Talk:Hollow Earth

message: I have no affiliation with the PSF and I was the original contributor of the expedition information. 72.150.123.48 claims that the website contains inaccurate scientific data, but after looking at the PSF website, I found no such claims. Although the website is a bit amateur-ish for a scientific organization, I guess we will find out the truth by July 2007 when this expedition is supposed to take place. I would like to put this section to a vote, but I'm not sure how.
Templeofthedog7 02:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: , so what came out 10½ years ago? --Thnidu (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expedition 

message: I wonder if some of the more experienced debunkers might help out with Hollow moon.  The theory existed in a highly PoV fashion for several weeks on wp.  I had never heard of the "theory" but I looked it up a little, and there's still quite a bit of misinformation out there (mostly on hollow earth pages).  For that reason I oppose a delete.  Anyone want to step up with some debunking goodness? Charles (Kznf) 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did stumble across this and blogged it up  and while I don't consider it very likely all I can offer is more details to support the contention. Of course, even the weirdest things need to have balanced coverage I suppose. (Emperor 00:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hollow moon 

message: You might want to be more careful in your deletions, and your characterizations of the material deleted. You recently reverted an edit of mine as "misleading and nonsensical." I saw nothing to warrant such a characterization, and so restored it. I notice you have made another deletion with the same characterization, this time of one sentence in the entry preceding my addition to the list. I had edited that entry at the same time I added mine to move the title of the item to a more sensible place; the statement objected to was pre-existing, and having no knowledge one way or another of whether its characterization of some people's belief was accurate I let it stand. Since your problem appears to have been with that sentence, you ought to have limited your original deletion (and characterization) to that sentence alone, and left the valid material alone. Just a little friendly advice.BPK 19:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note for [[User:Michaelbusch|Michaelbusch]]

message: I removed these two paragraphs as they appear to be about an idea of limited notability:
:In 2001 the Australian father-and-son team Kevin and Matthew Taylor self-published the book The Land of No Horizon (direct link National Library of Australia ). Among other things it proposes an expanding and hollow Earth (as well as other planetary bodies) which eventually reached equilibrium. The book also looks at a range of topics including but not limited to evolution, human physiology, impact craters and other geology in light of such a hollow Earth.
:Kevin and Matthew Taylor's view of a hollow planet envisages a hollow globe with a small (depending on planet size) central sun ignited by radiation from the inner surface. They use this view both to explain Earth's magnetic field (replacing the dynamo theory) and the origin and ignition of stars.
I refer to WP:FRINGE, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. for why this text doesn't belong in the article.
24.199.99.169 22:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur.  Thanks for catching it. Michaelbusch 23:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable?

message: I like "references in culture" sections in articles, but this one has gotten way out of hand and should, I think, be removed. It has become an enormous list, which is one of the things that wikipedia is not. I guess the hollow-earth concept is too widespread to be listed out. Instead I think we need a paragraph or two that talks about the fact that it's a commonly used plot device, and that's all.
I thought I'd mention this here first, before making such a drastic change. Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I approve culling the example farm, but a few specific examples should be kept.  In particular, Edgar Rice Burroughs' books. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What should we use to separate the wheat from the chaff, then? Once you let in Edgar Rice Burroughs, why not the scads of other scifi/fantasy authors listed? If we keep any list, we need a good argument to prevent it from growing back to this size. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would apply common sense and WP:N. Michaelbusch (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which translates into "constantly removing rubbish for the rest of eternity", alas. That's one of the advantages of completely removing a list. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I took out all the comic/cartoon/videogame references. Let's see what happens. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's creeping back up, two months later - 21 books and 7 "other" references. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fiction and culture 

message: Some clown named Agnew Brooks is perpetuating the theory and organizing a new North Pole expedition to go inside the earth again. The radio talks and some videos are up on youtube as well. There ought to be a section on it. Its been in a few newspapers as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savuporo (talk • contribs) 17:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brooks Agnew, actually. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: North pole expedition

