From:  Dan
Date:  December 26, 2004, 4:19 AM
Subject:  Good Book

Hi Rodney.

I heard you on George Noory the other night. For some reason your manner
and what you said appealed to me.

I just got your book. I thought it would be just some entertaining
fiction. (I thought it would be maybe 40 pages long. I surely didn't
think 555.) But I can see from looking through it just a little bit that
it is really something good.

I have a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in continuum
mechanics. I can already see that you put a lot of science into it. The
combination of science with religion is very compelling.

One question that occurred to me when I heard you talk, was why the
oceans wouldn't drain into the hole at the North Pole. I'm sure you have
an answer in the book. (Maybe the ice goes down into the hole,
effectively forming a wall. But then if global warming melts the ice, I
would speculate that the ocean would flow into the hole.)

I hope that in the future you can publish your work as a regular book. I
think you would sell a lot of copies. I would buy one for myself, and
others to give as gifts. I think you have a great combination with the
subject - along with the old stories, text, calculations, pictures,
graphics and photographs.

I think you have devoted yourself to a very interesting and also hopeful
topic. And I think it takes courage to propose a theory that 99.9% of
people would reject without investigation as being absolutely crazy.

Best wishes, and good luck in the future.

Dan Baron.

From:  Christy
Date:  December 24, 2004, 7:56 AM
Subject:  Admiral Byrd's Granddaughter

I was listening to Art Bell this evening and heard Admiral Byrd’s granddaughter ask a question if anyone had information on him.  Up here in Alaska there is a gentleman named Col. Norman Vaughn who is 98 years old and went with Byrd on his expedition to the South Pole.  He is very lucid for a 98 year old man and might have some information you need.  He lives in Anchorage and you should be able to get to him through the Iditarod Trail Committee in Wasilla.  There is even a mountain named after him (Vaughn) in Anarctica and he climbed it on his 98^th birthday.  He is a very interesting man, but I am sure that he won’t be with us for much longer.  You can get information on him on the net through search.  Hope this helps you.  Christy 

Dear Rodney,
       I have just recently finished reading your book and must tell you that  it is an excellent work.
      You have a rare overview of the actual state of our planet and its inhabitants, and have taken the effort and the risk to communicate it to the public. Your message is vitally important to the welfare of humanity and in a sense this makes you a prophet.
      What I find most unique about your book is your ability to identify Heaven as an actual physical location and not just as some ethereal realm. Now, everyone who reads your book, and hopefully others like it, will know what the bible really means when it speaks of "heaven and earth".
      Heaven is always an inner, central, and solar location, and there are many heavens, from the sub-atomic to the Heaven of heavens at the center of the Wheel of Creation itself. Our cosmos is in fact a heiarchy of suns or heavens, and the pattern of one is always replicated in the other.
     The other thing I find unique about your book is your identification of the lost ten tribes of Israel as the leading power within the hollow earth, and the United States government as their leading nemesis. It is sad but true that most of our outer world leaders have sold out to Satan.
      I am also enthralled by your description of where we go to at death. For years I have suspected the same thing but have never actually heard it voiced untill I read your book.
      I find your description of the center of our galaxy very intriguing, and your geographical understanding of Hell very accurate. LOCATION is so important in the clear understanding of any concept. May I add that the actual dividing line between Hell and Eden-Paradise is the central gravity sphere deep within the earth's shell, and that the interior of the earth's shell in general is popularly referred to as Middle Earth. As you know, it is here, in the first few hundred miles beneath and above our outer surface where the powers of evil have made their home, and where poor humanity is trapped. Happily, I know that these evil beings will one day soon be removed or relocated so that humanity can finally flourish to its glorious potential, unimpeded.
     I am wating anxiously for that day when I will be strolling through Eden once again with not a worry in the world.
 
     Note: There are two important authors or books I have not seen mentioned in your book.
         One is Theodore Fitch, who has written extensively on the bible and the hollow earth. His classic "A Mansion is Built For You in Paradise" is available at Health Research Books.
        The other is a book called "The Hollow Earth" by Rudy Rucker, which describes an amazing journey to the south polar entrance and into the hollow earth, and gives a fascinating description of the inner sun.
        If you have not read them I urge you to do so.
 
