->  SearchNet's   IUFO   Mailing List




                            
                            THE HOLLOW EARTH

                             [Part 8 of 15]

               
               The Greatest Geographical Discovery in History

                  By Dr. Raymond Bernard  B.A., M.A. Ph.D.


                          
                          ORIGIN OF THE MAMMOTH

    Gardner claims that the mammoth and elephant-like creatures of tropical 
origin found frozen in the Arctic ice, which is derived from fresh water 
(not salty water as one would suppose, since this is the only water found 
there) are really animals from the interior of the Earth that came to 
the surface and became frozen, and are not prehistoric animals as commonly 
supposed.  Gardner's theory of the subterranean origin of the mammoth 
found confirmation in Admiral Byrd's observation of a living mammoth 
during his 1,700 mile flight into the land beyond the North Pole, within 
the polar opening.

    Gardner claims that these strange animals not known on the Earth's 
surface were carried by rivers from the Earth's interior, freezing within 
the ice that was then formed.  This theory seems very reasonable, in view 
of the ice being formed from fresh water not found in the Arctic Ocean. 
Since this ice, like icebergs, could not have been formed by ocean 
water, the only explanation is that it comes from other water - fresh 
water rivers flowing out through the polar opening from the earth's 
interior.

    Since these animals are found inside of icebergs, which are composed 
of fresh water, this water, like the animals frozen in the ice it forms 
on reaching the surface and exposed to its lower temperature, must come 
from the earth's interior. Gardner speaks of herds of mammoths, 
elephants and other tropical animals which, when they venture out to 
the colder regions near the rim of the polar opening, together with 
glaciers which form there from water from the interior flowing outward 
and freezing become frozen in the ice. Or they might fall into crevasses, 
perhaps concealed by snow, and the moment they fall in, they will be 
covered by snow and snow-water from above and hermetically sealed in the 
ice. 

   This would account for the fresh condition in which these mammoths 
frozen in the ice are found after these glaciers have gradually worked 
their way over the rise of the polar opening and out into the Siberian 
wastes where these frozen animals are found in a perfectly fresh and 
edible condition.

    Robert B. Cook tells of the remains not only of mammoths, but of 
hairy rhinoceros, reindeer, hippopotamus, lion and hyena, found in 
northern glacial deposits. He claims that these animals which were unable 
to endure cold weather were either summer visitors during the severity 
of the glacial period or permanent residents when the country had a 
milder climate. But Gardner maintains that these animals came from inside 
the earth for the following reason: 

    "Since the reindeer, lion and hyena are present day forms of life 
    and not as old as the mammoth (at least in the form in which we 
    know them today and in which these remains show them to have been 
    when they were alive), it is evident that these animals visited 
    the spots where their remains were found not from southerly 
    climates during early glacial epochs, but that they are remains 
    of visitors from the land of the interior. Otherwise these present 
    day forms would not be found alongside those of the mammoth which 
    we have shown to be a present day inhabitant of the interior of 
    the earth. Not knowing this, Mr. Cook has great difficulty in 
    explaining the occurrence together of these forms which in his 
    view are earlier and later forms of life. But when we shall see 
    that they are really contemporaneous (and both came from the 
    interior of the earth), the difficulty vanishes."

    In the stomach of the mammoth was found undigested food consisting 
of young shoots of pine and fir and young fir cones. In others are found 
fern and tropical vegetation. How could an Arctic animal have tropical 
food in its stomach? One explanation is that the Arctic region once had 
a tropical climate, and that a shift of the earth on its axis suddenly 
brought on the Ice Age and changed the climate to a frigid one.

    This theory has been offered to explain both the tropical vegetation 
in the stomach of frozen Arctic animals and the fact that many of these 
huge animals were of tropical species, related to elephants.  Great 
deposits of elephant tusks were found in Siberia as evidence of the 
then northern habitat of tropical animals. But there is another theory 
to explain these facts: that these tropical animals came from the  
interior of the earth, which has a tropical climate, coming out through 
the North Polar opening.  On reaching the cold exterior with its Arctic
climate they froze, since they were unaccustomed to such cold climate. 

    This is the theory held by Ray Palmer, who does not accept the idea 
that these animals died in prehistoric times as a result of a shifting 
of the earth on its axis. He says:
    
    "True the death must have been sudden, but it was not because the 
Arctic was previously tropical and suddenly changed to a frigid climate. 
The sudden Coming of the Ice Age was not the cause of death. The cause 
of death was Arctic in nature, and could have occurred any time, even 
recently. Since the Ice Age there were no mammoths in the known world, 
unless they exist in the mysterious land beyond the Pole, where one  
of them was actually seen alive by members of the Byrd expedition."

