Sections On This Page:

How it all Began - How Jan Got Started

Jan's Definition of the Hollow Earth

Subscribe to the Hollow Earth Mailing List

How it all Began!

From: "Jan Lamprecht"
To: Hollow.Earth.List
Date:Thu, 17 Aug 1995 22:42:55 +0200
Subject:How it all began....

Jan,

Please share with the group how you became interested in the Hollow Earth.

Thanks for doing the group .... I expect to see more contact with our Brothers and Sisters from the Inner Surface in the real near future.

If you have some files with good information on the Hollow Earth, please let us know, we can find a spot for it somewhere on our web site

Joshua Shapiro
V J Enterprises


HOLLOW EARTH WEB SITE:

Joshua,

You're welcome to take anything which you think is useful and put it on the WWW. We've only just started. Is your WWW page about your book or the Hollow Earth in general or what?

Re: How did I get interested?

My original interest in the Hollow Earth was sparked back in the late 1970's while I was studying the books and prophecies of T Lobsang Rampa. The main reference is contained in a single chapter in the book "Twighlight". In it he answers a reader's question and states that as far as Tibetans are concerned, the Earth is Hollow and there are people living inside. The outer crust is 800 - 1000 miles thick and there is a hole at each pole of approximately 1,400 miles in diameter. Inside live the REMNANTS of Atlantis, Lemuria and a couple of other civilisations. They are ruled by a man whom the Tibetans call: The King of the World. According to the Tibetans, the Dalai Lama is the Outer World representative. The Inside contains more land than sea, and the population is approximately 800 million. Their flying saucers come out of the Poles from time to time.

I kinda freaked at the time because it seemed so unbelievable. Later, in a library I saw that famous composite photo of the hole as seen from above. I could find no further books on the subject and let the entire thing rest. Mentally I simply said "There's perhaps a 10% possibility that the earth is hollow - I'll evaluate it at some later date". And for well over 10 years I was happy to let it rest. I didn't REALLY believe that a hole 1,400 miles in diameter could remain hidden for so long or go unnoticed in some way and was thus somewhat skeptical about the whole idea of such a huge entrance. Satellite photos gave nothing away.

My interest was rekindled late in 1993 when I was on Compuserve. I was chatting to a fellow whom I regarded as one of my very best friends, and in who's research I had a great deal of faith. His name is Jeff. He actually kicked the whole subject off and we began talking. True to form, Jeff had read lots of really OLD stuff about the Hollow Earth, and brought forth item after item about it. I was very impressed and that set off an obsession which has still not ended.

What was very sad for me was that in spite of Jeff's great knowledge, he himself actually ended up rejecting the possibility of the earth being hollow. But his objections didn't make much sense to me. He also suggested that I do my own thinking on the matter, but from a mathematical perspective. He said he'd like to see whether I could mathematically prove/disprove the theory. I accepted the challenge. Astronomy had always been a favourite subject of mine so I began thinking about the things I knew about astronomy. I did some reading. Then I began to realise that there are some anomalies which would make sense. For example, back in the 1970's two Soviet scientists from the Soviet academy of sciences proposed the theory that the moon was a Hollow Alien Spaceship placed in orbit around the earth.

I must digress at this point: Although Jeff rejected the idea of the Earth being hollow, he actually accepts the Soviet proposal that the Moon may be Hollow - even he admits that the edvidence for there being a Hollow Moon is very strong. I had been aware of that book myself back in the 70's and my own acceptance of the Soviet theory had somewhat softened my idea to the fact that perhaps the Earth too was hollow.

There has often been speculation, even amongst Astronomers and scientists, that Phobos, one of the Moons of Mars may be Hollow. Its strange orbit is cited as one of the reasons - plus many strange markings on it and a "huge" crater which covers about 1/4 of its surface area. I'd like to point out that Sitchin (12th Planet) is quite comfortable with the idea that Phobos is a hollowed out little moon (about 20 miles in diameter).

As I looked at the numbers I began to realise that our estimates of mass are really relative. If all the planets were hollow we wouldn't really know. It also occurred to me that if Planet X, from which the asteroid belt had maybe been created, had been Hollow, then its break-up could be all the more easily explained. For example, if a planet like the Earth only has a crust and is Hollow Inside, then a big whack from a large object would cause it to shatter - and pieces would fly all over the place. If such a planet had been solid then shattering would not likely occur. Sure a big chunk could be carved out of it, but it wouldn't SHATTER.

I had noticed too, evidence piling up, proving beyond any doubt, that comets were merely asteroids with ice/gas and that they were really one and the same thing. Much of the "missing mass" of Planet X could also be accounted for if it was hollow. Another Soviet Cometary specialist has stated that all existing comets, are really no more than 100,000 years old. Comets and asteroids are becoming less. Of course there may be a few which have great orbital periods of 10 or 100 thousand years, but the vast majority have been swallowed up by the Sun, Jupiter, etc.

Another thing worth noting is that there are some flying saucers which travel directly from the South Pole along S.America northwards. Some of them move as regularly as clockwork. I also heard somewhere that Canada had a very great number of sightings per capita.

It had always bothered me too: If Atlantis had ever existed, then where did the people go? Why would such a simple catastrophe have wiped EVERYONE out? Surely there must be survivors? Why didn't they just go and live somewhere else?

