ForumGarden

Whilst casually looking around online,I discovered some very interesting sites (some were German!) detailing German exploration and comprehensive aerial photo-mapping of a large part of Antarctica, called by us Queen Maud's Land, Neuschwabia by the Germans, in 1938. Two Dornier seaplanes, " Passat" and "Borealis" took thousands of reconnaissance photos of the entire region.

After a year or so, rumours began to circulate of an "uber-secret" base in "Neuschwabia" (Base 211),dedicated to advanced propulsion techniques;Indeed, Martin Bormann boasted in 1942 that; "We have constructed for the Fuhrer an impregnable fortress in the far-south, a Shangri-la on land!" If you couple this with allied fighter-pilot reports on the "foo-fighters" (pilot-jargon for these unexplained objects that often shadowed allied aerial activity),reports that Winston Churchill took very seriously, you have the makings of a tantalising mystery; were these strange "UFO"s actually German in origin?

I found a page at random, googling "Fortress Antarctica". It's Nazi Swastika Found In Ancient Antarctica Lake Sparks Russian Fears

The last thing I saw so obscenely bogus was a magazine published by Garner Ted Armstrong and called The Plain Truth. Garner Ted was a wealthy chap by the time he died.

The Nazi Swastika found in the lake was probably dropped from one of the seaplanes as a territorial marker (they dropped hundreds,apparently),indeed, some of these territorial markers can clearly be seen in some of the aerial pictures taken by "Passat" and "Borealis"! (these aerial images were available to view online,though only SOME of them remain).Some markers were apparently planted by some of the many German exploratory troops that disembarked the "Neuschwabia" exploration ship. All this has only come (somewhat) into the public domain in recent years,thanks to certain documents being de-classified,or part de-classified (such as documents pertaining to "Operation Paperclip",the alleged American assimilation of German rocket scientists immediately after the war).

I agree that there are as many self-enriching charlatans as there are gullible folk, but the enigma remains, to this day, difficult to disprove or confirm. If it IS/WAS true, would you, as a wartime leader, or recent post-war leader, want to admit that there was some enemy vehicle or weapon you could do nothing or little to defend against?

The way I'd normally see where these stories originated would be to search key terms on google books and find earliest references, see how far back the stories can be traced, find out how they then changed over time in legitimate ("book") publications as opposed to privately-driven web pages.

spot;1478046 wrote: The way I'd normally see where these stories originated would be to search key terms on google books and find earliest references, see how far back the stories can be traced, find out how they then changed over time in legitimate ("book") publications as opposed to privately-driven web pages.


Definitely a good idea! I always go back as far as possible, to capture any story/theory in it's original form/first edition, before too many romanticists have added their interpretation to it, or at least, as far back as possible! I totally accept that this is on a par with OOPARTS (out-of-place-artifacts), however, like man's ever-expanding globular knowledge, something regarded as fact ( the Earth is flat) was superceded by new "knowledge" (the Earth is a sphere, and the sun orbits us) eventually leading to our current level of understanding. This, of course, has taken a few centuries to achieve, and is due in large measure to free-thinking individuals dilligently and dauntlessly pursuing, examining, evaluating, prioritising and sifting, with a healthy degree of scepticism, new knowledge and discoveries.

Without wishing to sidetrack the thread, when and where was it commonly regarded as fact that the Earth is flat?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth might help as background.

spot;1478055 wrote: Without wishing to sidetrack the thread, when and where was it commonly regarded as fact that the Earth is flat?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth might help as background.


Wiki is very helpful isn't it? Even without looking, I know that several cultures believed this, going right back to pre-biblical times! My points are these; use every available resource, carefully evaluate all available facts, extrapolate your possible conclusion(s), be aware that some of the "facts" may be anything but, and as such, will almost certainly lead to incomplete or distorted conclusions based on a false premise, or premises, much like "Chinese whispers". I don't just blindly believe any old twaddle someone chooses to spout about, but grade things on a sliding scale of probabilities based on what, if anything, is known already, when and by whom it was first postulated by, any contradictory information and healthy scepticism ! If, after all these processes, I think something has some basis in fact, such as Germany annexing Queen Maud's Land for reasons of exploration and experiment, then I get rather interested!

spot;1478055 wrote: Without wishing to sidetrack the thread, when and where was it commonly regarded as fact that the Earth is flat?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth might help as background.


The entire article refers to historical beliefs that the earth was flat. Even where they say the earth is round doesn't necessarily refer to it being spherical. Even in the belief of the earth being flat it would be perfectly logical to believe that it was also round, as you can look & see the horizon whichever direction you look. A flat disc is round. The Wiki article does also seem to differentiate between Round & Spherical, though.