                                           see you in Eden,
                                                     Nick

DEAR SIR,

 I'M 50 YEARS OLD AND HAVE STUDIED THE HOLLOW EARTH THEORY SINCE ABOUT 1974.
I KNOW THE BOOK VERY WELL; THE AUTHOR BEING RAYMOND BERNARD, AND THE ACTUAL
EXPEDITION AND MATERIAL PUT TOGETHER BY ADMIRAL RICHARD E. BYRD. I'M ALSO
MORMON WITH A BACKGROUND IN SPECIAL FORCES, SEABEES, U.S. NAVY. THE NAVY
MAINTAINS THE ANTARTIC DEPT WHICH GUARDS THE OPENING TO THAT PARTICULAR
REGION. IN MY MANY YEARS IN THE NAVY, I'VE MET FOUR CAPTAINS, ONE
LIEUTENANT, ONE WARRANT OFFICER AND ONE RETIRED GREEN BERET WHO HAVE ALL
SEEN THE OPENING PERSONALLY. THEY HAVE ALL TOLD THEIR PARTICULAR STORY TO
ME. THE REASON I AM WRITING YOU THIS E-MAIL IS TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THERE
ARE MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT KNOW OF THE HOLLOW EARTH AND THAT ADMIRAL
BYRD IS THE TRUE EXPLORER OF BOTH OF THE OPENINGS TO THE INTERIOR OF THE
EARTH. I THOUGHT IT PECULIAR COMING ACROSS YOUR INTERNET SITE AND TALKING
ABOUT THE HOLLOW EARTH THAT YOU NOT ONCE MENTIONED ADMIRAL BYRD. I
PERSONALLY MET HIS DAUGHTER IN LAW, THE WIFE OF THE YOUNGER ADMIRAL BYRD. I
WAS ALSO GIVEN A COPY OF ONE OF THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. IT'S GREAT THAT
YOU'RE PROMOTING THE CHURCH THROUGH THE BOOK OF MORMON AND IT'S TIES WITH
THE LOST 10 TRIBES. IN CLOSING, IT IS ONLY A SUGGESTION THAT THE MAN WHO
ACTUALLY DISCOVERED THE HOLLOW EARTH SHOULD BE GIVEN HIS JUST DUE AND BE
RECOGNIZED FOR HIS GREAT DISCOVERY!

  FROM ANOTHER BELIEVER!  JACK A. MCGUIRE / MCGUIREEAGLE1@QWEST.NET

Note:  I DO give full credit to Admiral Byrd in my ebook.  Jack just didn't know because he hasn't read my book.

-- Rod

Hi Everyone,
Lee sent me this. Now this is really weird. The problem: No Ice at
the North Pole. So some, like myself, immediately thought: No
problem - Global Warming. But check this article below. An
Australian scientist makes a (seemingly valid point), that Global
Warming cannot be the cause of melted ice at the North Pole.

OK, so what then? Now I'm just thinking... Firstly - is he right?
He makes a good point don't you think?

If he's right, then what's causing this? In my book I mentioned the
old problem of polyanas - huge stretches of melted ice in the polar
regions. No one really knows where they come from.

But some time back we discussed whether the El Nino is caused
by LAVA or HOT WATER pouring out of the Pacific sea bed - by
way of seismic activity...

In my book I had written about Commander Peary's observation
that a vast cloud of VOLCANIC ASH had fallen in Greenland in the
1890's. Peary believed there was an UNDISCOVERED VOLCANO
up in the Arctic seas north of Alaska.

Later, in 1923, Lt Cmdr Green said there was a volcanic island up
there, and he said it lay on a fault line.

Now let me tell you something interesting. I was chatting to a
seismologist about two weeks ago. I actually followed up on
Green's fault line theory. Now if you look at any seismic map of the
world you'll see lots of faults running along Asia and Alaska. Now
Green said there was a fault-line running from the Bering Strait
(Alaska), up to the North Pole, across it, and to Iceland. This was
in the 1920's. Green said that "Crocker Land" would be
SEISMICALLY ACTIVE... (just like Iceland is - and that it would fall
on the same fault line as Iceland)...