    "We have taken the mammoth as a rather sensational modern evidence 
    of Byrd's mysterious land, but there are many lesser proofs that 
    an unknown originating point exists somewhere in the northern 
    regions.  We will merely list a few, suggestions that the reader, 
    in examining the records of polar explorers for the past two 
    centuries, will find it impossible to reconcile with the known 
    areas of food mentioned early in this presentation of facts, 
    those areas surrounding the polar area on your present-day maps."


    
        ASTRONOMICAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF GARDNER'S THEORY OF A
                               HOLLOW EARTH

    Gardner devotes a considerable portion of his book to a discussion 
of astronomical evidence in support of his theory of a hollow earth with 
polar openings and a central sun by referring the original formation 
of planets from nebulae and the polar lights observed from Mars, Venus 
and Mercury.

    In reference to nebulae, Gardner points out that planetary nebulae 
show a shell structure, generally with a central star, as observed by 
H.D. Curtis of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific in an article 
in "Scientific American" on October 14, 1916. He reports:
    
    "Fifty of these nebulae have been studied photographically with the 
    Crosly reflector, using different lengths of exposure in order to 
    bring out the structural details of the bright central portions as 
    well as of the fainter, outlying parts. Most planetary nebulae show 
    a more or less regular ring or shell structure, generally with a 
    central star. "
    
    On the basis of the above and other astronomical evidence, Gardner 
claims that the shape of the nebulae, as seen through the telescope, 
confirms his theory by showing that in the original formation of planets 
from nebulae, they acquire a hollow interior, polar openings and a 
central sun, as is indicated by the shape of the ring nebula shown on 
the accompanying photograph. Gardner writes:

    "Why have scientists never really considered the problem of the 
    shape of the planetary  nebula? They know from actual observation 
    and photographs that the planetary nebula takes the form of a 
    hollow shell open at the poles and having a bright central nucleus 
    or central sun at its center. Why have they never thought what that 
    must imply? It is evidently one stage in the evolution of the nebula. 
    
    "Why have scientists never asked themselves what that conformation 
    must logically lead to? Why do they ignore it altogether? Is it 
    not because they cannot explain it without too great a disturbance 
    of their own theories? But our theory shows how that stage in the 
    evolution of a nebula is reached and how it is passed, we show what 
    precedes it in the history of the nebula and what follows it. 
    
    "We show a continuous evolution passing through that stage to 
    further stages in which those polar openings are fixed, the shell 
    solidified, the nebula reduced to a planet. And it must be 
    remembered that while the original nebula was incomparably greater 
    than a planet in size, measuring even millions of miles across 
    perhaps, at the same time that nebula is composed of gases so 
    attenuated and so expanded by their immense heat that when they 
    solidify they only make one planet."

    Gardner points out that just as, in the formation of the solar system, 
some of the original fire remains at the center in the form of the sun, 
so, in the case of each individual planet, by the same process by which 
the solar system as a whole is formed, and by a continuation of the 
same general movement of rotation and the centrifugal throwing out of 
the heavier masses to the periphery (as shown by the fact that the most 
outermost planets, as Uranus and Neptune, are larger than those nearer 
the sun, as Mercury and Venus), in the case of each of the planets, in 
their formation, some of the original fire remains in the center of 
each, to form the central sun, while their heavier constituents are 
thrown to their surface to form the solid crust, leaving the interior 
hollow. 

   Also, due to their rotation on their axis, centrifugal force causes 
the mass throughout to collect more at right angles to the axis of 
rotation, causing a bulge at the Equator, with a corresponding 
compensation at the poles in form of polar depressions which open to 
the hollow interior, rather than being perfectly round.
    
    It is Gardner's theory, in support of which he presents astronomical 
evidence in his book, that all planets are hollow and have central suns, 
this being the basic pattern according to which solar systems are formed 
from the primordial nebulae from which they originate. Also our universe 
must have a central sun too, around which the stars circulate.

    Gardner  quotes the famous astronomer, Professor Lowell, that he has 
seen gleams of light from the polar cap of Mars. According to Gardner, 
this is due to the central sun of Mars passing through the polar opening. 
Similar bright lights have been observed coming from the polar region 
of Venus. During a transit of Mercury across the sun, the planet, while 
black on the side toward us, was observed to emit a bright light, 
comparable to the light of our sun, coming from its black disc.

