The Earth is hollow.

Seismologic unreliability The deepest hole ever drilled by humans is located at the Kola Peninsula in Russia, at 40,000 feet.1 While this may seem like an extremely deep tunnel into Earth's inner structure, the average distance to Earth's core is a staggering 4,000 miles,2 or about 21,120,000 feet, only .2% of the distance. Mankind's physical exploits into the Earth's interior are thus undependable when attempting to understand its planetary structure. How have scientists formulated the solid Earth theory if humanity has only tangibly observed less than one percent of its interior? Seismology, the detection and study of seismic waves, vibrations of the Earth's interior, has not provided scientists with a detailed model of the inner Earth. In fact, even with the study of seismic waves, “we know little directly about the interior of the Earth. ”3 In fact, Giorgio Gratta of Stanford University has stated, “essentially, we only know the crust of our planet. ”4 The placement of seismometers is one issue. As one article reports, “seismometers’ limited coverage of the surface has provided only blurry, incomplete images [of the Earth's interior]. ”5 Earth scientist Frederik Simons said, “[…] all we really have are land-based seismometers. That leaves more than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface uncovered…You’re just not going to get a very good image of what’s inside. ”5 Considering existing underwater seismometers, he later says, “underwater seismometers that sit on the ocean bottom exist, but they are expensive and often unreliable. ”5 To summarize, the placement of seismometers only covers 30% of the Earth's surface, leaving over half untouched. Moreover, even if seismometers dotted the globe on both land and sea, the sensitivity of seismometers so far away from any meaningful measurement presents yet another issue. At teleseismic distances, those which are greater than 1,000 km from the seismometer,6 the instrument was shown to be unreliable, and only slightly more reliable under better conditions.7 The first and foremost function of the seismometer is to predict earthquakes through measurement of seismic waves. It should be noted that the seismometer fails in this regard. The Guardian reports, “there is still no reliable or validated way to predict an earthquake. ”8 Although not an argument against seismometer reliability, it is a very significant fact that seismometers simply are not as certain in their measurement predictions as a ruler or a compass, so an important distinction must be made between these instruments and other tools concerning their accuracy. Mankind has just barely drilled into the Earth's crust, but not nearly enough to provide any substantial model of the Earth's interior. When one is faced with the alternative, seismology, these instruments may provide a somewhat accurate prediction of earthquakes within a reasonable distance from the measurement, but as I have demonstrated, fail in their placement predominantly on land, their unreliability at teleseismic distances, and their inability to foresee earthquakes with scientific certainty. While not a specific contention, I would like to leave this section with a quote: “the field of global seismology is in a continual, rapid state of flux, and any text can at best give an instantaneous and limited version of Earth structure and earthquake sources. ”9 Satellite photographs In 1966, the Environmental Science Services Administration Satellite Program launched the ESSA-3, a satellite which would provide NASA with detailed meteorological imagery. The ESSA program was advanced for its time, and provided photographs of higher resolution than its predecessor, the TIROS program.10A few months into its mission, the ESSA-3 satellite produced a composite image of the northern hemisphere of Earth from this angle. The resulting image can be seen below on the left. Two years later, in 1968, the ESSA-7 satellite was launched. As with the ESSA-3, the ESSA-7 was equipped with gear to be used in cloud cover photography.10 The ESSA-7 confirmed the photographic result of the ESSA-3 with practically a duplicate image, seen on the right, but a little farther out, as the entire globe is visible. As you can see, the photographs of the ESSA-3 and ESSA-7 both show a rather large hole at the North Pole. Hollow Earth theory necessitates, in most cases, an entrance to the inner Earth. These bird's eye photographs of the entrance to the Hollow Earth at the North Pole show, without a doubt, an entrance to the hollow Earth. It should be noted that these are indeed composite photographs, but even a composite photograph of the North Hemisphere would not leave a visible imperfect ring around the polar opening. Crater formation The imprints left behind by planetary collisions, craters, are inconsistent with the physics of a solid Earth. A crater contains of two areas: the excavation zone, a concave area where the force of impact by the colliding object is felt, and the deposition zone, a convex area where ejecta and other material form a wall or rim around the crater.11 Craters, however, are formed with a diverse range of sizes. Small craters, those with a diameter of up to 25 km, form a standard crater, one with no unusual phenomena, but rather just a bowl surrounded by a wall of ejected material.11 A slightly larger crater, however, or one with a diameter between 25 to 130 km, will form and act a bit differently. Medium craters are more shallow than small craters, and have a small summit in the center.11 Scientists argue that this summit is caused by a rebound of compressed rock immediately after the impact, as can be seen in the diagram below, on the left. It is compared to a droplet colliding with a fluid, as can be seen on the right. If we were to assume that this model of crater formation is correct, then one must also assume that before the formation of the central peak, the crater would have been deeper, and decreased in height after some of the material rebounded to form the peak. However, the amount of energy necessary to construct these central peaks is massive. In their book, The Land of No Horizon, Kevin and Matthew Taylor write, “Such energy could not be sourced from a gradual returning or reforming of the planet's surface. Rebounding must have been rapid. This action catapulted central matter upward. ”12 How does a compressed planetary structure compress further to form these peaks? If the planet or moon follows the solid planetary structure most humans accept, a normal bowl-shaped crater should be excavated. Large craters are the most mystifying when one accepts solid planetary structure. In craters over 130 km in diameter, the impact crater is ridged with rings.11 These rings are convex, following the curvature of the planet. Taylor again writes, “How does the crater floor from a celestial impact of this size end up convex? An impacting asteroid would excavate considerable material dispersing it in all directions form the site. An obvious large depression or excavation should be left behind in the surface of the planet. But, contrary to observable facts, this does not happen. The crater walls are over the horizon from the center of these large impacts! ”12 A compressed, solid, planetary structure would result in bowl-like craters no matter the size, because of its inability to compress further. A hollow planetary structure does not mandate an enormous amount of compression in these medium and large craters. In fact, a hollow planet structure fits with visible craters better than the massive solidity of a non-hollow Earth. This can be seen in the diagram below. Science’s view of a solid, compressed planet does not explain visible crater phenomena. The accepted view of the Earth’s interior simply does not align with the rings and central peaks of medium to large craters. Sources . http://goo.gl...