Dr. Frederick A. Cook is the most discredited explorer in all of Arctic history. Cook was so thoroughly discredited that I never once thought of even looking into the issues regarding his claim to have reached the North Pole before Peary. It was only while paging through Wally Herbert’s “Noose of Laurels” that I saw Cook’s map of his attempt on the North Pole.


As I looked at this map I noted the proximity of two large pieces of land which can no longer be found on any map: Crocker Land and Bradley Land. My curiosity revolved around the proximity of these two pieces of land which were independently ‘discovered’ by the most prominent polar explorers of the time. Was this just an accident or was there more to this apparent coincidence than met the eye?

(The author gives an extensive biography of Dr. Cook detailing the attempts to discredit his claims to have climbed Mt. McKinley and to have been the first to reach the North Pole. He describes the attacks on Cook’s character, but also gives character references to show that Cook was not the type of person his critics tried to portray him as. Besides being discredited, he was imprisoned for mail fraud at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary.)

Cook’s Human Relations

So far we have discussed Cook’s abilities as an explorer. But in pondering his fights with Peary, it is worth considering him as a human-being. He was trained as a medical doctor. What was his attitude towards his fellow creatures? Was he the type of person disposed to lying and taking advantage of them? Peary and his supporters have made the case for decades that Cook is a liar and a fraud. They portray him as a bumbling fool, intent on the most childish sort of cheating. History portrays Cook as a con-man who perpetrated one great fraud on the heels of another. Cook is depicted as a man without standards, without any shame, without any decency whatsoever. Is this a correct assessment of him?

Prof. Ralph Myerson kindly sent me information regarding Dr. Cook’s contributions to medicine. Cook was often brave and innovative. It is worth considering his actions and some of his deeper thoughts. Here is some of what Prof. Myerson sent:

“During the Belgian Antarctic Expedition, Dr. Cook made important innovations in the construction of tents, light-weight sledges, protective clothing, and sun glasses. He was also instrumental in freeing the ice-bound ‘Belgice’ by suggesting and supervising the construction of channels in the ice leading to open water. Roald Amundsen, the first mate aboard the ‘Belgica’, regarded Dr. Cook as his mentor and developed a firm, life-long friendship that endured during Dr. Cook’s later trials and tribulations. In 1901 Dr. Cook sailed to Belgium where he and the rest of the ‘Bellgica’ officers received several awards including the coveted Order of Leopold.”

“Later in 1901 he responded to a request from the Peary Arctic Club to join a relief party to Greenland and perform a physical examination on Peary. There was concern because Peary had been in the Arctic for four years and hadn’t been heard from in two years. Although a rift had already developed between the two men, Cook agreed and performed a remarkably thorough and accurate examination on Peary at Etah. He is said to have made the diagnosis of pernicious anemia, the ultimate cause of Peary’s death and recommended that Peary eat a large amount liver. This was 20 years before Minot and Murphy were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for recommending liver as a treatment for pernicious anemia.”

“During his incarceration at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary, Dr. Cook rendered valuable medical care to his fellow inmates, about a third of whom were drug addicts… Cook wrote: ‘I was led to believe that modern civilization is going under the cloud of a plague, more destructive in its economic strain than that of all the wars in history. The opium blight, if not checked, will eventually sap the life blood of half of mankind.’ Dr. Cook developed a treatment plan for the addicts which was based on non-specific supportive measures of water, exercise, sunlight and fresh foods plus a program of lectures and assistance aimed at rehabilitation. It may well have been one of the first such programs… Despite the controversy that surrounded Cook during his later life, even his critics and detractors are ready to recognize the above contributions made by him."

The Cook-Peary enmity contrasts strongly with the deep friendship which existed between Cook and Amundsen. Amundsen even came to visit him in prison. Amundsen was always a loyal friend and never forgot his mentor. That someone of the caliber of Amundsen should remain friends with Cook through thick and thin, to the bitter end, speaks volumes. If Cook was the bumbling childish cheat which Peary’s supporters claime he was, then surely Amundsen would have seen this and agreed with it? Yet Amundsen always believed to the end that Dr. Cook had indeed reached the North Pole first. Amundsen once remarked that Dr. Cook was: “The most extraordinary explorer I have ever met.”

Did Cook Reach the North Pole?

A few years before Dr. Cook died he wrote the following:

“I have been humiliated and seriously hurt. But that doesn’t matter any more. I’m getting old, and what does matter to me is that I want you to believe that I told the truth. I state emphatically that I, Frederick A. Cook, discovered the North Pole.”

(In pondering what I had seen in Herbert’s book) I was stunned by the realization that Cook had in fact been much closer to Crocker Land than Peary had been. Not only that, but Cook had marked new islands on his map. Stranger still, he had photographed Bradley Land!  Cook later said that he had looked for Crocker Land, but that it did not exist at the location given by Peary. However, Cook had seen, photographed and pinpointed the location of Bradley Land. Neither Crocker Land nor Bradley Land can be found on any maps of the Arctic today. I posed this question to myself: Had Peary, Cook and MacMillan all told the truth back then?


Their testimonies are amazingly consistent and definitely complimentary. In reviewing the evidence, I came to the conclusion that the only instance of lying seems to me to have been when Peary, with the connivance of MacMillan, set out to discredit Dr. Cook’s claims to the Pole. It is possible that both Cook and Peary did indeed reach the North Pole.