I also decided that seismology is a *MUST* to go and have a look at. And that's what I did. I read up about seismology to see if there was anything which might have been misinterpreted and which might disclose that the earth was hollow. I then discovered why it is they say the Earth's core is a LIQUID. The reason is because certain waves can ONLY travel through SOLID material. These waves can not travel through: liquids, gases or a vacuum. However, scientists simply "assume" that the core is a liquid - they do not explore the possibility that the core is a gas or even a vacuum. I also discovered that approximately 7,000 miles from an earthquake you will find a "shadow" area where certain types of waves never appear. Could the core/hollow be blocking out these waves? Then at about 10,000 miles or so these waves reappear.

I also realised the complexity of such waves and how they are reflected and saw that it is quite easy to misinterpret them. Later I acquired a very good seismic modeling program which runs under windows (and which I'll upload if anyone wants). It is a most excellent program which shows how the waves move through the earth PLUS, what the various monitoring stations will actually see on their print outs. As you look at this you will see that our methods of watching seismic waves leaves much to be desired. When waves come up we have no idea where they were - we really can't tell much. But look too and you will see a great many waves bouncing off the "mantle" - we are told this is due to a change in density. Keep in mind that a Hollow object makes the wave movements many many times more complex because waves bounce back and forth between the two thin crusts and this will complicate the hell out of the whole thing. And when you look at the seismic model you will see that waves are reflected, re-reflected, re-re-reflected and so on. The earth sometimes "vibrates" for an hour or two after a big quake.

Probably the BIGGEST argument against the hollow earth is a PSYCHOLOGICAL one. Most people, including myself, just can not believe that it could possibly have been missed - or was it?

After Jeff kicked the whole thing off, another friend, Chris, managed to help me locate a number of old books, written in 1908 and 1913 and 1920. Later I was to learn that the Hollow Earth debate has been going on for about 200 years - but previously, prior to 1908, it was a debate in which scientists took part. What killed the debate was when Admiral Robert Peary claimed in 1908 to have discovered the North Pole. That was really the death knell of the whole idea. In 1914, the Austrians were going to send an expedition to the North Pole. As part of its mission they were to check for the Hollow Earth's entrance. They did this on the strength of a book by an American called: Marshall Gardner.

Gardner wrote one of the best books on the subject ever. It is a 400 page book, of which I have a copy, which contains notes from the journals of many famous explorers, including Amundsen, Peary, Lt Greely and many others. Gardner has a patent registered in the USA as the "discoverer of the Hollow Earth". Gardner pointed out the inconsistencies in Adm Peary's own log. The fact that only he and an Eskimo are the only witnesses that this was the North Pole. The fact that on one occassion he wrote that you struggled like hell to even do 16-20 miles per day through the snow, yet on the last 2 days of his journey he did a staggering 40+ miles per day.- and so on. How he left the others of his team behind and they weren't witnesses. Peary had also made previous claims of discovery on earlier missions and these had been DISPROVEN. Months before Peary, another American had claimed to have reached the Pole. His claim was refuted shortly afterwards. Peary's claim was investigated by the US congress (in 1920 I think) and TOTALLY REFUTED. Apparently these are public records which can be obtained. The US Congress held a hearing and refuted Peary's claims. Yet, to this day Peary is regarded as the discoverer of the North Pole.

Gardner's studies were detailed - but he wasn't the only one. I later discovered that the Smithsonian Institue was originally formed in 1842 to fund an expedition by Lt Wilkes to find the entrance to the Hollow Earth. Lt Wilkes failed.

What you must understand is this: The poles are not just flattened, they curve inwards. Now keep in mind that all navigational methods are based on the assumption that the earth is a sphere. Nowhere on the face of the earth, except the poles, does the earth depart from this shape. Thus navigation works everywhere except there. As you go over the lip of the entrance and begin the inward descent you think you're on the other side of the earth - you are totally unaware that you are entering a huge hole - a hole so big that the Space shuttle on its highest orbital level of 750 miles could comfortably fly inside. Although you can not see the other side, there is a new phenomenon known to all Polar explorers: The Water sky. If you look at the sky, it acts like a mirror and you see BEYOND the horison. This phenomenon is mentioned by all Polar explorers. Lt Greely even noticed the shortening of the horison. He found he could never see very far. Many many abnormalities were noted by explorers:

- Warm winds from the north<- cooured snow containing huge amounts of pollens from unknown plants animals moving NORTH for winter polar bears moving north away from their prey enormous flocks of birds numbering in the millions (coming from the north) temperatures far warmer than expected.

Also, during that initial exercise of mine, I studied geomagnetism. I had never felt comfortable with the "dynamo-in-the-core" theory. The idea that currents in the core could create a magnetic field. I have many reasons for rejecting this idea. For example, in order for there to be convection currents in the first place, there have to be temperature differentials of a big enough degree. IOW, some magma in the core must be a lot hotter than the other. This must also imply some sort of cooling process or some process which keeps one part warmer than the other. Without an adequate temperature differential currents won't arise in the first place. We can rule out cooling, because some scientists have found that the earth is not cooling. But even if we do have these currents, I still don't see how magnetism is generated. Heat is not a friend of magnetism. As a substance is heated, so it loses its magnetism - of course that's not quite an appropriate argument here. More appropriate is: Can a liquid/semi-liquid generate a magnetic field?

