The Hollow Earth
How It All Began
by Jan Lamprecht
Author of the Hollow Earth Mailing List
Sections On This Page:
How it all Began!
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
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'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:
I later discovered that a Polish scientist had calculated the temperature of the earth taking into account latitude as the determining factor. From 40 degrees north and south the real temperatures begin to differ from the predicted temperatures. By the time we get to the poles we find the poles to be a staggering 30 degrees warmer than they should be.
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) 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:
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.
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!