Having studied their accounts, I am of the firm opinion that there is missing land up in that region of the Arctic. I further suggest that Bradley Land may be distantly related to Crocker Land. The rediscovery of Bradley Land may go a long way to t racking the Crocker Land mirage back to its roots. This should also lead us to finding out why these lands have been kept secret for so long. I believe we will find that we have discovered a Polar Hole.

Let us examine a detailed paper produced by Sheldon Shackelford Randolph Cook, who is historian of the Cook Society. In March 1998 he produced a paper entitled “Frederick Albert Cook, Discoverer of the North Pole. April 21, 1908 A Statement of the Evidence.” He wrote:

“Historically, the strongest supporting evidence, the proof, t he final confirmation of an explorer’s claim to discovery has lain in the verification of his descriptions of the geographical area first seen, reached and traversed by him by later exploration. If his first and original descriptions of this region are confirmed and verified by later exploration, then his claim to discovery is validated and established; if not, then his claim is disproved or rendered questionable… Frederick Albert Cook’s first and original descriptions of physical conditions and natural features at the North Pole and in the region of the Central Arctic Basin through which he sledged have been confirmed and substantiated by later exploration in detail after detail,…”

Sheldon then provides supporting evidence on a point by point basis. The description above is critical when considering whether Cook was the first to reach the North Pole. How could he have reported these conditions if he had never been there? Remember, no one else had been there either and conditions were different to what had been expected. Cook was unable to return to Greenland before winter set in and he was forced to spend the winter in Canada unable to reach his food caches. He and his Eskimos nearly perished that winter. Nevertheless, with incredible courage and ingenuity he survived. His attempt on the North Pole had thus taken much longer and been far more dangerous than the conditions encountered by Peary. This makes Cook’s assault on the Pole all the more amazing.

Renewed Support for Cook

(Statements of several people are given showing increasing acceptance of Cook’s claims both to having climbed Mt. McKinley and been the first to reach the North Pole.)

Bradley Land
That three different teams of explorers (led by Peary, Cook and MacMillan) should report land in virtually the same region seems to defy coincidence. Ever since I looked at Herbert’s book “Noose of Laurels” I wondered if there was a connection between Crocker Land and Bradley Land. Initially, I wondered if Bradley Land was an outlying island not far from the continental land mass of Crocker Land.


I have also wondered if Bradley Land and Crocker Land might perhaps be one and the same. (Much discussions follows concerning the reality of Crocker Land and Bradley Land and of the authenticity and implications of the photograph which Dr. Cook took of Bradley Land. Statements are given as to whether the photo was taken in the location claimed and whether it depicts actual land or an ice island. Problems of distances and shapes are also analyzed.)

The Bradley Land photograph contrasts strongly with another feature which Dr. Cook called the ‘submerged island’. This is glacial ice floating on the sea very close to the North Pole. Photographs of the ‘submerged island’ and Bradley Land exist and they are two very different features. The Bradley Land photograph shows hills of considerable size whereas the ‘submerged island’ is nothing more than glacial ice at sea-level. Dr. Cook thought this ice was resting on a submerged piece of land, hence he called it the ‘submerged island’.

Just when you thought there could not be any more twists to the story, let me add one more. Wally Herbert uses the ‘fact’ that there is no land up in the Arctic as the cornerstone for his arguments against Dr. Cook. In his book he has a photograph of the ‘submerged island’ of glacial ice at sea-level. He then goes on to claim that Dr. Cook did not print the entire plate in his book. He claims that when this original plate is reproduced fully, one then sees a chunk of land on the right-hand side. He reproduces this fuller version of the photograph in his book.


Herbert then states that this clearly shows the ‘submerged island’ to be a glacier resting on dry land! In this version of the photograph one can indeed see an enormous piece of dark rock which is many times taller than Cook’s companions. Judging by the slope of the rock, it seems as if this is the edge of a much higher hill of great size. Since there is no land close to the North Pole, Herbert then claims that Dr. Cook was a liar. But wait.


Dr. Cook said the ‘submerged island’ was ice which rested on submerged land a mere 120 miles from the North Pole. Could it be that there really is some rock jutting out above sea-level there? Could this be part of a shallow continental shelf related to land which really exists some distance away? To tell the truth, I don’t really believe this myself. I think something funny is going on. The piece of rock in that photograph is very large – perhaps 30 ft high, maybe more. It’s very hard to tell. But it is very large and must weigh many tons. It appears to be part of a much larger feature.


I find it inconceivable that Dr. Cook would spend so much time talking about glacial ice when he could have marked this piece of land on his map as well. His sledges were a few hundred meters away from it, and he could have walked upon it. His testimony contradicts what is in this ‘full’ photograph. He referred to the ‘submerged island’ – believing that the glacial ice rested on land beneath sea-level. Now if some land actually stood out, he would surely have drawn attention to it, especially if it was this large. But he did not. He did not remark upon the northernmost island on the face of the Earth. Strange.

I am suspicious of this photograph. Wally Herbert claims he found this photograph in the Library of Congress collection of Dr. Cook’s material. As will be seen later, Herbert also discovered that key photographic plates were missing from the Cook collection. Who took them? Dr. Cook’s photograph of Bradley Land was missing, as well as the photograph taken at the North Pole. Could it be that the US government itself has been fiddling with Dr. Cook’s polar material in the Library of Congress? I am highly suspicious of this piece of rock in the ‘full’ ‘submerged island’ photograph.