Apparently, in 1947, Admiral Byrd, U.S.N. was given the task of exploring "Neuschwabia", to see what he could find. This endevour was called "operation high-jump", and he didn't go alone! His flotilla consisted of; 1 aircraft carrier (Philippines Sea), 2 sea-plane carriers (Pine Island, Curritich), 2 destroyers (Brownsen?,Henderson), 2 escort ships (Yankee and Merrick), 2 re-fuelling/re-supply ships (Canister and Capacan) and one submarine (Sennet). He also took 4000 combat troops!

This large force was equipped for an 8-month stay,yet whithin 48 hours of arrival,Byrd was already making arrangements for departure, finally departing six months earlier than originally planned,minus 4 escort aircraft! Upon return to Washington for de-brief, his personal diary and mission logs were seized by U.S. intelligence, and remain highly classified to this day (interesting,in this era of de-classified documents...).

Admiral Byrd was obviously keen to relate his story to someone, so he did, to one Lee Van Atta, a reporter for the Chilean El Mercurio, seeing as the American press was taking no interest (also interesting,given U.S. suppression of stories deemed " in the interests of national security"). In one El Mercurio article, Admiral Byrd is quoted with saying; "It is necessary for the United States to put into effect defensive measures against enemy airmen who come from the polar regions". Open to interpretation, yes, but sayings about "no smoke without fire" spring to mind here!

It must be a bit like being a Roman Catholic, the effort of belief involved in writing that.

In what sense is Paragraph 2 falsifiable?

spot;1478071 wrote: It must be a bit like being a Roman Catholic, the effort of belief involved in writing that.

In what sense is Paragraph 2 falsifiable?


If you want to be sarcastic, that's fine by me, as I find sarcasm the lowest wit of all, and hence, take little notice, but why enter a discussion/debate if you feel this way? It reminds me a little of people who create viruses to deliberately infect a computer for no other reason than to cause irritation to the user. Though you may not believe in God, I am sure that some people who may read this could be offended and may be Roman Catholics to boot! For myself, I'm Pagan.

As regards paragraph 2, ANYTHING is falsifiable,though I have written, in my own words, what I have discovered over time. I have changed no meanings, statements or events, nor added any. All I have written here is , to the best of my knowledge, an accurate account, within the constraints of what is available in the public domain.

I'm sure you believe it, I don't doubt that for a moment. What I don't understand is the attraction of belief. Why do you choose to believe something like this for which you have absolutely no evidence whatever? It's a choice on your part. Perhaps you can explain what benefit you derive from believing.

spot;1478074 wrote: I'm sure you believe it, I don't doubt that for a moment. What I don't understand is the attraction of belief. Why do you choose to believe something like this for which you have absolutely no evidence whatever? It's a choice on your part. Perhaps you can explain what benefit you derive from believing.


Why does anyone believe anything? For me, belief is based partly on personal experience, on any evidence for or against(that sliding scale of probabilities), partly on intuition,which,in turn, is based probably upon something within the subconscious. Freud had much to say on this. As for the benefits of belief, it may be down simply to wanting reassurance of life's continuum, that things DO have meaning, that we can make order out of chaos, and attain a better understanding of our universe/multiverse/cosmos, and of course, ourselves and our place within this vast panoply! It's a very good question, Spot.

Ah, yes, the Hollow Earth.

I remember reading about that many years ago.

Velikovsky was in on that notion, If I remember correctly.

Though the idea was around long before either Velikovsky or Byrd ever dreamt of it.



There seems to be two major ideas. one id that we are on the inside, and the other that we are on the outside, and some mysterious civilization inhabits the inner realm.

Ive spent many an amusing while, watching the present day Flat Earth believers on You Tube. I know we are all free to believe in anything we chose to. Some things just catch our imaginations and we run with them but their comes a time with us all when we snap out of our comatose, delusional daydream and start smelling the coffee. So do these Flat Earthers not like the smell of coffee ? Or at least not enough to understand common sense science, the sort even I caught a glimpse of at school.

LarsMac;1478084 wrote: Ah, yes, the Hollow Earth.

I remember reading about that many years ago.

Velikovsky was in on that notion, If I remember correctly.

Though the idea was around long before either Velikovsky or Byrd ever dreamt of it.



There seems to be two major ideas. one id that we are on the inside, and the other that we are on the outside, and some mysterious civilization inhabits the inner realm.


I'm not sure that Admiral Byrd had much to do with the Hollow Earth theory. He was noted as a polar explorer,though. Many top Nazis belonged to The Thule Society, who seem to believe the Earth had a hidden entrance at the pole (not sure if South or North). Many stories of alien meetings and civilizations hidden "inside" the Earth. The trouble is, with so many wild theories around, it " muddies the water" for the few genuinely strange and unexplained phenomena we occasionally experience on this hurtling rock of ours!