    Gardner concludes that these three planets are all hollow and have 
large polar openings misnamed polar caps of ice and snow, but in reality 
are white due to the large amount of fog and clouds in these regions, 
and that openings in the fog or clouds permit the central sun to shine 
through. Such bright lights have repeatedly been observed by astronomers 
who, not understanding the reason, could not offer any satisfactory 
explanation.  Gardner notes that at times these polar caps disappear
suddenly, due to a change of weather and that ice and snow could not 
melt so rapidly. Professor Newcomb says:

    "There is no evidence that snow like ours ever formed around the 
    poles of Mars. It does not seem possible that any considerable fall 
    of such snow could take place, nor is there any necessity of 
    supposing actual snow or ice to account for the white caps. "

    In support of his claim concerning the existence of lights seen at the 
pole of Mars, Gardner quoted Professor Lowell who notes that on June 7, 
1894, he was watching Mars and suddenly saw two points of light flash out 
from the middle of the polar cap. They were dazzling bright. The lights 
shone for a few minutes and then disappeared.  Green, some years earlier, 
in 1846, also saw two spots of light at the pole of Mars.

    Lowell tried to explain the lights he saw as reflections of sunlight 
by polar ice, but Gardner denies this, quoting Professor Pickering who 
saw a vast area of white form at the pole of Mars within twenty-four 
hours, visible as a white cap, and then gradually disappeared. Also 
Lowell saw a band of dark blue, which he took to be water from the 
melting ice or snow cap. Gardner believes that the so-called Martian ice 
cap was really fog and clouds, which also could appear and disappear so
rapidly. He writes:

    "What Lowell really did see was a direct beam - two direct beams 
    at the same moment - flashing from the central sun of Mars out 
    through the aperture of the Martian pole.  Does not the blue rim 
    around that area to which Lowell referred indicate the optical  
    appearance of the reflecting surface of the planet gradually curving 
    over to the interior so that at a certain part of the curve it 
    begins to cease reflecting the light? And the fact that it is not 
    seen often simply shows that it is only visible when Mars is in a 
    certain position with relation to the earth, when we are able to 
    penetrate the mouth of the polar opening and catch the direct beam.

    "Why have scientists never compared the facts of the light cap of 
    Mars with the light that plays over our own polar regions? Do they 
    forget that the auroral display has been observed to take place 
    without any reference to the changing of the magnetic needle? And 
    if the aurora is shown to be independent of magnetic conditions,
    what else can it be due to than a source of light? Is not the 
    reflection of the aurora light from the higher reaches of the 
    atmosphere comparable to the projection of the light of the Martian 
    caps into the higher reaches of the Martian atmosphere? And how 
    do scientists explain the fact that the aurora is only seen 
    distinctly in the very far north and only seen in a fragmentary 
    way when we get further south?"

    In support of his view that the polar caps of Mars are not formed 
of ice and snow but represent the light of its central sun shining 
through the polar opening, Gardner says:

    "Why does the hot planet Venus have polar caps like those of Mars 
    if the Martian caps are really composed either of ice, snow or 
    frozen carbon dioxide? Also, why do the polar caps of Venus and 
    Mercury not wax and wane as those of Mars are said to do? And 
    why are the polar caps of Mars seen to throw a mass of light many
    miles above the surface of the planet when they are seen in a 
    side view if they are really of ice? How could they be so 
    luminous in the first place - more luminous than snow is when 
    seen under similar circumstances? And how could Lowell see direct 
    gleams of light from the caps if there were not beams from a 
    direct light source?

    "Furthermore, how do scientists account for the fact, noticed 
    also by Professor Lowell, whose observations on Mars all seem 
    to support our theory, that when the planet is viewed through 
    a telescope at night, that its polar light is yellow and now
    white, as the light from snow caps would be? The central sun 
    is an incandescent mass, and just as the glowing of an 
    incandescent electric light looks yellow when seen from a 
    distance through darkness, so the direct light of the Martian 
    sun would appear yellow - but if this light were reflected from 
    a solid white surface it would certainly appear white.  But 
    it does not, and so it is up to the scientists to tell us just 
    why it does not. But so far as we know they have not succeeded 
    in doing this."

    Mitchell saw two bright flashes of light at the polar cap of Mars 
which gradually came together. Gardner explains this as due to clouds 
which passed over the face of the interior sun, causing variations in 
the light emitted through the polar opening.