WHen I asked a seismologist for details of seismic activity in the
Arctic, he gave me a map which showed minor quakes
EVERYWHERE - EXCEPT for a huge BLANK SPACE in exactly
the area where Crocker Land should be. There was minor seismic
activity EVERYWHERE in the Arctic, Canada, Russia, etc - but
the area in question was a COMPLETE BLANK. Furthermore, the
fault line from Iceland went to the North Pole (as Green had said in
the 1920's), but from there it went into North Russia (instead of to
the Bering Strait where logic dictates it should go). Now I looked at
all my text books on seismology and there are no major fault lines
in north of Russia. The line from the North Pole to Russia doesn't
make sense. Could it be that the line from the North Pole to the
Bering strait lies in a CLASSIFIED zone?

Consider the mystery of the Polyanas... Why do large areas of ice
melt in the Arctic? Could it be that the real reason for Polyanas is
SEISMIC ACTIVITY which is occurring north of Alaska but which is
classified?

Green went so far as to say that Crocker Land would be ringed by huge mountains (which he said he saw), which were caused by this seismic activity. He said too that the island would be covered in a permanent fog by the geysers and geothermal heat coming up from the island.

Now think about this. Could this be the real explanation behind Polyanas? Could this be the real reason why the ice has now melted at the North Pole? Could it be that ABNORMAL seismic activity is present in the Arctic and that is what is causing the ice at the North Pole to melt?

Now I'm really curious...

Regards,
Jan

> http://theaustralian.com.au/common/story_page/0,4511,1104324%255E2703,00.htm
> l
>
> Scientist cools meltdown theory
> By STEPHEN BROOK
> 22aug00
>
> Global warming was unlikely to be a principal cause of the melting of the
> North Pole, an Australian scientist said yesterday.
>
>
> "Global warming and the atmosphere - that's probably the least important,"
> said Ian Allison, a glaciologist at the Australian Antarctic Division, based
> in Hobart.
>
> Dr Allison said factors such as ocean temperature and currents would have a
> greater effect on melting the ice cap around the North Pole than global
> warming.
>
> Ice at the North Pole has turned into a 1.6km-wide ocean. The melting came
> to light after a luxury cruise liner had been unable to allow its passengers
> to disembark at the North Pole and have their photos taken because there was
> no ice to stand on and the nearest solid ice had been 10km away.
>
> Studies show that the polar ice sheet and Greenland ice sheet are reducing,
> and some projections indicate that the polar ice cap will disappear by the
> end of the 21st century.
>
> Scientific records of the depth of the ice sheet have come from an
> unexpected source - submarines that have prowled the Arctic since the cold
> war. US, British and Russian submarines had monitored the ice thickness -
> its draft - with their sonars.
>
> Dr Allison said the lack of ice at the pole - even at the height of summer -
> was highly unusual.
>
> But he said even if global warming had caused a rise in air temperature
> from, for example, minus 20C to minus 10C, it was still not going to melt a
> great deal of ice.
>
> Transpolar drift can pack the Arctic ice sheet into ridges up to 20m thick
> that gradually disperse over a large area.
>
> The transpolar drift occurs when warmer water from the North Pacific Ocean
> pushes up the Bering Strait between Alaska and Siberia and propels ice down
> the coast of Greenland.
>
> A cyclonic circular current north of Canada packs ice against that mainland
> and islands.
>
> A great influx of water from the Pacific Ocean would affect the ice sheet
> because the ocean was warmer than the North Atlantic.
>
> And just as El Nino and La Nina affect Australia, the North Atlantic
> oscillation produces a change in pressure that affects ocean currents.
>
> Dr Allison said scientists had not detected similar melting at Antarctica.
>
> "There's no evidence that something's happening in Antarctica, but only
> because we don't have a long history of observation," he said.
>
--------

What about Bunger's Oasis?  Consider this image of Antarctica
of 84.4 S Lat, 141 W Lon, from The Living Earth Website:
Isn't that a polyana in the ice continent near the top of the image.  And
it's pretty big.  --Rod