Could it be that this photograph has itself been manipulated by someone in a sophisticated attempt at further discrediting Dr. Cook? If there really had been land at that latitude, then why did Dr. Cook not mention it? We could always fall back on the ‘fake photo’ theory, but to do so would be to ignore the much greater evidence to the contrary. Is it possible that someone could actually produce a faked plate and place it in the Library of Congress, while removing the original? Who on Earth would have the scientific capability to produce a specially manipulated plate like this?


Unless someone in the US government and US military has gone to great lengths to attempt to discredit Dr. Cook – in an attempt to hide Bradley Land and the drifting glacial ice of questionable origin. These people may feel it better to encourage researchers to look towards Axel Heiberg Island where these photographs were supposedly faked than to have potential explorers flying and traversing the Arctic Ocean where Crocker Land and Bradley Land might exist.

It is strange that the Cook Society puts itself squarely behind Dr. Cook and then suddenly makes an about turn on the above point refusing to accept his estimates and conclusions regarding Bradley Land. If he was the competent explorer they claim him to be, then why are they abandoning him on this point? The photograph of Bradley Land poses serious problems for the Cook Society. Much as they would like to believe him, they are faced with the ‘fact’ that land does not exist at the location given. This puts Sheldon Cook in a tough spot and he clearly recognizes that he might be faced with a losing battle. So he tries to hedge his bets both ways:

“If glaciologists should eventually determine that the photograph of Bradley Land in Cook’s book in fact depicts ice-sheathed land rather than an ice island, it must be concluded that Cook simply used a photograph of a feature which as nearly as possible approximated what he had seen west of his line of march for the purpose of illustrating his book…”

I think Sheldon is undermining his entire position by proposing that Dr. Cook started taking photographs to ‘represent’ things he had really seen. I know of no rule of exploration which allows one to do this. If Cook ever did this, then the onus would have been on him to state so openly in his book. He claimed these things were fact and stood by his claims until he died. Bradley Land and the submerged island are the two most important physical features he saw during his assault on the North Pole.


For key Cook supporters to begin using this type of logic is highly dangerous. If Cook used photographs to represent physical features, how can we then trust his photographs taken at the North Pole? Sheldon is opening up a Pandora’s box filled with problems for Dr. Cook by following this line of reasoning. In a sense, his reasoning leads almost to a direct admission that Dr. Cook was making things up as he went along.


And yet, there is so much evidence to the contrary. As Sheldon acknowledges, making up evidence is a highly dangerous undertaking because other explorers will be checking up on it. For example, Cook’s photographs show the enormous hills of Bradley Land. Now what if someone were to go there and find a different configuration? What then? Such things would not go unnoticed, and Dr. Cook would be called upon to explain this discrepancy. In fact, one of the ‘rules’ of exploration is that later explorers must check upon and confirm the discoveries of those who went before. Photographs, maps and written descriptions are therefore taken very seriously by geographers and later explorers.

The photograph (Plate 31 in the book) may provide us with the answer to the problem. Take a look at the hills shown in this photograph. The hills cover most of the horizon, except for a region in line with the first sledge. At this point there appears to be a gap in the line of hills. When Dr. Cook plotted the coastline of Bradley Land, he drew it as two separate, distinct pieces of land, separated by a gap of several miles. That gap seems to be evident right there in that very photograph. Would you have me believe that he went looking for a feature of the right size, with just such a gap, elsewhere, for photographic purposes? Why should this photograph seem to reflect, exactly, the facts as he plotted them on a map?

Wally Herbert mentions another interesting point:

“The search for ‘Bradley Land’ is made even harder since the only picture available is the one in his book, the original plate is missing from the Cook Collection in the Library of Congress, as are also the plates of the two other crucial pictures: those of his ‘North Pole’ camp and his ‘summit picture’ of Mt. McKinley.”

I find it very interesting that all the original plates in support of Dr. Cook’s claims are now missing. All we have left are the photographs which are in his books. Now why would all these originals ‘go missing’? Or has someone deliberately removed them to undermine Dr. Cook’s position? Did Peary’s supporters remove these photographs? Or did military officials go to the Library of Congress to remove these originals at a later date? Or was this sanctions by the US Government itself?

What do we make of the ‘full’ ‘submerged island’ photograph? Why did Dr. Cook not reproduce this? Or was this plate produced and placed in the Library of Congress in recent years by a US Government which is intent on hiding something in the Arctic? From day one, the US Military had it in for Dr. Cook. Peary, MacMillan and all their military supporters set out to destroy Dr. Cook. Did they do this merely from jealousy or were they, back then, already aware that something untoward might exist in the Arctic?


There was much Hollow Earth discussion going on in the decades prior to the discovery of the North Pole. Were the US Government and the US Military back then already interested in the subject? For more than a century prior to the discovery of the North Pole, there had indeed been much said and written about a possible entrance into an Inner World via a hole in the Arctic. Many people had attempted to bring this to the attention of various governments, especially the US Government.


These governments never put much stock in these bizarre theories. However, they must certainly have been aware of these ideas. I follows therefore, that if any credible evidence were to later surface, these governments might very quickly have realized the true significance of what was going on and taken action immediately. The issues regarding Crocker Land and Bradley Land at first might not have meant much to anybody.