message: Why is there no information on Admiral Byrd? I've read a great deal about his flight logs and such.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir tetra (talk • contribs) 08:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Byrd's "lost diary" has been proven to be a myth, but it gets discussed ad nauseum. I think there should be some kind of text mentioning it in this article, and that it's purely a myth. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of his "lost Diary" having been "proven" to be a myth - which it was not proven beyond a doubt to be a myth, there should ABSOLUTELY be some kind of text in this article about Admiral Byrd, as his information, whether it be lore or fact or in between, was very very popular and he is still talked about to this day, and many consider him to be one of the main modern day references to the subject, then they study further, more verifiable sources. (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2915 (UTC)
thread_title:  admiral byrd's flight 

message: "thus direct knowledge of the Earth's structure extends only that far."
That's a misrepresentation of what's meant by "direct knowledge."  Information gained from sources other than visual still counts as "direct."  I'm changing the wording to "visual," since that's as strong/truthful a description as could be in the context of the article. Ryanluck (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and reference to 15 miles of drilling 

message: Why does the article have a ufology-box at the bottom? I can't see the connection with hollow earth!
--83.72.7.63 (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ufology

message: At one time I owned a store called Cachivaches y otros adefecios ilimitada, a used goods and antique shop in Lima Peru and the two books were sold to me and by me.  The Seaborn book was dated 1829 and the Symmes theory of concentric circles proving that the earth is hollow and habitable within was 1832 ie three years after the novel which has stuck in my memory as also the Z in Symzonia. If I remember rightly I mentioned them in a letter to Martin Gardner.
Are other copies of the books extant? Prof Symmes has a dedication to the Emperor Napoleon the third by Symmes widow on the fly .92.234.53.41 (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Books by Adam Seaborn "Symzonia" and Professor Symmes "Symmes theory...."

message: The oldest claims of the hollow earth are Tibetian myths. Those myths report of 3 openings into the earth: 2 near the poles and 1 in the Himalaya. The Thule society, which was closely known by Adolf Hitler, reported much about those myths. There is even the theory that Hitler ordered a research journey for such an opening in the Antarctica. This theory is based on a speech of admiral Dönitz in front of the German submarine in 1944. During that speech, Dönitz claims, “The German submarine fleet is proud of having built an invinsible fortification for the Führer, anywhere in the world.” During the Nuremberg Trials, Dönitz spoke of “an invinsible fortification, inmidst of the eternal ice.” These are the only serious hints of the theory of the hollow earth.
I request you to discuss this part of the article, which was deleted. I think this is in no way "spiritual" or "esoteric", but rather serious, since I also gave serious sources. What's your opinion? Should this be a part of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.185.234.196 (talk) 11:34, 2008 April 20 (UTC)
:This has apparently been removed and readded before, but I removed this on the basis that 1) It was nonsense 2) It had no sources 3) Donitz never said any of that. If you can find some sources please forgive me and add it in again. :)--Andrews Palop (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how serious the hi-story page is, but it has since vanished (took a look with archive.org). If the quote is genuine, I would really like to have it confirmed. The given date varies, sometimes it's 1943 and sometimes 1944. Also, what is not mentioned here is the name he (allegedly) gives the secret base: "Die deutsche U-Boot Flotte ist stolz darauf, dass sie für den Führer in einem anderen Teil der Welt ein Shangri-La gebaut hat, eine uneinnehmbare Festung." A Shangri-La in another part of the world, what would that be supposed to mean? I can think of plenty of explanations other than one in Antarctica and/or inside a hollow Earth, including the simple fact that the U-Boots themselves are (comparably) unreachable, and that the "Teil der Welt" in question would simply be the deep sea. Hexmaster (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Myths and hints

message: I believe H. P. Lovecraft also wrote a hollow earth story called The Mound, and several others written by him have similar themes. I don't know if you really want the literature section to be any longer, but seeing how there's a reference to a Scrooge McDuck comic in there... 75.209.146.71 (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature 