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Lamprecht [mailto:pbs@iafrica.com]
> Sent: 07 September 2000 07:04
> To: Prophecy@smtp07.iafrica.com
> Cc: JRNyquist@aol.com; jocelyn@the-i.net; texians1st@the-i.net;
> bswalton@pclink.com; customerservice@radiobookstore.com
> Subject: [HollowPlanetsUpdates] Important: The Tampered Arctic Diaries?
>
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
> Just a note. I've been pondering the problem of polyanas, fault-
> lines, Green-house effect, etc.
>
> While in the middle of this, I happened to converse with a fellow
> whose done a lot of Arctic travelling - been up to Alaska, Canada
> and even the North Pole several times. He concurred with what the
> Australian scientist said, and added observations of his own.
>
> However, he launched a tirade of attacks against Lt Cmdr Green,
> US Navy, who said he saw Crocker Land. (Green, as you will
> remember, murdered the eskimo, and nobody knows why. The
> Government of Denmark apparently went ballistic over the incident
> demanding to know why). The excuse given by MacMillan and
> Green is pretty lame - so I feel there's more to it than meets the
> eye. I think Green shot the eskimo for a good reason. I think the
> Eskimo saw "something" and went crazy. I think Green shot him
> before he spread panic to the other eskimos in the Crocker Land
> expedition. But what did the eskimo see? (A UFO maybe?)
> And this brings me to a curious fact which seems to defy
> coincidence. Green wrote articles for Popular Science, about
> Crocker Land and mentioned that he'd seen it. Green was with
> Capt. MacMillan at the time (1914). I have MacMillan's book (1918)
> which has a beautiful description of the hills and valleys of Crocker
> Land.
>
> Now, here's the kicker. According to this guy I was chatting to,
> whose extremely knowledgeable about the Arctic, he has Green's
> Diary, and for the day(s) in question, there ARE NO ENTRIES for
> anything to do with Crocker Land.
>
> Strange? But not as strange as this: I know for a fact, that on the
> DAY(S) when Peary said he saw Crocker Land - you will also NOT
> FIND ANY ENTRIES IN HIS DIARY EITHER. All Polar scholars
> have vouched for this.
>
> So all these Polar Scholars say: Peary is a liar, Green is a liar
> (just as they've been saying Cook is a liar).
>
> But wait! I have seen newspaper articles - Dr Gohnert and I were in
> the basement of one of Wits University's libraries and we saw a
> detailed article from the early 1900's where Peary spoke at length
> about the REALITY of Crocker Land.
>
> I have Capt MacMillan's 1918 book with a very detailed description
> of the amazing Crocker Land.
>
> Is MacMillan ALSO a liar?
>
> What of Cook? Cook took photographs of the outlying hills of
> Bradley land - and his photos were sitting in the Library of
> Congress in the USA - and then, THEY DISAPPEARED.... Who
> took them?
>
> Well, let me tell you something else. The Peary Club's records
> were CLOSED for 75 years. They were only reopened just over a
> decade ago.
>
> So I'm sitting back and thinking how these Arctic explorers have
> ALL been made out to be LIARS, and how strange things
> happened to Cook, and to Cook's photographs, and to Peary's
> testimony, and to Green's testimony, and so forth.
>
> You know what? I think the same people who STOLE Cook's
> photographs from the Library of Congress, may be the same
> people who possibly TAMPERED WITH PEARY'S DIARY and
> GREEN'S DIARY. Both of them were Naval Officers remember.
>
> I'm starting to wonder what happened to those diaries and the
> Peary records during the years they were closed. How do you
> know that someone has not gone back and rewritten a bit of Arctic
> history so to speak?
>
> I have made the case that Dr Cook was framed, and it was
> apparent to me that a smear campaign was aimed at Peary, but
> now, Green also must be sucked into it. Now if everyone is to be
> made out to be a liar, then it follows that before long, MacMillan
> (who BTW, later became an ADMIRAL - just like Peary), must also
> then be smeared. Eventually, in order to keep the whole Crocker
> Land thing a secret, EVERYONE relating to it must be smeared.
> Funny. The greatest Arctic explorers in history all have to be made
> out to be COMPLETE LIARS, or else, people will realise that they
> all saw something which I say, must remain, to this day, as