Peary and MacMillan were probably motivated by jealousy alone and nothing more. However, much later, perhaps during the Cold War, the true importance of these discoveries might have become apparent. This may have required that further action be taken to ensure that no one ever looks seriously into these issues. This might explain the strange happenings to Dr. Cook’s material in the Library of Congress. It might have required that a more subtle and sophisticated attempt be made to ensure that Dr. Cook remained discredited for the time being – perhaps while the governments concerned try to find out what is really going on inside the Earth.

What conclusion can we draw regarding Dr. Cook’s journey to the North Pole? (The author reviews and speculates on the information recorded by Cook, Peary, and MacMillan concerning Crocker Land and Bradley Land.) Remember that Peary and MacMillan saw Crocker Land to the North West? And Cook saw Bradley Land due West. If one draws their line-of-sight on a map it then results in these lines meeting at a single spot some distance west of both Crocker Land and Bradley Land. Is this where Crocker Land and Bradley Land physically exist. Maybe. The thought that Crocker Land and Bradley Land may be one and the same, and that they lie further west of their supposed positions is tantalizing. This could explain why Bradley Land has also not been found yet – at least by civilian explorers. Perhaps the key to the whole problem is to travel further west of the positions given for these lands?

The Map Evidence

While I was looking for old maps, Billy Baty happened upon an old map in a text book. Unfortunately we could not discover the origins of this map. Nevertheless, it had some interesting notation on it. Up in the region directly north of the Bering Strait, but falling short of the North Pole, it had the notation “This sea is probably never completely closed”. This notation was in the region where Lt. DeLong would have expected to find his Polar continent. One can’t help wondering what caused the map-maker to reach this conclusion, but it has overtones of the Open Polar sea.

Let us also hark back to earlier chapters such as the one on meteorology. In the chapter it will be remembered we discussed the origin of strange clouds which seemed to somehow be related to the Earth’s magnetic poles. The direction in which these clouds moved, depending from where they were spotted, seemed to suggest that they originated from the Earth’s magnetic or geomagnetic poles. These same clouds, when seen from the USA, did not seem to have that orientation. This is understandable if their real point of origin lay somewhere between the North Magnetic and the Geomagnetic North Poles.


Crocker Land and Bradley Land lie at a spot equidistant – almost – from these points as well. Could it be that these lands lie near a Polar Hole? If so, could it be that these strange clouds really originate from a point close to Crocker Land and Bradley Land and that depending on one’s longitude, one would mistakenly think these clouds are aligned with the magnetic poles?

The Reader has probably wondered about the relationship between a Polar Hole and the Earth’s magnetic field. Should a Polar Hole not coincide with either the North Magnetic Pole or the Geomagnetic Pole? This is a question which I have wondered about many times myself. Strictly speaking, if the Earth’s magnetic field originates from inside the Earth, then the magnetic lines of force should direct us straight to a Polar Hole. By this definition one should find a Polar Hole exactly at the Geomagnetic Pole. The Geomagnetic Pole lies between Canada and Greenland.


The aurora and the Earth’s entire magnetic field are centered upon this point, and this is the logical place where one should find a Polar Hole. The North Magnetic Pole lies closer to the Beaufort Sea – and it moves considerably. The Russians believed for a long time that another magnetic pole lay in Siberia as well, and that magnetic lines of force bunched together across the Arctic between the Siberian and Canadian Magnetic Poles. These lines of force come very close to mystery sediments which lie very close to Bradley Land and Crocker Land. Larry Newitt, the Canadian scientist who has determined the position of the North Magnetic Pole in the Queen Elizabeth Islands near the Beaufort Sea, told me that the Russians later dropped their theory of the Russian/Siberian Magnetic Pole. He stated that they believed in it right up to the 1980s.

As was mentioned earlier, since the Earth’s crust is essentially rigid, it is highly likely that large quantities of ore are down there. This ore very probably distorts the Earth’s magnetic field thereby creating a situation where the North Magnetic Pole is a considerable distance from the Geomagnetic Pole. Strictly speaking, the North Magnetic Pole should also be at the Geomagnetic Pole. And both of them should actually be at the North Pole because that is the axis about which the Earth spins. The mere fact that the North Magnetic Pole lies a considerable distance from the Geomagnetic Pole is itself anomalous. This clearly indicates that a considerable distortion of the Earth’s magnetic field occurs near the surface. This being the case, it is to be expected that the geomagnetic field is so distorted that the Geomagnetic Pole does not coincide with position of a Polar Hole.


However, a Polar Hole cannot lie too far away from the Geomagnetic Pole. I drew a triangle between the Geomagnetic Pole, the North Magnetic Pole, and the site of the ‘Russian Magnetic Pole’. One would expect a Polar Hole to lie either within, or close to this triangle. The evidence suggest to me that the line connecting the North Magnetic Pole and the ‘Russian Magnetic Pole’ is the place to start looking. In Figure 17.2 we see Keenan Land marked near the coast of Alaska. Note too, the Eskimo sightings of land from Camden and Harrison Bays in Alaska. Could it be that these Eskimos were really seeing a ‘telescopic’ mirage of land which lies much further north? Could Capt. Keenan’s sighting of land actually be a sighting of that same land? Perhaps. If so, the suggestion is that land must lie somewhere up in the Beaufort Sea. And what of the Eskimos who actually traveled to this land and found other Eskimos living there?