message: Moving these from the article because of the DavidWBrooks cleanup tag ban. Huge number of external links on the article, most of which appear to either be of questionable value or related specifically to David Koresh. These should be sorted through and only the most relevant re-added, per WP:EL.
First of many. Too much listitis here. Oh for a  or  tag. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah - much better to actually discuss and edit, rather than just add ugly tags. With that in mind, I've returned three links that I think are relevant, legitimate and interesting. Let the editing begin!- DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: It is claimed that there is "overwhelming evidence" which contradicts the hollow earth theory. However there is no evidence cited within the article and there are no links to such evidence. This statement should be removed unless substantiated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DinosaurDon (talk • contribs) 13:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't remove it, since it's a statement of obvious fact that casual readers need. But you're right: We need, a good short discussion about why the hypothesis runs afoul of modern geological knowledge. Help needed from knowledgeable editors! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

text: "Overwhelming evidence"? All knowledge of what's below the deepest drilling hole (~20 miles, I believe) is based exclusively on seismology measurements and volcanic eruptions.  I wouldn't discount this theory just yet.  Hmaier (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The hypothesis of a Hollow Earth has long been contradicted by overwhelming evidence" 

message: This section explains how inhabitants on the inside would be pulled outwards by the centrifugal force, but does it really work like that? If there is no gravity to pull the inhabitants towards the surface, how would they be affected by the rotation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.171.135 (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Friction.  If you were to bump into the inner surface, friction would start you rotating with the Earth, and then the centrifugal force would push you outwards to bump the surface again, and then friction would pull you some more; this process would continue until you were resting against the inner surface, moving at the same velocity and being pressed very weakly against it.  If there were atmosphere inside the shell, friction would also cause the air to rotate with the Earth, precluding you from simply floating motionless without touching the surface. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newtonian gravity and a hollow Earth 

message: What is the case for including this?  It seems totally irrelevant to me; we know the Earth isn't hollow.71.240.67.58 (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a piece of information that answers a question many readers will have. It doesn't interfere with the article, or make it lop-sided - there's information elsewhere about non-visual methods of determining the non-hollowness of the planet. It also doesn't say that visual information is the only information possible. I think it's fine; maybe it could be moved lower down in the story. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I have moved it way down. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  visual knowledge 

message: We now have 27 books/stories in the Literature section, which is ridiculous. The point of such sections is to demonstrate that the article topic has a certain presence in popular culture, not to list every such reference in a pointless bludgeon-the-reader attack. This issue was discussed a while ago (it's in the Talk page Archive), with the agreement that we had too many but nobody (including me) ready to pare them down. It has only grown since. So ... what the heck ... i'm going to remove them all and replace them with a summary paragraph, and see what people think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh - I just can't remove those interesting 18th- and 19th-century examples! We need to think of a way to keep those but cut all the recent dross. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way too many fiction references 

message: The "Hollow Earths in fiction" list is still enormous. I just removed a few items, trying to keep them only to fiction about the Earth itself being hollow, not other planets or fake planets - like Dyson spheres (the Halo book), or hollow Moon (Neznaika on the Moon (Незнайка на Луне)), or Matter (2008) by Iain M Banks describes a "shell world" ... the iffiest cut was James De Mille's novel A Strange Manuscript Found in a Copper Cylinder (1888) is a Victorian satire, because he thinks he's in a hollow Earth but really isn't. I also removed an "independent sci/fi" film because there are a bazillion independent films out there, maybe that was excessive on my part. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All of this makes sense. If no one can bear to cut things, is it worth splitting off the list? Hollow Earth is a very popular and common theme. Lot 49atalk 18:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's an interesting idea. If we do it, it should cover all hollow-planet stories and movies, not just hollow Earth. Hollow planets in fiction would cover Dyson spheres, I think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps better would be Hollow worlds in fiction? "Planet" is too restrictive, it seems to me, excluding moons, etc. And too general, as I think the interest is in inhabited (if only by animals) places, I guess? TomS TDotO (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like Hollow Worlds in Fiction myself. It has a nice ring to it. Lot 49atalk 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Worlds" is much better. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that there is an article Subterranean fiction. Perhaps the proper thing would be to expand upon that article? TomS TDotO (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perfect! We can do some cut and paste from here to there, then reduce the section here to a few sentences and a "main article" link to Subterranean fiction, and voila. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Ha! I was just coming back here because I remembered about this. Nice work. Lot 49atalk 15:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: removed fiction items 