As far as I know this has never been done. The core is also, supposedly under great pressure and we are dealing with molten iron - so I don't think it has much in the way of fluidity or speed. Surely, a snails-pace movement is not adquate to generate a magnetic field which stretches beyond the Moon? Also, why should there be a single focal point for this magnetic field anyway? The core is rotating along with the rest of the earth - there can't possibly be any friction (in the same way that the atmosphere rotates with the rest of the earth. If the atmosphere did not move along with the earth we'd have 1,000 mph winds blowing at the equator - instead, even a 100 mph wind is a great rarity). I wondered instead, if a nuclear sun positioned in the core could be the source of the geomagnetic field. There seemed to be evidence which could support this. All lava is slightly radioactive. Scientists speculate that the earth's heat is derived from radium which decays. But hold on: Radium is the lesser brother of Uranium. Decaying uranium becomes radium.

So if there's radium then it might we have been uranium to start with. In West Africa there can be found a "natural nuclear reactor". A place where sufficient uranium occurred naturally to kick off a nuclear explosion. So I surmised: Wouldn't it be more logical, during the formation of the earth for heavy substances like Gold, Uranium, Lead to have been in the core instead of iron? But, you don't need much Uranium to kick off a nuclear reaction. Also sometimes these things are self-enriching if enough of it is around. This would explain why in prehistoric times, huge volcanoes spewed out lava which filled entire continents. It would explain why there is evidence of the earth expanding by 20% (continents don't fit perfectly as continental drift theory would have us believe, but if the earth is shrunk 20% then there is a PERFECT fit between South America and Africa).

I discovered too that the Aurora baffles science. That particles similar to those from the Sun are somehow appearing in the upper atmosphere of the Poles - but there are far too many of these particles to be accounted for by the Sun alone. So where do they come from? They come from the Inner Sun - which is also the source of the Aurora and the light. This also explains why the Aurora is linked to the geomagnetic field. The geomagnetic field is not stable. In fact, it wobbles A LOT, and at a high rate. It moves large distances within short periods of time. This can be explained by having a central Sun wobbling around a central point. In short, I pose this question: If scientists are willing to accept that decaying radium causes most of the earth's heat - then does it take much leap of the imagination to suppose that just a little bit more radium/uranium in one point deep within the crust could have kicked off a self-sustaining nuclear reaction? Even a Sun of as little as 28 miles in diameter would weigh many millions of tons. It would hollow out the earth easily and all the lava would pour out on to the surface. Later things would cool down inside.

Gravity is an issue all by itself, but rest assured that Newtonian gravity works like a DREAM even in the Hollow Earth scenario. I have tested that idea to its fullest.

Eventually, I decided that the evidence, to my way of thinking, was in favour of the Earth POSSIBLY being hollow. I could see no great objections to the idea. It would explain many things which scientists currently regard as anomalies and which they are HARD PUT TO EXPLAIN.

Since then I have discovered so much more.

Sadly, very very sadly, my friend Jeff just fobbed off the best arguments I put forth. He countered with his own arguments - which to me did not make much sense. In a nutshell, the main thrust of his argument was this: If there's this huge hole, then why don't people end up wandering into it and seeing the Inner world? How can two teams, crossing the Antarctic, manage to meet at one point?

Answer to the first question:

The hole is very very big. From the Outer lip to the Inside of the sphere you are looking at a circle (through the crust) with a diameter of 800 - 1000 miles. To get even half way, you have to travel about 1200 - 1300 miles in a straight line. If you wander even slightly to one side or the other the journey will become much longer. Also, compasses tend to go haywire so you're really in a quandry. If you go in at a skew angle you could walk into the hole, by several hundred mile and out again, perhaps crossing a distance of a 1000 or more miles and never once even know that you were in the hole. This is a feature of enormous size and larger than most countries. If you do not consciously go looking for this hole and taking careful bearing using the stars (until they disappear), etc you can easily miss the mark.

Question 2: The standard procedure when your compass goes haywire is to move away from the pole in question (north or south). When your compass behaves normally you then carry on with your journey. The "north/south pole" is merely 90 degrees latitude - and since we assume the earth is a sphere we assume therefore that only one spot in each hemisphere can give us a reading of 90 degrees latitude (by the Sun or any other heavenly body). The manner in which 2 teams coming from opposite sides can meet is simply because they will be moving away from the rim whenever the compass goes crazy. It is not to say that these expeditions met on a spot marked "X". As they zig-zag around this rim they will (unknowingly) be moving in a circle and it is easy to see how they will run into each other. NB: The expeditions in question did not approach each other directly from 180 degrees, so it is easy to see that they must meet. If they approached directly from 180 degrees, then the possibility exists that the one team may go one way round the rim while the other goes another way round the rim.

Jeff also posed the question: If the US base at McMurdo sound is a mere 400 miles from the Pole then how come they didn't notice anything? To me this was a stupid question.

Answer: The US base at the Pole is not "at the Pole". It is on the rim of the "Area of Inaccessibility". This means that the South Pole base is on the rim of a hole 1,400 miles in diameter and you are at least 1,200 miles from the 1/2 way mark going inside. So you can wander 1,000 miles on either side of the South Pole Station and see nothing. McMurdo Sound is 400 miles further away still. There's no way, that at a distance of 1,200+400 miles that anyone at McMurdo sound will see/notice a thing.

You get lost at the Poles - be sure of that. Amundsen, discoverer of the South Pole, got thoroughly lost near the north pole. Amundsen's diaries showed that he got TOTALLY LOST FOR 6 MONTHS! He tried to go from Franz Joseph land to Spitsbergen and got totally lost. When he finally got back to territory he recognised, he was hundreds of miles from where HE'D CALCULATED HIS POSITION TO BE.

