psychoceramics: FW: Resurrecting my Original Theory....

["Wright, Bruce" <32000BKT @ macnet.cpa.state.tx.us>]

from a list devoted to hollow earth theories...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

George, Billy, Kevin, Wayne, Lew & All;

I've been so busy that I hardly read my last download of e-mail weeks 
ago. Sorry people. I'll have more time on my hands soon, to read, 
reply, etc. 

I got waylaid! Two years ago that is. Perhaps it's better though.

There are only 2 people with whom I have EVER discussed my ORIGINAL 
Hollow Earth theory. I don't REMEMBER ever mentioning 
it in public - but the time has come for me to seriously reconsider my old 
position and to examine it's merits. So here, for the first time, in public 
<sound of trumpets> is my original theory - and let me shock you!!!!

George: 
I've got a pile of books here, and about another half a dozen on 
their way. My 3 Polar charts arrived, etc. I've really been studying 
this problem heavily. Those Anatarctic charts just aren't arriving. 
Even my supplier said it was weird. Hope to have it soon though.

Proving that other planets are hollow is a piece of old piss! I mean 
really PROVING IT, beyond all doubt. <hehehe> Proving that Mercury, 
Venus are hollow and do crazy things. Done.  I very much doubt whether 
any of you have ever even seen 1% of the data I've amassed. And I want to 
keep it a secret for the time being while George & I work on this project. 

My Venus R&D blew my mind. And just when I thought it couldn't 
possibly get better - it did! Mercury was even more amazing. I'll 
call Mercury the "plastic planet!" The astronomical evidence that 
Mercury's surface rises and falls (by miles) - is unquestionable. 
It's simply so unbelievable, that astronomers can't bring themselves 
to face it. The Mercury's atmosphere flows on to the surface, and 
back into the hole - no problem. It's all there. Drawings - and even photos.
So, I'm a happy feller.

HOWEVER, I must say, that my buddy, Jeff, the Nyquist - HAS raised 
issues regarding the earth. Those issues relate to navigation. That 
really is my only bug bear. As I was perusing everything I had 
prepared for George so far, I realised that this was my biggest 
problem area. I reckon I'm getting to understand the navigation problems 
backwards! Certain discrepancies have been bothering me. I can 
explain, 99% of all navigational issues at the north pole with no 
problem. HOWEVER, it's that final 1% that's really bugging me. I've 
covered every angle with no luck.

In fact, the evidence points me towards ANOTHER idea - an old idea, 
MY VERY OWN ORIGINAL IDEA:

Now I must  backtrack. Now I must cover old ground. Ground which I 
have never mentioned to any of you except for Chris, and Jeff. So let 
me surprise you all by telling you of my original thoughts on the 
matter.

Originally, when I first looked at the Hollow Earth problem, I DID MY 
OWN THINKING! ALL OF IT! I didn't read other people's books (in fact, 
I'd never even read ANY book on the subject. I simply read encyclopedias 
and I made up my own mind. Back then (2 years ago), I came to the conclusion 
that the Hole in the Earth lies in the region of the NORTH MAGNETIC POLE.
That the magnetic lines of force are flowing out of a hole, that the movement
of 
the lines of force in a circular area - represents the movement of the Inner
sun 
as it goes about a 250 year orbit of the Inner earth. That as it moves
around, 
so the North Magnetic Pole appears to "drift Westward" - and to 
shift. The real key, for me, lay in the existence of a nuclear 
fission driven sun being the sole reason for the existence of the 
earth's magnetic field. The lines of force emanated from certain 
positions because of holes in the crust. ORIGINALLY, when the earth 
formed, these holes were then the GEOGRAPHICAL north pole too - and 
the crust there was thinner. That's why, when the Inner sun got started, it 
blew out 2 enormous holes at either pole. But during the intervening years,
subsequent pole shifts had caused these holes to move off-centre and 
the earth no longer revolves around those original holes, because of 
changes in the weight distribution of the earth since then.

But then I was mislead (unintentionally of course), by my friend Jeff. He
then 
hit me, with all the old data - everything which everyone else had been
writing 
- and they asserted two things:-
(a) A polar entrance at the GEOGRAPHICAL north pole
(b) The lines of force come from ALL ALONG the rim of this hole.
(c) The north pole is not a point, but a line along the rim.