> CLASSIFIED - and that is: Crocker & Bradley Lands...
>
> One further area of study worth keeping an eye on, is polyanas, the
> large-scale melting of ice in the polar sea. This may well be related
> to the existence of Crocker & Bradley Lands, AND even to the
> FAULT LINE - which Green said existed there. (BTW, Green was
> the PHYSICIST on the Crocker Land expedition and had a
> MASTER'S DEGREE IN SCIENCE - he was no idiot). Already, in
> the past few days, as I perused a National Geographic from the
> 1990's, I saw that one polyana was seen, in the region which
> interests me.
>
> There must be OTHER weather effects which are not being
> reported as well, which all relate to this island, volcanic activity and
> the fault line. (e.g. like Peary's 1892 observation of volcanic ash
> falling in Greenland. Too bad we don't know the prevailing winds at
> the time).
>
> In this regard, not enough is being said about the high sulphur
> content of the air north of Alaska - sulphur comes from volcanic
> activity... and there is lots of it in the air up there. Now that would
> be something fantastic if one could measure sulphur content in the
> air. That could lead you DIRECTLY to the island...
>
> It seems as if viewing conditions in this region are very poor
> because of all these natural phenomena which may be obscuring
> the existence of this island.
>
> If any of you see any articles of interest, *PLEASE* forward it to
> me. I want to keep my ears to the ground.
>
> But the thing which really hit me like a sledge-hammer today, was
> the possibility, that the DIARIES, of TOP NOTCH Arctic explorers
> MUST have been tampered with - I would assume by CIA/NSA
> types. This must be the case. For example, how else can we
> explain the disappearance of KEY PHOTOGRAPHS from the Cook
> Collection in the Library of Congress? Oh please!? Surely, only
> Govt Officials could walk in and remove it with blessings from on
> high as part of NATIONAL SECURITY. Why was this theft never
> reported? Why didn't it make media headlines? Surely, with the
> technology of this last century, going to a diary and maybe
> replacing ONE PAGE, can be done? If they can put men on the
> moon then I'll bet they have the technology to fake a couple of
> pages in a diary.
>
> In this regard, and I need to check some more, do you know, that
> some of these very important diaries, like that of Peary CONTAIN
> SEVERAL BLANK PAGES AT KEY POINTS IN TIME??
>
> Do you know, that Peary's diary, WHILE HE WAS AT THE NORTH
> POLE, CONTAINS MOSTLY BLANK PAGES!!!!?? Think about it.
> The man has reached his life-time's goal, he sits there for more
> than a day and - HE WRITES NOTHING....
>
> OR: Were these diaries tampered with and "blanked out/censored"
> by the CIA/NSA to remove evidence which would suggest that
> Crocker and Bradley Lands (and maybe other people) existed up
> there? How much else has then been removed from Arctic diaries?
> I am very curious now. Even a review of BLANK PAGES, could
> itself become a most interesting pass-time, since one would know
> WHERE they were at the time they "stopped writing" (were
> censored), and that alone, could be KEY in indentifying areas
> worth visiting and investigating.
>
> Folks, I don't think anyone has ever advanced the theory before
> that Polar Diaries have been tampered with by Government Agents
> but as I ponder this, I'm saying to you, this MUST be the case.
>
> And of course, if that is so, then I want to try to lay my hands on
> the diaries of these people.
>
> There is something very very strange, going on there...
>
> Its on days like this that I get sick and tired of listening to 2nd-hand
> and 3rd-hand accounts of the Arctic sea north of Alaska. Man, if I
> had the money I'd be there in a FLASH. I'm telling you, there's
> more than enough evidence here to justify mounting a good
> expedition and do some serious flying covering several thousand
> miles of the Arctic. With the kinds of planes around these days I
> say that within a few weeks a person could solve these damned
> mysteries for once and for all. I say there's something out there,
> exactly where I mapped it in my book. EXACTLY THERE... and it
> must be bloody AWESOME...
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HollowPlanetsUpdates-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
 