During the BBC documentary "Pole-to-Pole" a number of people including the BBC crew were on a small plane going across Antarctica. As they looked out, they made some very telling remarks. One guy said "Gee isn't it amazing how those old explorers could find their way across this continent? Just look how flat and featureless it is, no land marks to go by except the occassional hill. Amazing." He doesn't know how right he may have been.

And even today its no different. That BBC reporter got his distance from Tromso, Norway to the North Pole wrong, as did the UPI release for the distance from Port Barrow to the north pole.

Cartographers also got it wrong. US Navy cartographers were pissed off with US Army cartographers, because their maps didn't match. Entire mountain ranges had to be thrown into the dustbin. Explorer after explorer discovered islands, mountains, seas, which others couldn't ever find again.

I am convinced though that the US Govt, the Russians and maybe a few others know what's going on there.

The Hollow Earth thing was sad for me in a way, because Jeff and I fought about it a great deal, and as far as I was concerned he just wouldn't listen to reason, to independantly acquired facts or anything else. He shot it down on the basis of a few arguments which underestimated the navigational problems. He said, yeah, but the earth is flattened at the Poles. Well, that just doesn't match the facts. Go and look in any book. The earth's polar diameter is only given as a mere 26 miles less than the equatorial diameter. 26 miles in a distance of 7926.5 is nothing. If I were to draw a scale drawing of the earth you wouldn't even notice that it wasn't a circle. Anyway, scientists of old debated the existence of a POLAR BASIN - that the entire Polar region was DEPRESSED. Some thought it was depressed and others thought it lead to a hole inside. But that does not explain it all. Amundsen, while in his ship, The Fram, found himself viewing a red SUN - the "mock sun" at a time when the Sun wasn't supposed to be above the horizon. Many explorers have had a glimpse of the Inner sun - the "mock sun" - because it appeared in places where the Sun could not possibly be.

In the end, this whole interest of mine probably broke up my friendship with this guy - which to me was quite a blow.

I had another interesting episode which also harmed another close friendship. Another guy I know, who once worked for the NSA, and who loved photography responded when I told him about the Hollow Earth. He said he had a photo which he'd obtained at Goddard Space flight centre in the 1970's. This photo was of the earth. He'd borrowed some negatives and made copies one weekend. When I remarked that I was wondering if the earth was Hollow, he of course turned to his big colour photo. And there on it he saw the hole - a side view- with clouds flowing into it. He scanned part of it in black and white and e-mailed it to me. He'd always been friendly, but warned me not to talk too much because the NSA monitors all computer communications. He'd always said that making a copy and mailing it to me would be no problem. As soon as he had a chance (he was the CEO of a company) he would mail me a copy. But suddenly he began acting weird when I pressed him on the issue. Later he more or less disappeared and only resurfaced at odd times. He behaved in a weird manner which others noticed too. Some of us wondered whether he'd been "silenced".

Later, Dennis Crenshaw also told me that a similar thing had happened to a buddy of his who was making progress with Hollow Earth research. Dr Laslo Spengler, another researcher I recently met has warned me too of the subversion of UFO organisations and of the BENEFITS of going it alone - doing your research without others peeking over your shoulders. As I will later show, the same happened to Al Bender back in the 1950's - and you will see how Al was silenced.

I have long held the opinion, and many will hate me for saying this, but UFOlogy IS GOING NOWHERE. People are rushing down the wrong path, watching Area 51, chasing reptilians, looking at crop circles and trying to catch cattle mutes. No big coverup is needed because people are already looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing. Back in the early days, the researchers were on even ground with the US Govt, but once the Govt's silencing campaign, in the form of MIBs had succeeded, the need for silencing became less and less and today they only silence the VERY FEW who DARE go against the grain and who dare postulate that the Earth is hollow and that an advanced civilisation may be on our doorstep. These few are the only people who actually stand a chance of upsetting the cart. I have no doubt that as one gets closer to the truth, the US Govt will begin to play rough.

Finally, I have only spoken about The Hollow Earth so far. To me, there are other issues:

1. Subteranean civilisations.
2. Hollow Planets/Moons.

(2) If the Earth is hollow naturally, then we no longer have to buy into the theory that the Moon is hollow artificially - it could easily be a hollow construct naturally. It opens up a whole new field: Where are all the Aliens who claimed to come from Venus, Mars, etc? Was Adamski a liar? Were all the others liars? Maybe NOT! Maybe they were telling the truth, but because we believe the planets to be devoid of life we think that the Aliens are lying. Perhaps it is that the Aliens are telling the truth and it is we who are being lied to by our side. Let me prioritise some Planets/Moons in order of evidence that they may be hollow:

1. Moon.
2. Earth.
3. Phobos.
4. Mars.
5. Mercury.
6. Callisto(?) (Moon of Saturn)
7. Venus.
8. Neptune/Uranus.

If other planets are inhabited, in this Solar System, then many things in UFOlogy (which didn't make sense before) now begin making A LOT OF SENSE. For example, you can easily see why Hollow Earthers would get mighty upset at the thought of 3 superpowers near the poles having a vast number of nuclear weapons. At the ease with which nuclear attack submarines like "Scorpion" and "Thresher" can easily sail into their world underneath through the pack ice and sneak around underwater being able to instantly launch nuclear missiles which can blow up their cities.

You can see why Aliens might take a dislike to Russian and American probes near the planet Mars. You can begin to understand WHY THE US GOVT MUST ENGAGE IN THIS ENORMOUS COVER-UP.