    An English astronomer, W E. Denning, writing in the scientific 
periodical, "Nature," concerning his observations in 1886, wrote:
    
    "During the past few months the north polar cap of Mars has been 
    very bright, sometimes offering a startling contrast to those 
    regions of the surface more feebly reflective.  These luminous 
    regions of Mars require at least as much careful investigation as 
    the darker parts. In many previous drawings and descriptions of 
    Mars, sufficient weight has not been accorded to these white spots."

    The English astronomer, J. Norman Lockyer, in 1892, wrote about 
    Mars: "The snow zone was at times so bright that, like the crescent 
    of the young moon, it appeared to project beyond the planet. This 
    effect of irradiation was frequently visible. On one occasion the 
    snow spot was observed to shine like a nebulous star when the 
    planet itself was obscured by clouds, a phenomenon noticed by Beer 
    and Madler, and recorded in their work, `Fragments Sur les Corps 
    Celestes.' The brightness seemed to vary considerably, and at 
    times, especially when the snow zone was near its minimum, it was 
    by no means the prominent object it generally is upon the planet's 
    disc."

    Gardner comments on the above observations:

    "No one who reads the above in the light of our theory can fail to 
    see how it fits in. Only direct beams of light from a central sun 
    could give that luminous effect above the surface of the planet 
    and varying as the atmosphere in the interior or above it was 
    clouded or clear.  Had it been a mere ice cap, there would not have
    been this luminosity when the planet was covered with clouds, as 
    Lockyer says it was.  Furthermore, that luminosity is precisely 
    what our aurora borealis would look like if our planet was viewed 
    from a great distance. And the light is the same in both cases.  
    By turning to the planet Venus we shall demonstrate absolutely 
    that the polar circles are not snow, or ice, or even hoar-frost 
    caps, but simply apertures leading to the inner and illumined 
    surface of the planet."

    On Venus the extensive water vapor tends to equalize the temperature, 
so that its polar caps are not composed of ice and snow, as supposed in 
the case of Mars, but which Gardner doubts. Speaking of the polar caps 
of Venus, MacPherson, in his "Romance of Modern Astronomy," says:

    "Polar caps have been observed, supposed by some to be similar to 
    those on our own planet and Mars. Some astronomers, however, do 
    not regard them as snow."

    The French astronomer Trouvelet, in 1878, observed at the pole of 
Venus a confused mass of luminous points, which Gardner attributes to 
light from the central sun struggling through the clouds. Since the 
polar cap is not made of ice, these lights cannot be a reflection of  
the sun. He believes this is the same case with Mars.

    Similar lights are seen coming from Mercury. Richard Proctor, one 
of the best known astronomers of the nineteenth century, wrote: 

    "One phenomenon of Mercury, if real, might fairly be regarded as 
    indicating Vulcanian energies compared with which those of our 
    own earth would be as the puny forces of a child compared with
    the energies of a giant. It has been supposed that a certain 
    bright spot seen in the black disc of Mercury when the planet 
    is in transit indicates some source of illumination either of 
    the surface of the planet or in its atmosphere. In its atmosphere 
    it could hardly be; nor could any auroral streamers on Mercury 
    be supposed to possess the necessary intensity of lustre. If 
    the surface of Mercury were glowing with the light thus supposed 
    to have been seen, then it can readily be shown that over hundreds
    of thousands of square miles of that surface must glow with an 
    intensity of lustre compared with which the brightness of the 
    lime light would be as darkness. In fact, the lime light is 
    absolute darkness compared with the intrinsic lustre of the sun's
    surface; and the bright spot supposed to belong to Mercury has 
    been seen when the strongest darkening-glasses have been 
    employed. But there can be no doubt that the bright spot is an 
    optical phenomenon only."

    Commenting on Proctor's statement, Gardner writes:  
    
    "Again we agree with the observation but not with the inference.  
    Here is a spot of light on Mercury, plainly seen through a 
    telescope, so bright that the observer compares it to the 
    incandescence of a sun. It is a much brighter light than any 
    reflection could possibly give. To Proctor such an appearance must 
    have been shocking to the extreme. He was not expecting it and was 
    utterly unprepared to see such a phenomenon. So he is utterly 
    unable to explain it. So Proctor calls this light `an optical 
    phenomenon only.' But we cannot believe that Proctor's eyes have 
    played him a trick. He was a trained astronomical observer. So 
    what he saw must have had some explanation or cause behind it.