 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HollowPlanets-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Date: 24 Sep 1999 11:53:57 -0700
             From: giants@ourhollowearth.com
             Subject: Re: [HollowEarth] -  New Scientist Planet Science The planet thathums
             Reply-To: HollowEarth@chc.co.za
             Steve,

             This earth "hum" is similar to the trembling of a soap bubble.  It is interesting
             that in this article in New Scientist, the researchers found that the period of
             vibrations in this "hum" has a duration of 54 minutes -- the very same period of
             any large earthquake, which scientists say the earth vibrates like a bell (which,
             by the way, is also hollow).  If the earth trembles like a soap bubble, which is
             hollow, or vibrates like a bell, which is hollow, this indicates strongly to me
             that the earth is also hollow.

             Good article!  Thanks for sharing it with us.

             Rod

             On Fri, 10 September 1999, "Steve Oldham" wrote:

             >
             > Hi all,  I found this article concerning the earth's hum and thought it might
             be of interest. It mentions how an earthquake or a nuclear test can set the earth
             to ringing like a bell. What's your take on this?
             > Steve
             >
             >  http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990911/theplanett.html

             Next year in Eden...

From: "Jan Lamprecht" <pbs@iafrica.com>
             Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:10:41 +0200
             Subject: [HollowEarth] -  NEXUS Review of Hollow Planets....
             Reply-To: HollowEarth@chc.co.za
             Hi All,
             I received an e-mail from Duncan Roads the editor
             and owner of NEXUS magazine in Australia. He informed
             me that his copy of "Hollow Planets" has arrived
             and they will be doing a review of it in the
             December/January issue of the magazine.

             Other reviews which are in the pipe-line are:-
             * New Dawn magazine (Australia)
             * Dr J. Gill (USA) (Los Angeles Times & other publications)
              (Note: Dr Gill is a former professor of geology)
             * Fate magazine (USA)
             * The Star newspaper (South Africa)

             RE: NEXUS...
             Duncan Roads has had an interest in my research and
             book for a very long time and I'm looking forward
             to seeing a review coming from NEXUS.

             RE: Other Book Reviews...
             At this time I have not really had much of a chance
             to push the book-reviews side so this is just a
             small tentative stab.

             On a note of interest you might want to read "Worlds in Collision" by
             Alexander Velikovski. It is a physics-history book explaining his theory
             that the earth's magnetic poles have shifted in the past. He wrote the book
             around the 1950's 1960's or 1970's ( I do not remember exactly).  He used a
             lot of historical records and physics to show his theory.

             He was ridiculed in all his theories and yet he was never proven wrong. He
             predicted the Van Alen Belt around the earth and yet they do not have his
             name.

             The physics of his time went so far as to threaten the publisher of his book
             that if the book was published they would cancel the million dollar
             contracts for the physics textbooks the publisher was going to publish. He
             had to use a different publisher with no scientific line whatsoever just to
             publish the book.

             A physicist who was assigned to criticize his book never read the book! It
             was a butcher job!

             Look at the problem Galileo had with his theory.

             Every time a new idea has come forth it has always been fought savagely by
             the so called "experts" of the time.

             Any profession gets very agitated when someone comes along and tells them
             that they are wrong.

             Christopher Columbus was scoffed and laughed out of every European court for
             his request to get a ship to travel and see if the earth was really round.
             If he had not convinced queen Isabelle of Spain to pawn her jewels for the
             expedition he could probably never have gotten the ship!

             This idea of the hollow earth will be fought and ridiculed by every so
             called "expert" and we must not expect any sympathy from the scientific
             community.

             It is not just a matter of been right and been able to prove it. It is a
             matter of getting someone to listen in the first place!

             Well, that I hope explains why the physicists "say" that the earth cannot be
             hollow.