It opens up a line of thinking and questioning which people have been ignoring for DECADES.

Re: Subteranean civilisations....

I see Subteranean civilisations as a whole different kettle of fish, and as a much more difficult subject. It is a subject which does not sit comfortably with me. I have read of Richard Shavers, Teros(?) and Deros and I do not take it seriously at all. Legends of Leprechauns, etc may be based on truth, but no real accounts exist of these things (that I know of).

If you'd asked me about subteranean civilisations 3 months ago I'd have basically told you to go to hell. As far as I was concerned there was no evidence whatsoever of even the faintest kind, that such a group of people could exist. The problems are even worse for them. No sun, no water - what do you eat, drink, etc? I just couldn't see it as a viable option. The Hollow Earth is a different concept. There's sunlight, equatorial temperatures globally, safe from comets, etc. Great stuff. Its the ideal place to live. Subteranean civilisation - bah humbug.

However, I acquired a very old book: The Coming Race, written in 1871, by the Rt Hon Lord Lytton. Lytton's story is so amazing that I can't believe that UFOlogists haven't dug into it in detail. Here is a man describing something akin to nuclear power; and giving commentaries on a wipe out of the surface civilisations - and all this happened back in 1871. There is just so much in that book. But, worse still, while combing through anomalies I *DO* find evidence that indeed Lord Lytton may well be telling the truth.

And so I am prepared to consider that some races do have little underground villages in which they live and come out from - from time to time. The people Lord Lytton met are known to us today as "The Mothmen". He predicted that they would come out and begin looking around - and they did. The earliest Mothmen sightings I could find were in 1877 - and they have been seen even in the 1960's.

Lytton's book is another which I'd like to discuss and go through with all of you. I regard Richard Shaver type stuff as rubbish. Lord Lytton's book is something else altogether!

Page Index

Jan's Definition of the Hollow Earth

From: "Jan Lamprecht"
To: Subteranean.List
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 23:24:44 +0200
Subject: 1# What do I mean by "Hollow Earth?"
Reply-to: pbs@iafrica.com

Hey Jan.

BTW, could you very briefly tell just what you mean by "hollow Earth"? I'm not too familiar with the concept and having hard time getting the over all picture. Personally, I think it's very possible that there is a subteranean civilization (probably Atlantis-related)... but, are you basically saying that all planets are literally hollow?

GORO

Hi Goro,

Yes, I'm basically thinking along the lines of ALL/MOST planets/moons actually being hollow - like a tennis ball. You could say that I'm "testing" this hypothesis by looking around at literature, anomalies, doing some thinking, etc.

I'm still examining the evidence, thinking about the various aspects and just pondering the whole issue. I like to take my time and think things through. Sometimes I dawdle on like this for years. Don't be fooled into thinking that I haven't had a look at seismology or geology or gravity or other issues. I have.

The basic postulate is simply that the entire Earth is hollowed out. That most of what we see resembles a tennis ball. There's a hard/flexible outer shell which can take meteor impacts - up to a certain size. But at the Poles there are 2 gigantic holes somewhere from 800 - 1200 miles in diameter (at their widest point). These huge holes can be entered and you can sail or fly or walk all the way into the interior. Gravity still works as normal, but it holds you "up" the other way. The holes are so big, that you don't even know they're there (except from space).

Thus a ship would sail as normal. Winds would blow and so on. The atmosphere flows in as well. The atmosphere isn't very thick. 99% of the atmosphere is contained in the first 30 miles. So if you will consider a hole perhaps 1200 miles wide, curving gently inside, through a crust of 900 miles in thickness, then at the NARROWEST part you will have a gap of about 300 miles or so. It is quite possible therefore that in the middle of this hole is a pure vacuum. That "space" as we know it, exists in the middle of this hole and that as this hole once again widens on to the inside, that we find ourselves in a vaccuum in the centre of the earth. Inside the earth, like on the outside, will be oceans, mountains, rivers, continents and atmosphere. But that atmosphere, like on the outside will be 30 miles high. Now if the Earth's crust is say 900 miles thick, then we find that beyond the inner atmosphere is a vaccuum of:

7900 - 900 - 900 - 30 - 30 = 6040 miles in diameter. That would be big enough to fit the Moon into it. The Moon being only 2160 miles in diameter. But no, there's no moon inside. Although a fellow by the name of Symmes, postulated that inside the Earth was another Earth and another (5 or 8 levels within each other). But Symmes was somewhat different. What I'm talking about is much simpler - the same thing that Olaf Jansen says he saw and the same thing the Tibetans talk of. That inside we have a world which is exactly the same as on the outside. In this Inner vacuum, is a little Sun. A small nuclear powered sun - possibly powered by nuclear fission rather than fusion as stars are. A tiny sun about 30 - 300 miles in diameter (a guess) would weight many millions of tons and would give forth light. This little Sun would wobble around in the centre of this vacuum. Being nuclear in nature it would generate a magnetic field - as does our Sun. This magnetic field would flow out of the Earth through its holes. As this little Sun wobbled around, so would the magnetic field. This magnetic current would flow out of say the South pole across the surface of the earth and in through the North pole. A compass on a ship on the outside would point towards the North. As you get closer to the hole, the compass would begin pointing DOWN. If you don't physically adjust your compass down then it might begin spinning around. As you go deeper into the hole and reach the inner surface you would find your compass returning to normal again. It would still point "north" but that would now be south.