A form of "antigravity" has already been developed. It's called "quantum locking." It's based on magnetics, but it operates like antigravity.

[QUOTE=Saint_;1478181]A form of "antigravity" has already been developed. It's called "quantum locking." It's based on magnetics, but it operates like antigravity.





Yowzer!! We're very close to a "breakthrough" here, I would say! Makes me wonder if something akin to this is behind the strange craft we see in our skies from time to time.

Gravity operates as an attraction between masses which reduces with the square of the distance between them. It operates irrespective of temperature, charge, conductivity or magnetic field.

If anti-gravity has any meaning whatever, it can only possibly mean everything in that first sentence but with "repulsion" in place of "attraction".

I quite simply do not understand how the word can be applied to what was just described. Maybe someone might like to explain what I've failed to grasp.

Our knowledge is advancing in this field, but I feel we have a long way to go yet. "Anti-gravity" is possibly a little misleading, as quantum locking appears to be repulsion, using magnetics. If perfected, it could revolutionize air transport and heavy lifting, though!!

Smaug;1478200 wrote: Our knowledge is advancing in this field, but I feel we have a long way to go yet. "Anti-gravity" is possibly a little misleading, as quantum locking appears to be repulsion, using magnetics. If perfected, it could revolutionize air transport and heavy lifting, though!!


The thing about anti-gravity, were it other than fiction, is the immediate proximity of our planet which has not inconsiderable mass. To be able to successfully repel a craft from such a large, solid, immoveable body would be a considerable and free power source. I do hope nobody else ever uses the word when trying to name alternative forces like electromagnetism, it's very misleading.

If anyone does, in fact, successfully demonstrate a mechanism which disobeys the existing laws of thermodynamics, this thread would be an ideal place to disclose it. Future discoveries in physics may well achieve exactly that. I merely note that nobody, ever, from the days of the first cave-artist to the present Year of Grace 2015, has even once done such a thing in a reproducible manner. Speculating that they might is, unless one happens to be a Nobel-class physicist, something of a pointless occupation.

It would indeed require a large,sorry,LARGE power source, possibly obtained by some clever piece of physics "trickery" (the new Sabre jet is possibly one example of physics "trickery", utilising ultra-fast cooling,thus enabling jets of vastly greater horsepower to be produced, though this is in no way related to "repulsor" physics, so-to-speak).

I can guarantee one thing , though. I don' think I'll be "cracking" this riddle myself anytime soon, but it IS good to speculate, debate, swap ideas and knowledge...and the odd witticism!

As to the future of this fledgling branch of physics, judging by some of the "leaps" we've made, and continue to make, only time and research will tell. Looking interesting,though.

Tearing power from the underlying fabric of the universe is a possible game-changer.

If you consider the Uncertainty thingy of Heisenberg, where velocity and location can be determined to only a degree of precision and as one grows finer the other necessarily grows more coarse, one uncovers the Planck limit which can be interpreted as the finest-grain division of location (and, presumably, time). Somewhere before you reach that limit (of around 10^-40m) you get virtual particle pairs separating and recombining constantly, everywhere.

Depending on how the Vacuum Catastrophe puzzle gets solved, either we will all have access to extreme free energy (in which case I'll head to the asteroids in a converted Routemaster) or we're going to stick to coal for a few more hundred years.

Yes, it does look like there is potentially plenty of "free energy" available, if we can only work out how to tap/channel/trigger/rip it. Fascinating stuff. You seem to know quite a bit about physics, please tell me it's not from Wiki! (If you do, you'll spoil the day somewhat!).



I might be tempted by the Moon. Wonder if there's coal on the Moon... no, can't be, the Russkies would have mined it by now!

Smaug;1478205 wrote: please tell me it's not from Wiki!Good lord no - Wikipedia does not, for example, anywhere describe The Uncertainty thingy of Heisenberg.

I reckon the uncertainty principle hints at a fixed word length for the universe. If the location-and-velocity of a particle is a fixed length field from which both location and velocity are derivative quantities, and flags can allow other aspects of the particle to be recorded, you might end up with a word-length of (say, as a fair guess) between 128 and 256 bits. A lot of those words, taken together as a table, constitutes a snapshot of the universe. An array of those snapshots is a static, permanent, unchanging description of the universe from start to finish, and the array can be traversed along any combination of its axes to give different views of what's in it.

I did think the array could be edited to perform transporter operations but then I thought, that's probably not safe at all, I'll stick to walking.

I'm glad to hear that, and thanks for the explanation,too.

Don't blame you for sticking to walking, I think I will,too. I don't think I fancy trillions of little bits of meat and hair all going to separate locations in the universe nearly simultaneously, and I don't think anyone else will, either!