My information regarding Sannikov Land is scant. I had wondered if Sannikov Land might simply be the Crocker Land mirage seen from the other side of the Earth. However, that does not seem to be the case because the Russians saw it to the north and north-west. Sannikov Land might be a problem similar to Bradley Land, but from the Russian point of view. Sannikov Land might simply be land lying in the far north, not far from a Polar Hole. Its existence might be covered up for the same reasons that Bradley Land’s existence is denied. It might simply be too close to a Polar Hole for comfort to allow civilians to wander in its vicinity.

When all these sightings of land and the meteorology are taken into consideration, we find ourselves contemplating the existence of land and a possible Polar Hole somewhere due north, or slightly NNE of Alaska, falling short of the North Pole by approximately 5 degrees. Many people will of course say this is totally impossible. What of those, such as Wally Herbert, who traveled up there in the 1960s? This make me wonder. I have pondered Wally Herbert’s motives for doing such a nasty hatchet job on both Dr. Cook and Peary. Could it be that some of these expeditions across the Arctic have been staged so as to make us think people have been in a certain region when in fact they have not?


Wally Herbert was well aware of the slow speed at which his expedition traveled. This has subsequently been highlighted by comparisons with Peary and with Will Steger’s 1986 expedition. Herbert accounted for this by saying that he had to make a considerable number of detours around pressure ridges with his heavy sledges. Really? Or was Herbert making a detour around something else? A Polar Hole maybe? One should not exclude the possibility of sophisticated deception. If something is of critical importance, then clever people, in positions of power, might well go to great lengths to cloud the issues to ensure that these things are not discovered by accident. These are probably patriotic people who are convinced of the correctness of their actions.

Could Wally Herbert’s vicious attacks on Dr. Cook and Peary have the deeper motives of discrediting their testimony of Crocker Land and Bradley Land? Consider his theory that Peary lied about Crocker Land simply to ensure that he could raise money for future expeditions of his own. MacMillan’s first-hand testimony of Crocker Land makes nonsense of that idea. Scientists, to this day, recognize that something is not quite right with the problem of Crocker Land, and no one has come up with a truly satisfactory explanation for it. Since Cook had been thoroughly discredited, the possible existence of Bradley Land was never taken seriously. But, even the Bradley Land mystery is slowly coming to the fore again as people take a renewed interest in Dr. Cook.

There is visual evidence which suggests that a certain region of the Arctic, slightly off-set from the North Pole (by about 5 degrees) is open to suspicion. Strange, off-beat things have been seen here by famous explorers. None of these things, including the strange meteorology we have discussed, seem to make much sense within the bounds of our science. So far we have only concentrated on Cook, Peary and MacMillan. But, has anyone else seen any indication of land up in this part of the Arctic? Take a look at this introductory e-mail which I received from Prof. Myerson on 17 June 1998:

“Allow me to introduce myself as Ralph Myerson, MD, Vice-President of the Frederick A. Cook Society. Russ Gibbons has furnished me with a copy of your correspondence… I have no expertise in your research; my interest lies mainly in the area of Dr. Cook’s medical talents and the many incontrovertible contributions he made to polar medicine. I do recall, however, that when Amundsen visited Cook when the latter was serving time in Leavenworth Federal prison (another sad story of a travesty of justice), he (Amundsen) expressed some belief in the existence of Bradley Land and stated that when he flew over the area of its location, he saw land birds in the region, too far for them to have come from the Canadian archipelago.”


Soil From Inside the Earth?

Consider the following scientific evidence from the magazine “Discovery”:

“How did sand and gravel, typical of sea-shores and river beds respectively, reach the deep ocean bottom of the Arctic hundreds of miles from the nearest land? This has been the puzzle facing the American researchers who have been analyzing ocean-bottom samples dredged up in the Central Arctic Basin not far from the North Pole from the IGY drifting station Alpha, a temporarily occupied ice floe which circulated in the region between 84 and 85 degrees N, 138 to 152 degrees W during eighteen months of 1957-58.”

The article in “Discovery” went on to say that this analysis was the most comprehensive ever undertaken in this ‘inaccessible region’ of the Arctic. The scientists thought the mysterious sand and gravel were a ‘most remarkable feature’ of this part of the Arctic Ocean. They wanted to know where these sands and gravels originated from. They concluded that the sand was not carried there by water because the particles showed very little ‘rounding’. Experience had shown that even a journey of less than 500 meters through water increases the roundness of particles by several factors.


Yet, the gravel must have traveled several hundred kilometers at the very least, in a straight line, to have originated from one of the existing landmasses. Considering that the water in the Arctic Ocean travels in a circular fashion, this translates into a journey of at least ‘thousands of kilometers’. The scientists went on to suggest that the soil got there by ‘ice rafting’. The problem with this suggestion is that there would have to be ocean currents capable of transporting large quantities of sand and gravel towards the North Pole. But from which rivers did these sands and gravels originate?

Let us take a closer look at the transport problem. Firstly, there are no currents which flow directly towards this spot. The entire ocean in this region tends to flow in a circular fashion. At first glance the Reader might think that these sands and gravels originated from the Canadian Islands. However, the problem here is that there are no rivers on these frozen islands of the far north. The most likely rivers which could have provided the gravel are actually in Alaska.