message: The part about gravity is entirely incorrect. It's been mathematically proven and well known that gravity on the inside of a sphere would allow you to walk on the outside shell, much like the picture shown. Also, there is no such thing a "centrifugal force." It should not even be mention as it makes no sense. Mbaboy (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the section is probably incorrect, but not quite as you say.  Walking on the outermost shell would be the same as walking on a solid sphere of a proportional density.  Inside the shell, its gravitational effects would be cancelled, but one would be able to walk on any inner shells in exactly the same manner.  Centrifugal force does exist, it just depends on your frame of reference. 218.143.30.1 (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  part about gravity 

message: I have reverted this.  There are many things wrong with it:
#Its tone is argumentative, which is wrong for Wikipedia
#It is sourced to largely to a web site that is not a wp:reliable reference
#The website it is sourced to doesn't even support it
#The physics is  incorrect. For example, the center of mass of a hollow uniform spherical  shell is at the center of the sphere.
#And, most importantly, Wikipedia is not a hosting service for wp:Original Research.
Cardamon (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of edits arguing about physics 

message: Hi guys,
I've just tried to tighten up the section about the forces experienced by an observer standing on the interior of the shell. I have also moved
the last bit, about the observed mass of the Earth, closer to the first bit (about stability reasons for the infeasibility of a hollow Earth) as they seem closer together in spirit than the bit about the forces does to them both. PatBuckles (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the older version was clearer (it was also shorter, so I'm not sure what you mean by "tighten up"). — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Regarding the first sentence, the addition of the word "significant" fixes the problem with "would not experience an outward pull".  "nearly weightless" is correct.  I don't see how the shell theorem is a tangent: it is the reason why a person would be nearly weightless.  Your comment about a lack of coherence is not clear. One still feels a centrifugal force if one is on the axis of rotation assuming that you don't have zero size (though yes, on the axis there is no net force on a symmetrical person), although of course the maximum force is at the equator as stated.  Anyway, this seems like a pointless quibble: the whole point is that the centrifugal force is tiny, even at the equator.  I'm not sure why you think I need "help with the physics"; I'm quite familiar with K&K (I have a PhD in physics). — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravity section 

message: The text itself does not suggest that Euler proposed the earth was that way as a thought experiment. Thus I intend to change the caption to "purported theory"; however I've never heard of this myself (it doesn't fit in with how I envisage Euler) and so have only the main article to go on. Thus, before I do so, I invite comments. Egg Centric (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have subsequently found a pdf here about the subject, suggesting it was indeed a thought experiment. The problem, therefore, lies with the text. I'm not certain what to do at this point. Input, as ever, is welcome. Egg Centric (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption for Euler's "thought experiment" 

message: Nothing here about relative density? Consider that atmosphere has a certain density which life could float on top of, imagining that nothing could live within. 71.198.129.20 (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, not sure I followed that ... could you explain it? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relative density 

message: Would there be support to swap this page with Hollow Earth theory since that's what it is? This page should be the redirect, not Hollow Earth theory. Thanks Jenova20 09:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This would go against the established practice of dropping non-essential words from a title, unless a longer form is preferable for some particular reason. There is no habit to include the word "theory" to theories' titles, see e.g. Big Bang. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point, i was using Evolution as my basis but since that title agrees with you i now agree a move wouldn't be appropriate. Thanks Jenova20 11:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested Move