             Rafael

             > -----Original Message-----
             > From: giants@ourhollowearth.com [SMTP:giants@ourhollowearth.com]
             > Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 4:24 PM
             > To:   HollowEarth@chc.co.za
             > Subject:      Re: [HollowEarth] -  Yet another question
             >
             > On Fri, 18 June 1999, John E . Rael III wrote:
             >
             > > "Why can't the earth be hollow?" That is, why does science say it is not
             >
             > > hollow? What does physics have against the hollow earth theory?
             >
             > John,
             >
             > Good question again.  I would say the main reason orthodox science rejects
             > the hollow earth comes from the Cavendish gravitation constant and their
             > Gravitation formula which gives an average earth density of 5.5 gm/cc.
             > But actually, if you really look at it, the Newtonian mass and density of
             > the earth does NOT actually exclude the possibility that the earth is
             > hollow.
             >
             > Since on average, earth surface rocks are 2.7 gm/cc (water is 1 gm/cc),
             > then if the earth's overall average density is 5.5, then the interior of
             > the earth would have to be at least as dense as steel (8 gm/cc).  For
             > example, 8.3 + 2.7 / 2 = 5.5.  If the earth were full of water (no land),
             > then the earth would have a density of 1.  If it had the density of
             > surface rocks, it would be 2.7.  Therefore, if the earth has a density of
             > 5.5, then the interior HAS to contain more dense material.
             >
             > The math for determining the orthodox density of the earth is the
             > following:
             >
             > In determining the mass of the earth, Newtonians assume that the momentum
             > of a small mass accelerating towards the earth near its surface is equal
             > to the earth's gravitational force acting on that small mass:
             >
             > F = m * a  The Momentum Formula (Newton's Second Law)
             >
             > F = GmM/R^2   The Newtonian Gravitation Formula
             >
             > m * a = GmM/R^2
             >
             > Solving for a, the mass m's cancel out,
             >
             > a = GM/R^2
             >
             > We can now solve for M, the mass of earth,
             >
             > M = a * R^2 /G
             >
             > using the Newtonian Gravitational Constant,
             >
             > 980.665 * 4.0678884 x 10^17 / 6.67259 x 10^-8
             >
             > = 5.978541732 x 10^27 gms    The Newtonian mass of the Earth
             >
             > >From the Density formula
             >
             > D = M/V
             >
             > we obtain the Newtonian density of the earth.
             >
             > >From the volume of a sphere formula,
             >
             > V = PiD^3/6
             >
             > The volume of the earth is 1.082 * 10^27 cc.
             >
             > The Newtonian density of the earth then is:
             >
             > 5.978541732 x 10^27 gms / 1.082 * 10^27 cc
             >
             > = 5.525 gm/cc
             >
             > Now you may say that perhaps all this mass is located in an 800 mile thick
             > shell.  Ok.  But what average density would that give the earth's shell?
             >
             > We can calculate this.
             >
             > Assuming the thickness of earth's shell at 800 mi or 1,287.48 km,
             >
             > Diameter of Earth's hollow:  Thickness of Earth's shell x 2 - Diameter of
             > Earth
             >
             > 800 mi x 2 - 8000 = 6400 mi
             >                                                  Or
             >
             > 1,287.48 km x 2 - 12,756 = 10,181 km Or 1.018104445 x 10^9 cm
             >
             > Volume of Hollow:
             > 3.14159265 x (1.018104445 x10^9)^3/6
             >
             > = 5.525551394 x 10^26 cc
             >
             > Volume of Earth - Volume of Hollow = Volume of Shell:
             >
             > 1.086781293 x 10^27 cc - 5.525551394 x 10^26 cc
             >
             > = 5.342261531 x 10^26
             >
             > Density of Shell = Mass of Earth/Volume of Shell:
             >
             > 5.978541732 x 10^27 gms/5.342261531 x 10^26 cc
             >
             > = 11.19 gm/cc
             >
             > This assumes that most of the earth's mass is located in its shell.  As
             > you can see, Newtonian physics would require an average shell density
             > almost as dense as lead (11.3).  As since surface rocks are 2.7, then the
             > interior of the shell would have to be greater than the average density.
             >
             > The interior density using the Newtonian mass of the earth requires than
             > the interior of the shell would have a density of 2 * 11.19 - 2.7 = 19.68,
             > which is denser than gold (19.3).
             >
             > Now you could say that this density could be in the realm of possibility.
             > After all, the earth DOES ring like a bell after a rather large
             > earthquake.  A bell is hollow and is made of metal.
             >
             > You may say that the interior sun certainly contains some of the mass of
             > the earth which could lower the density of the shell.  But an interior sun
             > of the frequently estimated diameter of 600 miles would contain very
             > little of the mass of the earth.
             >
             > Assuming the interior sun has a density of glass which I claim all stars
             > are actually crystals instead of burning gas, it's mass would be only
             > .0065% of the mass of the Newtonian mass of the earth.
             >
             > V = pi D^3 / 6
             >
             > (600 mi * 1.60934722 km * 100,000 cm) ^3 / 6
             >
             > = 1.500554464 x 10^23 cc    Volume of inner sun
             >
             > Density = Mass / Volume
             >
             > Mass = Volume * Density
             >
             > = 3.901441607 x 10^23 gms
             >
             > divided by mass of earth of 5.978541732 x 10^27 gms
             >
             > = .000065257 * 100 = .0065%
             >
             > If the interior sun is composed of gas as orthodox science maintains stars
             > consist of, then that percentage would be much less.  So by far, most of a
             > hollow earth's mass would be located in its shell.
             >
             > Another possibility, you may say, is that the earth's shell is thicker
             > giving a lower average density.  This also, could be a possibility.  Some
             > method of determining the shell's thickness needs to be devised.  This
             > could easily be determined by entering the hollow of the earth through a
             > polar opening and bouncing radar waves off the opposite side of the hollow
             > interior.
             >
             > In all, actually, I see nothing in the Newtonian mass of the earth that
             > would completely exclude the earth from being hollow.  Earthquake waves
             > have been noticed to bend as they descend into the earth causing them to
             > curve back up to the surface before hitting the discontinuity inside the
             > earth scientists claim is the outer core.  This indicates the earth does
             > increase in density with depth which is consistent with a hollow shell
             > using the Newtonian mass of the earth.  In fact, if the earth is hollow
             > and the Newtonian mass of the earth requiring an increased density with
             > depth is correct, then that in itself would exclude their claim to a
             > molten interior.  That discontinuity inside the earth could be the inner
             > surface.
             >
             > Rod
             >
             > As Always,
             >
             > giants@ourhollowearth.com