My R&D for George has forced me to reconsider many parts of the old 
theories. For example: I now have a definitive answer to the "fresh 
water in the sea" problem - which the "old theory" held as being an 
indication of being in a tunnel, into the inner earth. I now know 
that the "freshwater in the sea" simply means that you're NEAR LAND.
Thus Olaf Jansen's observation means that in the vicinity of the 
North Pole is a CONTINENT. The evidence for Continent X, as I shall 
call it, is certainly accumulating. 20th century evidence, which none 
of the old researchers (nor the current ones) have seen, certainly 
points to the existence of a continent to the north of Alaska/Canada. 
Bizarre! And by that, I'm not meaning the Soviet Union. 

Even my chats to Danny Weiss, and to Dennis Crenshaw, have ALL 
reinforced the OLD THEORIES. Those guys stick to those old theories - 
blindly - without developing them further in the light of new data.
I must make a note of a fellow: Mark Harp, who's one of Danny's 
people. He certainly has done a good job. But Danny has ignored my 
requests to get Mark's contact details. So I go alone......

While going through the planetary data, I found myself gradually 
REWRITING the Hollow Earth/Planet Theory. I found myself, scrapping 
old erroneous positions and replacing them with far far stronger 
positions which - in many cases - are almost unasailable. Indeed, I 
have been ecstatic as I have found all this R&D strengthening the 
whole theory considerably.

I became BOLDER! I want a theory that is so strong that it is NOT 
confined to the UFO communitee. You don't have to believe in UFOs in 
order to accept that planets in general might be hollow. It could 
also serve as a CONCRETE basis, from which to introduce to people the 
idea of life on other planets NEARBY - by providing SOLID EVIDENCE 
for the basis of this theory.  I want something which will have a 
broader apeal. Something which can be put in front of a scientist - 
and which will make him think. Velikovsky wrote some lasting works. 
The Hollow Planet Theory should not be the preside of nutcases and 
dunces and conspiracy theorists. It should be able to stand on it's 
own feet as a proper theory. That's my aim.

My planetary data is quite up to that. However, I began to realise 
that the Polar Entrance idea just wasn't holding up. I could answer 
ALMOST every question relating to it. I was 99% there. But that last 
1% kept defying me. No amount of maths or physics seemed capable of 
answering the question. The possibility of an UNKNOWN DIMENSION - of 
some unknown factor - remains. But I doubt it. I've expored every 
angle I can think of.

My original idea answered many questions. HOWEVER, in the face of a 
lot of R&D by others, about other angles I had not considered back 
then - caused me to examine their ideas, and to drop my own. 
What got me side tracked was:-
(a) The old theories - endorsed by EVERY Hollow Earth proponent.
     about the polar entrance.
(b) Olaf Jansen's journey in 1829.  How did he get into a hole, while 
     sailing from Europe?

Olaf Jansen's story, and the interpretation of evidence from Polar 
explorers, seemed to totally contradict my ideas. I could explain most 
aspects of Olaf Jansen's journey - but there are some discrepancies which 
do NOT conform to the Polar entrance idea. So, almost 2 years later, I find 
myself finally throwing off, all the excess baggage from the old theoriests,
and 
resurrecting my original position, that the Hole is in the vicinity 
of the Magnetic poles. 

I've looked for the evidence that the magnetic lines of force are coming out
of 
the rim of a polar hole - and I have to disagree with Danny Weiss, Dennis 
Crenshaw and all of the old hollow earth crowd. I just can't buy 
their explanation anymore.

My original, untainted theory - with a few modifications - is able to 
cope far better with the problems than the polar entrance idea. 
Navigation problems disappear, magnetic field issues are also 
perfectly answered. It answers so many questions which the old theory 
couldn't answer properly. Navigation is no longer a problem. The 
length of a degree in Lapland plays right into my lap. It helps to 
prove the plasticity of the earth.

In a flash, I'm 99.9% there. I just need to mull over that 0.01% that 
might be an issue, and for that I need to spend some time at the 
library perhaps. The off-set hole idea so far seems to work like bomb 
and to solve many issues - most especially the navigational ones. 

I also know now - what I didn't know then - and that was the general 
routes taken to the north pole. I now know, that my off-set hole is 
very safe in that regard, because people can't stumble accidentally 
upon it.