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed one short-ish declaratory sentence talking about a single book. Even if that's from somewhere else, that's not enough to be a plagiarism issue - and while the book it discusses is looney-tunes, it seems a legitimate addition to the article - so I've restored it. If you can point to an actual location that it's copied from, or if others have a concern, we can discuss it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I am no copyright-specialist. But tell me: Is it really forbidden to simple talk about the mere (?) existence of a book? --185.81.138.26 (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: Hi, I have recently heard about this theory while watching the History Channel and I think there are a few technical problems in this theory (fix me if I wrong):
If there is an hollow space between the core to the outer stratum (where we live), provably as a stratum, there might be a few "bridges" which hold those stratums, unless the fact that the outer stratum is in space and the fact the core of earth applies a gravity force, that its field reaches the outer stratum (and the atmosphere) - so the distance between them is always the same and they are both spin at the same speed (and are synchronized to each other).
Other problem might be - in what stratum does the magma located? It should be more near to the core, but this way, according to the theory, volcanos shouldn't have magma inside them and the Tectonic plates shouldn't be affected by the magma. If not, it should be in one of the stratums which are nearer to the outer stratum. Galzigler (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the theory 

message: In the Concave hollow Earths section, the very salient point is made that if the distance metric of the universe was configured in an extremely particular way, we would be unable to discriminate between a concave hollow Earth and standard cosmology. Does this mean that if this picture was zoomed out, we should be seeing an outer ring of the crust, an even outer ring for the outer core, and finally the "inner" core stretching out to infinity (from our non-projective point of view), à la azimuthal equidistant projection (where the circumference of the map corresponds to just one point, i.e. the South Pole)? I think this is an interesting consequence of the "theory" but I'm wary of adding it to the section due to WP:NOR concerns. --Anagogist (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concave hollow Earth and the "centre" of the Earth 

message: In fiction This game has a hollow world map.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoodNv (talk • contribs) 02:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  shin megami tensei nocturne 

message: I haven't read this in a long time. If I remember correctly, Verne imagines a vast underground sea, stretching from Iceland to the Mediterranean, with internal sources of light. I got the impression that he intended a vast cavern, not the interior of a spherical earth, nor the exterior of another spherical body inside. Maybe this article should distinguish cavern narratives from inverted-world hollow earth narratives. 108.48.94.155 (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verne's [[A Journey to the Center of the Earth]] 

message: This article talks about two vastly different theories, one being that planet earth would be hollow, and the other being that the entire universe would be inside-out. Theory #1 is just silly, whereas theory #2 is scientifically irrefutable (but can be refuted by means of Occam's razor). The only thing the two theories have in common is that people mistakenly use the same names for it. Thus, the article should be split up. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article up! 

message: The contrary evidence saying "The solid sphere is the best way in which to minimize the gravitational potential energy" really only applies to non-rotating matter. The rotation effect creates a centrifugal force that pushes matter to the surface and this would partially counteract the force of gravity. the honeycomb earth theory is based on the effect of both forces Normana400 (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate contrary evidence  

message: ,  and  violated WP:SOAP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soapboxing 

message: Add many languages in this site Sri creation (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , click here. Dam222  🌋 (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language problem 

message: The first section of the "History" section is not about the theory/myth of the whole earth being hollow, but about subterranean spaces of various sort.  The name should refer properly only to theories of the Earth being mostly a self-supporting empty shell, without support from some core.I would think that Halley's theory still qualifies because the inner shells would be disconnected from the outer one.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start of History Section is not really about "Hollow Earth" 

message: Hollow Earth also recurs in conspiracy theories such as the underground kingdom of Agartha and is often said to be inhabited by mythological figures or political leaders. 
Why is this labeled as a conspiracy theory?  The Agartha article simply referrers to this as a legend.  57.135.233.22 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agartha Conspiracy Theory