    "It is obvious to us that what he saw was the central sun of 
    Mercury beaming directly through the polar aperture, and as 
    Mercury is a small planet, the interior sun would be rather near 
    the aperture, and there would be no aqueous atmosphere with 
    clouds to darken its beams, with the result that this sun would 
    shine with extraordinary brightness. It may be noticed that its 
    beams put Proctor in mind of the beams from the sun that shines 
    upon all the planets.

    "What more could be wanted than this to show that Mercury, as well 
    as the other planets, has a central sun, and that such a sun is 
    to be met with universally? Is it not significant that beginning 
    with observations on Mars, we are able to go on to Venus and 
    Mercury, apply the same tests and get the same results? The tests
    are direct observation or photographic observation. The results 
    are the invariable appearance of a central sun."

    In addition to the above astronomical evidence in favor of his 
theory, Gardner refers to the structure of the heads of comets, showing 
a hollow center, outer crust and central sun. In his book he presents 
a drawing of Donati's comet, detected from a Florence  observatory in 
1858. As can be seen it had a central nucleus or sun, which "shone with 
a brilliance equal to that of the Polar Star" and was 630 miles in 
diameter. Gardner believes that a comet is a planet which, came into 
the orbit of some other larger body, like our sun, which tore it from 
its own orbit, and possibly collided with another planet and the 
resulting heat transformed most of it into a gaseous tail that trails 
after it. Gardner claims that the fiery nucleus of the comet was once 
the central sun of the planet from which it was formed after it broke 
into fragments.
                      
                      
                      
                      ORIGIN OF THE AURORA BOREALIS

    Just as there are polar lights from Mars, Venus and Mercury, coming 
from their central suns shining through their polar openings, so Gardner 
claims, the same occurs in the case of our own planet, the polar lights 
which it gives off being the aurora borealis, which is not due to 
magnetism but to the earth's central sun.
    
    Gardner presents the following theory of the origin of the Aurora 
Borealis:
    
    "Why have scientists never compared the facts of the light cap of 
    Mars with the light that plays over our own polar regions? Do they 
    forget that the auroral display has been observed to take place 
    without any reference to the changing of the magnetic needle ? And 
    if the aurora is shown to be independent of magnetic conditions, 
    what else can it be due to than a source of light? Is not the 
    reflection of the aurora light from the higher reaches of the 
    atmosphere comparable to the projection of the light of the 
    Martian caps into the higher reaches of the Martian atmosphere? 
    And how do scientists explain the fact that the aurora is only 
    distinctly seen in the very far north and only seen in a 
    fragmentary way when we get further south?"
    
    Gardner concludes that the aurora borealis is due to the central 
sun shining through the polar orifice on the night sky; and the 
variations in the streamers of light are due to passing clouds in the 
interior, which, in their movements, cut off the light of the central 
sun and cause the reflection on the sky to keep changing. That the 
aurora is not due to magnetism or electrical discharges is proven by 
many observations of Arctic explorers showing there is no disturbance 
of the compass nor crackling sounds that accompany electrical discharges, 
when the aurora is most intense.
    
    Gardner says: "There are some other considerations which show that 
    the aurora is really due to the interior sun. Dr. Kane, in his 
    account of his explorations, tells us that the aurora is brightest 
    when it is white. That shows that when the reflection of the sun 
    is so clear that the total white light is reflected, we get a much 
    brighter effect than when the light is cut up into prismatic 
    colors. In the latter case the atmosphere is damp and dense (in 
    the interior of the earth) - that being the cause of the rainbow 
    effect - and through such an atmosphere one cannot see so much.
    Hence the display is not so bright as it is when the atmosphere 
    is clear and the light not broken up.
    
    "Again, if the aurora is the reflection of the central sun, we 
    should expect to see it fully only near the polar orifice, and see 
    only faint glimpses of its outer edges as we went further south. 
    And that is precisely what is the actual fact of the matter.

Says Dr. Nicholas Senn in his book, "In the Heart of the Arctics:"
    
     "`The aurora, which only occasionally is seen in our latitudes, 
     is but the shadow of what it is to be seen in the polar region.'
    
    "The aurora is not a magnetic or electrical disturbance but 
    simply a dazzling reflection from the rays of the central sun. For 
    if it warms continents and waters in the interior of the earth, if, 
    as we have seen, birds have their feeding and breeding grounds 
    there, if an occasional log or seed or pollen-like dust is seen in 
    the Arctic that came from some such unknown place as we have 
    described, it ought to be possible to obtain enough evidence of 
    such life."

                         
                         [End of Part 8 of 15]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------



-> Send "subscribe   iufo " to majordomo@world.std.com
->  Posted by: James Shannon