But for the soil to have been transported from Alaska (or even Canada) would require it to travel a considerable distance along a circular route out into the Arctic Ocean. Unless the soil was transported on top of the ice, the soil would have been rounded by traveling through water. Life in the distant Arctic seems almost impossible to consider. And yet, the sub-Arctic, in Canada for example, is much colder than it is out there in the middle of the Arctic Ocean. Do these sediments originate from Crocker Land or Bradley Land? Do rivers flow there? Are there perhaps hot springs up there which make the climate milder thereby enabling some Eskimos, birds and other animals to live up there?

Winds From Nowhere

Dr. Cook mentioned the considerable haze which was present during his trip to the North Pole. He described it as a bluish haze. Consider the following strange information from “Mosaic” in 1978.


Every year, in March and April, a strange haze descends upon the clear pristine air of Alaska. This haze lies at an altitude of 10,000 ft and gives the sky a whitish, diffuse look. When seen from an airplane, it causes the horizon to disappear completely. Scientist studied the haze to try to determine its origin. They discover it was largely made up of:

(a) Dust

(b) Sulphuric acid droplets

Scientists concluded that the dust and sulphuric acid,

“… must be imported because there are no sources of such materials in the Arctic.”

They theorized that violent wind storms in the Gobi Desert might be responsible for the dust. However, the sulphuric acid was a greater mystery. They speculated that perhaps the sulphuric acid droplets were produced by Japanese factories and that it was then carried to Alaska by strong winds. However, they were not sure if this was really the correct answer. They concluded that:

“These are speculation, though, and no one is sure where this haze comes from or how far it extends beyond Alaska into the stable, stagnant air over the Arctic Ocean.”

Do you remember the presence of sulphuric acid droplets in large quantities in the polar atmosphere of Venus? Could there be a link between such sulphuric acid mist and the Inner Earth? “Mosaic” stated that the haze actually extends far out into the Arctic, north of Alaska. Does this haze really come from Japan? Japan lies south west of Alaska. We know from Dr. Cook that a haze did indeed extend all the way up to the North Pole. Does this haze originate from somewhere near the North Pole? To the best of my knowledge, Peary never mentioned this haze while on his journey to the North Pole.


Could it be that this haze emanates from the region where Crocker Land and Bradley Land exist? Is there a link between this strange haze and Goesta Wollin’s discoveries, and the other strange meteorological phenomena mentioned in earlier chapters? Does this haze provide a natural camouflage for Bradley Land and Crocker Land, making their discovery very difficult? Could this haze and mist be related to large numbers of hot springs on an unknown landmass in the Arctic?

Polar Holes

I just cannot see how a sizable piece of land up in the Arctic could have remained undiscovered to this day. I have thus speculated on whether some of this land really belongs to the outer surface of our world as we know it, or whether it lies inside a Polar Hole of some kind. And how big could such a hole be? When I originally began this study, I had been driven by the idea of a tiny Polar Hole – perhaps as small as 50 miles across. But as I reach the conclusion of this study, I can’t help wondering if it’s much larger – perhaps 100 or 200 miles across. It still falls considerably short of the figure proposed by Marshall Gardner and others, of a hole 1,400 miles across.


Nevertheless, it could be hundreds of miles across. Such a feature would definitely have some effect on our weather and would help to explain some of the strange meteorological phenomena noticed by scientists. The eye-witness accounts of missing lands and continents of considerable size in the Arctic leave me wondering about the size of a Polar Hole and any land in or around it. It seems as if we are dealing with a landmass which is very large. It may be that the accompanying Polar Hole is also quite large.

The mirage theory seems to work quite well as an explanation for the strange mirage called Crocker Land. But the same does not quite seem to be true of Bradley Land. Does Crocker Land therefore technically belong to the Inner Earth while Bradley Land is some kind of outlier which belongs to the outer surface? Perhaps. If so, then why is Bradley Land not on any map? Could it be because it lies near a Polar Hole?

But is there any other way of determining whether there is a hole right through the Earth? In an earlier chapter I speculated about the rising and falling atmosphere of the Earth. I have wondered whether some scientists have perhaps already discovered a hole through the Earth without realizing it. In the early 1980s, while browsing through the Pretoria Public Library, I came upon a book which discussed the effects of a nuclear war. It was a well-researched book, and I read it. Since the major powers of the world are located in the northern hemisphere, and since a nuclear exchange is more likely to place in the northern hemisphere, the author made a point which surprised me.


Scientists had concluded that very little radioactive fallout from the northern hemisphere would reach the southern hemisphere. The accuracy of this statement has been confirmed by other people who are knowledgeable in this field. Meteorology teaches us that winds tend to blow from the equator to the poles and back. Hence radioactive material blowing from the north towards the equator is very likely to be caught up by poleward winds and circulated back to the north. This will happen before the radioactive fallout manages to cross the equator into the southern hemisphere. The same is true for air moving from the South Pole to the equator - the air will be circulated back to the south.

On 26 April 1986 the worst peace-time accident to date occurred. Fires and explosions were caused by an unauthorized experiment at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Russia. Thirty-one people died in the immediate aftermath and 135,000 were evacuated from areas around Chernobyl. Some areas were rendered uninhabitable and significant quantities of nuclear material were spread around Europe by the prevailing winds. Being aware of the virtual impossibility of nuclear fallout reaching the southern hemisphere, you can imagine my surprise on learning that scientists suddenly discovered radioactive fallout from Chernobylat the South Pole.