The Earth's motion through space is not perfectly constant. In fact the Earth speeds up and slows down in its motion. Thus our little inner sun would wobble around (like a passenger in a bus).

But how would the Inner sun stay in the centre and not crash to the side? Well, this is where I can point to a most "bizarre" connection with that book "My contact with Flying Saucers". (Its not about the Hollow Earth, but its about physics - Alien style). The Alien Captain tells us about the repulsion of light. What is interesting is that the theory of gravity alone would be unable to account for a central sun holding its position. The central sun would move - inevitably - because of the earth changing its speed and direction. Gravity as we know it would cause the central Sun to crash into the side of the Earth. The moment the central Sun moved even a little to one side, gravity from the closest side would draw it to the wall and the central Sun would crash into the side. But, the Alien Captain explained a great deal about the pressure of light. Since this central Sun emits light, the light would of course push against the Earth. So let's say the Earth slows down a little. The central Sun should come crashing into the side. Well, in this case as it comes closer to one side, the pressure of light - due to its nearness, would push harder on the earth and impart a bit more momentum to it. This is negligible really. More importantly, the light of the Sun would be reflected back onto the Sun itself thereby pushing it back. The central Sun would thus wobble back and forth and move around in sympathy to changes in the speed and direction of the motion of the Earth.

Light from the Inner earth would shine out through the holes. But since the holes are really very tiny, it would not happen often. Note the Maedler phenomenon I mentioned with regard to Venus? That only on 2 occassions so far: 1686 and 1833, have astronomers observered light shining out of both Venus's poles. At other times, the light shining out would be indirect light and it would form the Aurora.

The Aurora chops and changes and to a certain extent moves and behaves in sympathy with the Earth's magnetic field and the emissions from the central Sun. Science knows very well that there's a link between the Aurora and the Magnetic field. The problem is, that they reckon it is due to emissions from the Sun. The Alien Captain tells us some other things about "Alien Physics" - like, the fact that Stars only shine when in a magnetic field. In this case therefore we can arrive at another explanation for the apparent link between the Aurora, magnetic field and the central sun. It goes thus:

When the Sun begins acting up and generating more emissions (at all wave lengths), it may also be generating a stronger magnetic field. This in turn causes the central Sun to shine more brightly and to emit more light.

While digging through texts on the Aurora, I came across mention of calculations done by scientists. The problem they found was that the Sun could NOT be the cause of the Aurora. The problem being that we do not receive enough particles from the Sun in the upper atmosphere of the Earth to cause the Aurora. Their calculations show that there are more "sun-like" particles up there in the atmosphere at the Poles than there should be by the action of the Sun alone. So they are stumped. But, if you look at Hollow Earth theory, you'll have no problem accounting for this. There will be enough reflected light and emissions coming out from the hole (depending on the position of the central Sun). These particles are ALSO sun-like and they, plus the particles from the Sun cause the aurora.

One could ask oneself many questions about conventional Aurora theory. Like: Why are auroras only around the poles? Surely there should be MORE particles arriving from the sun at other places on the Earth than at the poles - which are so oblique. Why aren't there more auroras all over the place? Why only the poles? (Proximity to the magnetic poles is the current explanation).

The Earth's magnetic field - IMHO - could be caused entirely by the central Sun. I have come to wonder whether perhaps magnetic fields are ONLY caused by "Suns" - and NEVER by normal matter as we know it - except when specially magnetised. If so, then any planetary body with a magnetic field must therefore have a central Sun. Now this is an interesting conjecture because time and again we find magnetic fields on "cold bodies" where our scientists have calculated that that body can not have a heated central core.

That central Sun also produces heat. And if we have winds blowing in and out from the Inner earth to the Outer earth, then we should have some sort of heat exchange. The same is true of water. Note those Antarctic pollyanas I spoke about.

In the early days of Arctic exploration scientists calculated the expected temperatures for the latitudes as explorers moved north. Invariably they found that northern latitudes were far warmer than they should be if heat from the Sun alone was the source. I have come across calculations done a few decades ago by a Polish scientist in this regard. His calculations of the Earth's temperature show that the temperatures at the poles are 30 degrees warmer than they should be. So our scientists then say that it is warm equatorial air warming the poles. But does that really make sense? Is there really enough equatorial air going far enough to the poles and retaining its heat long enough to keep them 30 degrees warmer?

I often wonder if air exchange may cause havoc with all those super-computers which are calculating next week's weather!

Where on the earth would you expect to find the most fish? Believe it or not, the Polar regions have a greater density of fish life than the equator and warmer areas. Fish have a type of anti-freeze in their blood. But that does not explain why they should thrive more in such regions. Or is it that fish from the Inner earth - where the people do not fish as much as we do - spill over and swim out of the holes?

The same is true of bird life. There are accounts too of bears and other creatures in the Arctic going NORTH for winter.

There really are a lot of issues to look at. But there are enough strange things which makes one wonder. The pattern which I have stumbled across - and only really appreciated fully recently - is that most types of Fortean phenomenon are related to the Hollow Earth/planets or Subteranean issues in one way or another. It seems to me that Forteana - if nothing else - is pointing the way. I never expected this.

