10987654321
Hollow Earth and Moon, why is it that these people reject what we do know as facts about planetry motion and gravity, the mass of the Earth and moon are known to quite exact amounts by known constants of motion and mass, ie Earths tides are pulled by the Gravity of the sun and moon plus its orbit is in relation to Earth by its motion and distance from Earth due to its Mass, as is the Earth in relation to the Sun, Its all Newtonian mathematics, , So if the Earth and Moon were Hollow then they would not be where they are and do what they do, Simples ,

All comes down to trust. The truth is the scientific community as well as the political and military organizations( in conjunction with large businesses) have completely and totally destroyed all their credibility in the last 100 years. Heck the US government employs people to intentionally cover up stuff and suppress information(derail threads that could expose inconvenient facts).

Don't get me wrong there are some things that should be classified and kept out of general view. Military battle plans and strategies for dealing with foreign powers. Schematics for highly sensitive technologies(stuff we don't want foreign nations to have) and information on WMD. But the fact that many nations lie to their citizens as a matter of internal policy(not national security) means we can't trust anything really.

For all I know your a disinfo agent as well as most of the other dissenters. That is the price society pays when society is lead by sociopaths.

reply to post by Novatrino


ah , yes peace, and thanks for being the Nightowl went I went all Comedian there ( I shouldn't drink and post , or at teh least I should have two avatars , one a bunny the other a cadaver with sharpened teeth ),

I favor the Van Flandern model of gravitation ( since it has almost two decades of 95%+ correct predictions including the 'kupier belt' objects (trans plutionian objects) and that asteroids and other small bodies have "moons"),

his model follows the fission (or solar overspin with contraction ) planetary formation where in planets start off hot "fluid" blobs....but I am drifting now so more on that in a moment(or in a different thread)

As for pictures I have seen none as yet readily available online but did find this interesting composite view:

north polar ice, modis scale

Notice how the brightness severely increases near the actual physical pole ( the part blocked out ) even if the can't fly right over the pole ( sure looks like then can from this photo mosaic ) why is that center bit too bright or not in the photo?

I think the bit about not flying over the pole is pure crap because the magnetic north (if solar/cosmic radiation actually played part) was until very recently in northern Canada ( now of course it's racing across on a seeming path to Russia)

Originally posted by CLPrime
Before Charon was discovered, astronomers believed Pluto could be as massive as the Earth. Obviously, they were a bit off...........Centripetal force decreases with linearly with depth, becoming zero at the center. However, gravity does this as well. That means, if the centripetal force is greater than the force of gravity at some point below the surface, it is also greater than gravity at the surface. Consequently, the "hollow" would be the size of the planet, itself, meaning the matter that was supposed to form the planet would fail to coalesce.
...... In fact, they show that the interior structure of the moon is comparable to that of the Earth, with a solid inner core surrounded by a liquid outer core.[

Misleading and only partially correct:They believed, in fact, the max upper limit for Pluto :
1931 estimated mass = 1earth mass (Nicholson & Mayall )
1948 estimated mass = .1 earth mass (Kuiper)
1976 estimated mass = .01 earth mass (Cruikshank, Pilcher, & Morrison)
1978 estimated mass(from measurements using charon) = .002 earth mass (Christy & Harrington)
A similar story can be said for 2003 ub313 now known as Eris ( the ninth most massive body known to orbit the sun). They thought it was larger than the earth( as much as 3x larger) at first .

I see no way that this helps your hypothesis, i.e. by 1962 scientists knew they did not have exact enough information on celestial bodies for theoretical modeling to correctly predict the size or mass properly and even after several decades still lacked a good enough theoretical model in 2003(2 if you want to get technical),

so how does incorrectness/incompleteness of accepted theory (at any time) invalidate speculative models that may improve or replace (or eventually prove to be just as wrong in certain areas as) existing theory?

In fact you are implying that the accepted theory was so wrong that anyone near it at the time caught coodies from it and was wrong by association? Honestly that argument really only highlights the fact that ANY CURRENT MODEL is not entirely accurate and we must be looking for new information or ways of thinking about existing information for tomorrow's models.

The diameter of the earth is over 7900 miles and to date the deepest hole dug is a paltry 7.6 miles , yes direct evidence is less than 1/1000 of the distance, so 99.999% is based on interpretation of indirect evidence and a formation and gravitational theory that cannot explain what gravity is or how exactly it is generated or propagates (especially inside of a rotating inertial frame).

But, more importantly if the earth is not hollow then some nice (emphasis on nice) photos of the exact north and north pole would quickly prove at least there are no openings, which is what this thread is about right ...pics of the pole.
I mean if it's hollow great, hooray! and if it's not , well we didn't lose anything right? so no biggie , but if there seems to be a dirth of pole pics and admiral Byrd's odd story isn't just too much lead-lined canned food then we can at least reasonably suspect that there is SOMETHING worth seeing there, right? Perhaps it is only a periodic phenomenon of some odd kind that actually does cause satellite interference I mean why did nasa 'correct' some of the pole pictures from other planets, and remember Phobos has been proven to be beyond the shadow of a doubt hollow.

reply to post by XtraTL


i dunno where i read this it may have been here but the reason the water wouldn't be running down the hole would be because gravity is pulling towards the center of that crusty part we live on and the part i read for the reasoning for thinking this was the way the soviet's lunar something anothers landed on the moon and how they like half of them crashed of misscalculations of the moon's gravity (also hollow)

The only pic I could find and it's most unsatisfying:

about half way down the page

That little thumbnail is all you get, the mosaic loads missing....well guess...

Can someone address and answer the questions posed in this post: Click here.

It would be greatly appreciated and would lend credibility to these hypotheses. Thanks.

what an extremely weird picture im baffled thank you for the post not sure what to think is it fake or real if it is fake why make it so obvious?

rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by gmac10001


If you'll notice, that image is a composite of about 15 individual photographs. They don't cover the pole, itself, because, like most satellites, the satellite that captured those images doesn't fly over the pole. This leaves, not a circle, but a 15-sided hole at the center. There's nothing suspicious about that - just a result of the fact that the satellite that took the photographs doesn't fly directly over the pole.

...as you've been told in that separate thread you started

reply to post by CLPrime


wow the angle of the camera just magically stops ? how #ing retarded do think people are asshole? perhaps you are just so amazingly stupid so as to believe that current, provable, camera lens physics support your wizard of oz ideas, but I challenge you to show me WHY those specific areas are NOT shown given the tech available....

asshole. yes you.

I will ask a third and final time. Can someone please respond to the questions posted here? Continuing to hypothesize about this while ignoring such critical questions, in my opinion, undermines these hypotheses. Just my two cents.

reply to post by CLPrime


"...The current theory of gravity is not wrong (within the limits of observation). It predicts exactly what we see.
Because of this, we do not see hollow planets...."

HHMMMM. YES IT IS . IT FAILS TO EXPLAIN WHY ASTEROIDS CAN HAVE SATELLITES ... as starting point do you have an answer for that?

(in my opinion you are are a shill or a retard, prove me wrong)

Apologies if this pic has been posted already..

That composite picture of the North Pole taken the 23 Nov. 1968 was published for the first time in June 1970 in Ray Palmer magazine "Flying Saucer" a clear-circular-gigantic-hole appears at the North Pole..



From here:
mysterioushollowearth.webs.com...

I haven't formed an opinion as to the hole in the pole.. just throwing this out there.

Edit to add:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/834c69c17d15.jpg[/atsimg]