                 From:
                        "Haal"

            Reply-To:
                        HollowEarth@chc.co.za
                 Date:
                        Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:30:46 +0200
                   To:
                        <HollowEarth@chc.co.za>
              Subject:
                        R: [HollowEarth] - Yet another question
 

             Rafael Miranda wrote:

             >This idea of the hollow earth will be fought and ridiculed by every so
             >called "expert" and we must not expect any sympathy from the scientific
             >community.

             Generally speaking this is true, but Velikovski, Galileo, Tesla, Reich
             were scientists. One thing is the scientific establishment, other thing is
             the scientific people. There are many open-minded scientists but you need
             to present scientific facts.

             >It is not just a matter of been right and been able to prove it. It is a
             >matter of getting someone to listen in the first place!

             The first point is to be able to present scientific facts and theories.

             >Well, that I hope explains why the physicists "say" that the earth cannot
             >be hollow.

             No, the point is that the accepted laws of gravitation say that is NOT
             possible for the Earth to be hollow with a central sun.

             The Hollow-Earth/Central-Sun theory would require the characterization and
             the demonstration of a completely new physics working inside planets.

             This is what you need in the fist place! Or, since the Earth is concerned,
             simply find the polar openings and videotape the central sun.

             Haal

                 From:
                        haaal@tin.it

             Reply-To:
                        HollowEarth@chc.co.za
                 Date:
                        Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:09:18 +0200
                   To:
                        <HollowEarth@chc.co.za>
              Subject:
                        Re: [HollowEarth] - another question

             Ibesis wrote:

             >I have a question about this theory of gravitation....In the case of the
             >gravity on the outside of our planet, is it not obtained through the fact

             >that there is an atmosphere?

             Air pressure is the force exerted on you by the weight of tiny particles of
             air. Earth's atmosphere is pressing against each square inch of you with a
             force of 1 kilogram per square centimeter. But air pressure is all around us
             and since the momentum of the molecules is randomly distributed in space,
             the resultant force due to pressure is zero. For instance, a thin flat plate
             in air will experience a zero resultant force due to air pressure since the
             forces due to pressure on its two sides have the same magnitude and they
             point in opposite directions. We say that pressure is isotropic meaning
             equal in all directions.

             >Would the same not apply inside the sphere as well?
             >Air pressure applied to hold things in place?

             Consider the Space Shuttle habitat as the inner Earth, an astronaut as its
             inhabitant and observe what happens. The air pressure inside the Shuttle is
             maintained near to the Earth value, but you will see the astronaut (or the
             inner Earth inhabitant) floating without weight. Air pressure does not hold
             things in place.

       &nbs