One thing which I found interesting was that scientists have attempted to find the "centre" of the Earth's magnetic field. They found it was 82 miles off centre. But that's not the whole story. The Earth's magnetic field does not just gradually move westwards as we are told. From what I've read, the Earth's magnetic field actually moves in a jagged orbit of approximately 30 miles PER DAY. IOW, as the Earth rotates daily, and the Inner sun wobbles, this wobble is traced out as a jagged ellipse DAILY. This - if nothing else - should clearly show that this could not possibly be caused by currents. It shows that at any one moment, the position of the centre of the magnetic field is at a certain spot INDEPENDANT of the Earth's physical position. I have many problems with ALL convection current theories in the earth. I do not believe any of them. I have a particular argument dealing with convection currents in the core, plus the fact that gravity will grow less and less as you get closer to the centre of the earth (assuming its solid).

I have tried to get more data regarding the motion of the Earth's magnetic field. But, because I'm not in the USA I do not have access to the USGS magnetic data BBS. However I think it is worth studying.

If one could study the correlation between the movement of the earth in space, its rotation and that magnetic centre - you might just be able to prove that the Earth's magnetic field is being generated by a specific body.

Did you know that when atom bombs are exploded - that there is an aurora in that area for several days afterwards? That proves two things:

(a) An aurora can be produced in latitudes other than the poles.
(b) Nuclear FISSION can produce the particles which create an aurora.

This brings us to the formation of the Earth. Geologists have discovered that the Earth is not really cooling down, but that it generates its own heat. This is attributed to the decay of radium. But all radium is merely decayed URANIUM. Is it not possible therefore that when the Earth originally formed, that the heavier elements (as expected) would descend to the centre. Since the very heavy elements are unstable - all we would need is somewhere down there to be enough uranium to reach critical mass, and then we have a self-igniting naturally occuring nuclear reaction (like happened in Gabon in West Africa). Immediately it would melt the surrounding rock, produce enormous temperatures and soon immense quakes would shake the earth and enormous volcanoes would spew forth lava. Huge amounts which would form the first continents. As it melts everything around it, eventually, this wobbling nuclear reaction would hollow out the earth. Perhaps more than one such reaction begins and eventually all the nuclear reactions would end up in the middle of this space and amalgamate and form the central Sun. This would leave the entire Earth's crust honeycombed with large caverns and tunnels - in which subteranean life could exist at a future time. Later when things cool down, and a vaccum forms inside, water and air could be sucked inside. This is all very hypothetical and scanty. I can not for example think of a good reason why two holes should form. Perhaps weaker material will exist in those areas, or perhaps some north-south motion will cause the Inner Sun to wobble greatly between two points. Of course, those holes need not always be at the poles.

It is truly a fascinating subject, and the mere thought of Hollow worlds is quite exciting.

Was the "Garden of Eden" inside the Earth? Well, Olaf Jansen - who claims to have gone there emphatically says Yes!

Could it be that "normal" life is actually intended INSIDE worlds. Could we be the "abnormal?" I say this because if one overcomes the idea of a central Sun - then you immediately see many advantages in that sort of idea. I have done some basic calculations and a central Sun of 28 miles in diameter would present the same size in the sky as our Sun does. If its luminosity is in similar proportion, then that would be enough to light up and warm up such a world. Even such a tiny sun would weigh many millions of tons. Or, it could be bigger, but not so bright - in which case it would weigh many many more millions of tons.

Now think about this: Comets and meteors can destroy life. But, they can not harm any life at all which exists below the crust. The impact of even a small object 100 miles across could probably destroy all life on Earth. And an object 100 miles across - in space - is nothing - its like a spec of dust. Yet, even such an impact would have almost no effect on life on the Inside. It might produce an earthquake at best. Think too of climate. Here we live on the outside. Latitude=temperature. Go a little north and you get cold. Go to the equator and you get warm. Then you have day and night too. But, inside a globe, ALL POINTS are equidistant from that Sun. You could have an entire world with all of it having a tropical climate. Isn't this more sensible? Isn't this more conducive to life perhaps?

There is an interesting idea which the Buddhists have. They believe in cycles. In regular Earth changes, quakes - the ends of Ages. They believe that the Earth is a special place, a school.

Just a few weeks ago I mentioned that other book about UFO contact from Under the sea. There, Aliens also spoke of regular pole shifts and Alien peoples coming from far and wide to watch, study and help us through this catastrophic thing. But wait a minute! What about THEM? If they live as we do, then surely it should be happening to them too (since many of them are human and live under similar conditions). Why don't THEY have Pole shifts? Why aren't they afflicted by Earth changes? WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT US THAT EVERYONE SEES US AS A SORT OF EXCEPTION?

I have an idea - its a bizarre idea - but could it be that WE are among the very few who live on the OUTSIDE of our world? That our world is special - not because it has life - but because it has life on the Inside AND the Outside. Could that be the secret?

Have a look around. Whether you read about spiritulism, reincarnation, buddhism, UFOs...whatever. There is ONE THEME that keeps coming back to us over and over. It goes thus:

(a) There is life on many many planets. Many are Earth like.
(b) Earth is a SCHOOL, Earth is DIFFERENT from other planets.
(c) Life on Earth gets wiped out regularly.
(d) Why are there so many civilisations out there which do NOT seem to be wiped out regularly?

The question I keep asking is: Why? What should make Earth different from other places? This bizarre answer is most intruiging. Could it be that *WE* have our entire point of view REVERSED from the NORM in the Universe, because we live on the Outside? Thus when we go searching for life, we look only on the outside. So we see bare worlds - deserts and we say to ourselves that *WE* are the only life. YET, perhaps these same desert worlds have great civilisations inside their hollowed out interiors. But we just don't recognise it?