This was reported in “Science News” in May 1990. Jack E. Dibb, a geochemist from the University of New Hampshire, collected samples from a snow pit about 38 Km from the South Pole. In the deeper portion of the pit he and his colleagues found radioactive layers corresponding to the years 1955 – 1974. Above ground nuclear testing was at its peak during those years.


They also found a radiationspike’ which was approximately 20 – 30 times greater than the normal background radiation levels. They found this ‘spike’ in the snow deposited near the top of the pit. This snow had fallen some time between late 1987 and early 1988. More specifically, they found that the radioactivity came from caesium-137 which does not occur naturally. Caesium-137 only comes from nuclear reactors or nuclear explosions. Scientists have discovered that it takes approximately 20 months for radioactive fallout from nuclear test in the northern hemisphere to reach the South Pole. The radioactive deposits from Chernobyl also took 20 months to reach the South Pole.


Based on the discoveries of Jack Dibb et al, we can be absolutely certain that the radioactive fallout from nuclear tests and nuclear accidents in the northern hemisphere are indeed reaching the South Pole. But how? In a letter to “Nature”, dated 3 May, Dibb’s team proposed that the radioactive material rose high into the stratosphere, crossed the equator and then fell in central Antarctica. As can be appreciated, atmospheric scientists, who know how winds behave, were very skeptical of this explanation. These atmospheric scientists doubted whether significant amounts of Chernobyl fallout could ever cross the equator and be deposited at the South Pole.

The problem becomes even more mysterious because it turns out that there is no evidence whatsoever that the radioactive material ever crossed the equator to begin with. Radioactive material would have been detected at various places en route to the South Pole, and in other parts of Antarctica. But there was none. Furthermore, as the radioactive material continued its journey, there would have been less and less of it as it approached the South Pole. Instead, it turns out that there is a high concentration of this material at this one spot in Antarctica. Dibb tried to explain it by way of

“… special wind patterns above the Antarctic might explain why the South Pole is the only spot in the southern hemisphere where scientists have detected excess caesium-137 following the Chernobyl event.”

The mystery grows. But the atmospheric scientists disputed Dibb’s explanation. It’s one thing dealing with above-ground nuclear tests where perhaps some of the fallout did rise high into the sky and some of it did perhaps manage to get across the equator. But, they point out that none of this is true for Chernobyl. The radioactivity from Chernobyl never reached high altitudes as happens with the super-heated air in an atomic explosion.


The Chernobyl material lay at a much lower level in the atmosphere. So how could it get from latitude 51 degrees N in Russia to the other side of the Earth? Jerry Malman from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton also disputed Dibb’s explanation. He maintained that water condensation in the rising air would have washed the caesium out. He could not conceive how any significant amount of matter could have crossed the equator. Malman’s criticism is very valid, especially with respect to the humid air found at the equator.

So the mystery remains. How did low lying radioactive air from Chernobyl in Russia end up in a single spot at the other end of the Earth, along with other high-level radioactivity? Let’s go back to Lt. Col. William E. Molett who told me that he had flown more often to the North Pole than anyone else. Lt. Col. Molett was the navigator on board of the modified bombers which were sent by the USAF in the 1950s to collect radioactive fallout at the North Pole. Molett flew 91 classified missions to the North Pole. Molett told me telephonically that the purpose of the missions at the time was to obtain air samples from the air above the North Pole. Why?


Because the radioactive fallout from Russian nuclear tests were blown northwards and were concentrated at the North Pole by natural wind patterns. Over a period of almost five years, Molett continued with these regular flights to obtain air samples from the North Pole. These would be analyzed by American scientists to determine if the Russians had been conducting secret nuclear tests.

We now know that air currents will concentrate radioactive fallout in and around the North Pole. The conclusions of the atmospheric scientists who disputed Dibb’s theory are therefore well-founded. So how then does this concentration reach the South Pole? Many Russian nuclear tests are conducted far north. I stand to be corrected, but I think the Russians conduct some nuclear tests on the Kola Peninsula which lies at the northernmost point in Russia. I am not sure if they ever conduct above-ground nuclear tests there.

What if there is a hole which goes all the way through the Earth? That is an option which scientists have obviously not considered. What if air sometimes gets sucked into this hole and is sometimes blown out of it due to changing air pressures and the changing seasons on the outside of the Earth? The atmospheric conditions inside a Hollow Planet, regardless of what they are, should be relatively stagnant compared to the outer surface.


Any Inner Sun which may be there will remain relatively fixed in position and the surface will suffer from the same level of heat or cold, light or darkness throughout. Hence, there is no reason why atmospheric pressure inside a Hollow Planet should change much except when the Inner Sun itself becomes more active. The major meteorological driving force must therefore lie on the outside of the planet. It is the changing angle of the Earth with respect to the Sun which determines the seasons on the outside of the Earth. When it is winter at the North Pole, it is summer at the South Pole. I seems probably to me that when air is being sucked in through one Polar Hole, it must be blown out of the other.


This does of course imply that there must be a slight interchange of hemispheric air at the equator to balance this scenario. It follows that some air may be sucked in one Polar Hole, and over time it might end up being blown out of the other. As an aside, let me add that the atmosphere inside the Earth might be modified slightly by the conditions which are present there. Various chemical and other changes might be made to it while inside the Earth. A scientific study of air entering and leaving the Polar Holes might therefore teach us something about conditions inside the Earth.

Let us return to the Chernobyl problem. If a Polar Hole is located near the North Pole, it then follow that it would suck in the air with the greatest concentration of radioactivity in all of the northern hemisphere. On time some of this air would travel right through the Earth and end up being deposited somewhere near the South Pole. We can therefore infer that the entrances to this hole through the Earth lie somewhere near, but no exactly at, the North and South Poles. There are of course no Polar Holes marked on any maps, but one could consider trying to find them by way of weather balloon experiments.


If one has the patience, one could try seeing if weather balloons can be sucked into the Earth at one Pole and then spewed out 20 months later at the other Pole. By tracking these balloons, one could establish with absolute certainty whether they traveled along the outside of the Earth or whether they entered the Earth. By noting the points at which they disappeared and reappeared one could then determine exactly where these Polar Holes are. The mere fact that the low-level Chernobyl radioactive fallout was concentrated in a small area near the South Pole is, to me, highly suggestive of the existence of a South Polar Hole not far away.

We can do one better than merely guessing at the existence of Polar Holes. We can try to find them. In my research I tried to see if I could narrow down the possible location of a North Polar Hole. The Antarctic has a small population of only 3,000 people and information about it is more scant than for the Arctic. I therefore concentrated my efforts on the Arctic because the chances of success seemed higher. It is also far easier and cheaper to travel into the Arctic to find such a thing. The Arctic has been more thoroughly traveled and studied than the Antarctic. Consequently, there is more data to go on. It is also highly probably, if not a virtual certainty, that the North Polar Hole was discovered first, and therefore one might pick up clues from Arctic exploration since the original discovery would have happened unexpectedly. Hence my interest in Crocker Land and Bradley Land and in the early, uncensored testimony of Arctic explorers.


This effectively brings to a close my years of incessant research into the matter of Hollow Planets. It is now four and a half years since the issue was first raised, and I look forward to some rest from this obsession of mine. You can take a look at any map in any atlas, in any country. Look in the vicinity of Crocker Land and Bradley Land and you will find nothing by ocean. The seafloor in these regions has supposedly been mapped too. There is nothing you will find in any literature in geography to indicate the existence of land at these points, or to suggest the existence of Polar Holes anywhere.

In testing this centuries-old idea, I set out to find a hole which might lead into the Earth. There is no scientifically accepted evidence that planets are hollow. It is a taboo subject which only crackpots like myself can entertain. But what if it’s true? What if Dr. Cook and Commander Peary, in their attempts to reach the North Pole, stumbled upon the outskirts of a vast land sitting up in the Arctic, near/in a Polar Hole? What if the full extent of the problem only became clear to the governments of Russia, Canada, and the USA when the Cold War started after World War II? What if, at the height of the Cold War (when military secrecy was at its greatest) it was discovered that the Earth was hollow?

What of MacMillan’s conclusions that Crocker Land was a mirage? The science of optics has come a long way, and what MacMillan saw could only have been based on something else. Peary saw Crocker Land from two different angles days apart. MacMillan, Green and the others saw it at least three times through field-glasses and even with the naked-eye, close-up. Peary said it was enormous. MacMillan did too. Then we have Dr. Cook’s strange photograph of Bradley Land. Amundsen’s tale of the land birds flying towards Bradley Land, and Wilkins’ altimeter story. Is Bradley Land real as well? And what of Capt. Keenan, and the Alaskan Eskimos and the land which lies north of Alaska? What of Sannikov Land which was also seen three times in eighty years by experienced Russian explorers?

There is no normal reason whatsoever for a government to lie about the existence of land in the Arctic. However, if that land is connected to something awesome, something amazing, which frightens our governments, then perhaps they might try to hide its existence. I believe therefore, that if there is land up there, it must, in one way or another, be connected to the existence of a hole which goes deep into the crust of the Earth. Maps are exceptionally accurate these days. Is the sea bed in the vicinity of Crocker Land and Bradley Land really as they say it is? Or is it, perhaps, that such things were concocted so that no one would suspect the existence of such a secret? The only way to know for certain is for several private expeditions to go up there and to take a good look close-up. A search must be conducted for Bradley Land and Crocker Land. If any new land is found up there in the Arctic Ocean, then we must know that indeed a hole in the Earth can’t be far away.

I have made countless suggestions in this book for further experimentation in all manner of fields, including astronomy and polar exploration. I have made these suggestions seriously and I encourage those with the necessary skills to please look into this. I am making a serious suggestion hoping that someone can travel into the Arctic to engage in a serious investigation and to search for these lands which we are told do not exist.

If planets are hollow, then I feel we have a right to know. If there is something inside our world – no matter what it is - then I believe everyone should know about it. This problem of Hollow Planets can easily be solved. All it will take is a little resolve, some intelligence and a bit of hard work. Within a few short years we should be able to answer many of these questions properly. We need not sit back and wait until some government tells us this is or is not so. If they have lied before, what is to stop them from lying again? Christopher Columbus was an unreasonable man who challenged the erroneous beliefs of his time. He made many mistakes, but by his determination he found a New World. The New World he found may be as nothing compared to the Inner World which might exist right inside this Earth. Are you ready to be the next Columbus?