I want to point you to a bizarre coincidence which occurred in our group (the UFO/Prophecy group) many weeks ago. The significance of it will not have struck either you or Lew or most of the others at that time. So let me refresh your memory.

Remember "Tarabich" the Serbian prophet? Remember what Sever Jura told us about Tarabich's prophecies? Well, Tarabich had predicted (over 100 years ago) that we would go into space and all we would find were DESERT WORLDS. We would search but find no life. Then, much later, we would FIND LIFE on those same worlds, because we would understand something which we didn't understand before.

I didn't know about Tarabich. It was Lew who came across the guy and then we looked at his prophecies. But aren't those just the darndest statements? Was Tarabich predicting HOLLOW WORLDS?

It's worth thinking about.

BTW, Goro - I'm wondering if I ever sent you my original postings like the one "How it all began" and such like.

I welcome questions if there are any aspects which trouble you. It is truly a most difficult and most bizarre subject - the entire concept.

Oh yes, I nearly forgot something. You mentioned "remnants of Atlantis" living underground. This brings me to another interesting point. Imagine a continent/island of very advanced people with space ships, etc. Quakes rock the place. Now what's stopping them from evacuating and going to live ELSEWHERE on the Earth? Why should most of those people die from something as innocuous as some quakes? Why can't there be enough SURVIVORS? Why shouldn't there have been enough survivors to start new cities elsewhere? Not even in a nuclear war will you find EVERYONE dying.

Apart from them flying to another planet (which would seem pretty much an OVERREACTION wouldn't you say to something as simple as some quakes) - wouldn't it seem more likely that they found a much nicer place to live? Why live in underground tunnels and caverns when you can live on the surface in the sunshine? Why didn't they pick out the most beautiful place on the rest of the Earth and MOVE THERE? There must have been plenty of places to go. Or is it, that they knew of a place which IS nicer than anywhere on the surface and that they DID go there? And that may be where they are living today - in the Inner Earth - along with survivors from Lemuria, Mu and all the other civilisation?

Life on Earth thus works like this:

(a) New colonies of humans/beings are seeded on the surface after a Pole shift.

(b) If they develop enough and survive long enough to see it through to the next pole shift and all their cities are destroyed, then they move inside the Earth where things are much safer. If they have figured out that the Earth is hollow and they have the technology to move.

(c) Go back to (a) for the next Class.

This is a "conspiracy" on the part of higher beings/Gods and this is what "graduation" from the School of Planet Earth is all about. We get stuck here on the Outer Earth and we have to figure things out for ourselves. We begin as barbarians and savages and see if we can make it to eventually qualify for membership of a greater order in the Universe.

Kinda weird eh?

There's something which I think you might not have come across and that is the series of books written by Don Wilson. He wrote a book about a theory postulated by Soviet Scientists in the mid 1970's wherein they reckoned that our Moon was hollowed out - a spaceship in fact. There's actually tons of evidence for that. The Moon is a very strange place. It was not always there. The Soviets showed that the Moon has a very tough outer skin and all craters are very shallow REGARDLESS of the width of the meteor which struck and formed them. The *ONLY* exception is this newly photographed crater at the Moon's South Pole. It is much deeper than any of the other craters. The average density of the Moon is the same as aluminium and you know how light that is. There are all sorts of funny things which have happened on the Moon. Clouds of water vapour have been seen and measured by astronomers. All sorts of funny clouds have come out from the Moon. Many of the anomalies on the Moon have been documented by astronomers and are known as TLPs. I found the arguments for the Hollow Moon to be extremely strong. I can't see how anyone can think otherwise once you've gone through the data. The seismic data is extremely impressive too because it had scientists literally falling off their chairs when the first seismic information was in. There was also an analysis done by a scientist at NASA in 1962 wherein he concluded that the Moon must be hollow.

What is interesting - and you should keep this in mind - is that if one object is hollow, then it is likely that most everything else might be too. In Astronomy, MASS is dealt with on the basis of RELATIVE masses. So if the Moon is Hollow, then so could the Earth and everything else be - because GRAVITY (our gravity) is based on masses - relative masses and distances. If only one object was Hollow, then it would stand out like a sore thumb. But what if they all were?

Did you see my e-mail about Polar anomalies on different planets in the Solar System? Did you see that ZIP file of photos?

Cheers,

Jan

Page Index

How to Subscribe to Hollow Earth List

From: "Jan Lamprecht"
To: rjoshua@sprintmail.com (Richard L. Shapiro)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 22:42:50 +0200
Subject: Re: subscribe hollow
Reply-to: pbs@iafrica.com

Hi,

Thank you for joining my Hollow Earth List Service!

I hope you enjoy it. You are encouraged to talk to the others and to chat. No flaming will be tolerated. Just good old chit chat about the Hollow Earth and any other related phenomenon.

If you don't like it - or you think *I* should have my head examined, then just unsubscribe!

PLEASE NOTE:

When you want to send a message to the group you MUST put the word:

HOLL:

- or -

holl:

somewhere in the BODY of the message so that my mail reader can reroute it to the necessary group of people. If you don't do this then it will assume it to be a private message meant for me only.

To unsubscribe, simply send a blank message with the Subject being:

unsubscribe hollow (the words must be in lower case)

If you later want to rejoin, the simply subscribe again by sending the message:

subscribe hollow

Cheers,

Jan.

* Hell was full so I came back...
* In the beginning there was nothing...then it exploded...
  (The Big Bang Theory)
* A man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client
* Happiness is the planet Earth in your rear view mirror...