The Hollow Earth
Marshall B. Gardner's Book, " A Journey to the Earth's Interior Or Have
the Poles Really Been Discovered?"
By: Dr. R. W. Bernard, B.A., M.A., Ph.D.
Marshall B. Gardner spent twenty years in
research, based on the reports of Arctic explorers, supplemented by
astronomical evidence, before publishing, in 1920, his great book, "A Journey to the Earth's
Interior or Have the Poles Ever Been Discovered?" He did not seem to know about Reed's book and
theory, so that both men developed their theories independently.
Gardner's great contribution is the theory of a central sun, which is
the source of the higher temperature in the region of the polar orifice
and the aurora borealis, which Reed attributes to volcanic eruptions. A
central sun as a source of heat and light makes possible the existence
of plant and animal life in the earth's interior, also human life, in
which Reed believed to be a fact, but could not explain according to
his theory, which did not include a central sun as a source of light,
without which there could be no life.
Gardner also claims, and in his
book presents astronomical evidence to prove, that not only the earth,
but all planets of the solar system, have hollow interiors and central
suns, which he traces to their original formation from a whirling
As a result of centrifugal force,
their rotation during their early formation when yet molten caused
their heavier constituents to be thrown toward the outside, forming a
solid crust on the outer surface of each planet and leaving the
interior hollow, while a portion of the original fire remained in the
center to form the central sun. Also the force of their rotation and
movements through space caused openings to form at their polar
Why have Reed's and Gardner's
books become so rare that it is practically impossible to obtain
copies; and they are not found in most libraries. Because they prove
that there exists a large area not recorded on any map, which is not
only equal to, but perhaps greater than the entire land area of the
earth's surface - this uncharted land area being on the inside of the
earth's crust. Naturally any government that learned about this vast
territory would have ambitions to be the first to discover it and claim
it, for which reason it would make every effort to keep this
information secret, so that no other government might learn about it
and claim this territory first. Since the United States Government was
the first to learn about it as a result of the visit of Admiral Byrd,
who flew for 1,700 miles into this "mysterious land beyond the Pole,"
which is not shown on any map, and saw mountains, forests, green
vegetation, rivers, lakes and animals there, we can understand the
reason for secrecy and why the books of two American writers Reed and
Gardner, were suppressed and forgotten, in order to guard this secret.
FROM ARCTIC EXPLORATION
Gardner's book is 450 pages in
length. With fifty books, chiefly on Arctic exploration, in his
bibliography, he was most thorough in his research. Gardner claimed
that the earth is a hollow shell approximately 800 miles thick in its
crust, with an opening at the polar end approximately 1,400 miles
across. He says that the mammoth comes from the interior and is still
living there, and the huge tropical animals found frozen in ice in the
polar region were not prehistoric but were animals from the interior
that came to the surface and were frozen in ice when they did.
In support of his theory of a
polar opening and a central sun in the hollow interior of the earth,
Gardner points out that birds and animals migrate to the north in
winter to find warmer weather. He also notes that when explorers go
north of 80 degrees north latitude, they find the water to become
warmer due to warm currents coming from the polar region, and the air
becomes warmer due to warm winds from the north These cause the open
sea, in place of ice, in the extreme north. They also find red pollen
on icebergs and glaciers, and find logs and other debris washed ashore
by these warm currents from the north. Gardner summarizes the evidence
in favor of his theory of a hollow earth with two polar openings and a
central sun as follows:
"How do scientists explain the
fact that when we go north it becomes colder up to a certain point and
then begins to get warm? How do they explain the further fact that the
source of this warmth is not any influence from the south but a series
of currents of warm water and of warm winds from the north - supposed
to be a land of solid ice? Where can these currents come from? How
could they come from anything else but an open sea? And why should
there be a warm open sea at the very place where scientists expect to
find eternal ice? Where could this warm water possibly come from?
"Why also should explorers find
the inhospitable ice cliffs of the far north covered in large areas
with the red pollen of an unknown plant? And why should they find the
seeds of tropical plants floating in these waters - when they are not
found in more southern waters? How should logs and branches of trees,
sometimes with fresh buds on them be found in these waters, all being
borne down by the warm currents from the north?
"Why should the northern parts
of Greenland be the world's greatest habitat of the mosquito, an insect
which is only found in warm countries ? How could it have gotten to
Greenland if it came from the south? Where do all the foxes and hares
go which are seen traveling north in Greenland? Where did the bears go?
Was it possible that such large creatures as bears could find
sustenance on plains of eternal ice?
"How do scientists explain the
fact that practically every competent explorer from the earlier days
down to Nansen has admitted that when he got to the Far North his
theories of what he should find failed to work and his methods of
finding his positions also failed to work? How do scientists explain
these passages from Nansen which we have quoted, showing that he was
absolutely lost in the Arctic region?
"How do scientists explain the
migrations of those birds which appear in England and other northern
countries one part of the year, in the tropics in another part of the
year, but disappear entirely in the winter? How do they explain the
fact that neither Peary nor Cook was able to prove the claim of
reaching the north pole. Even supposing both men to have acted in good
faith is it not obvious that both were lost? How else explain the
discrepancies in Peary's own narrative?
"Why, says the reader, did Peary
not discover that immense orifice at the polar extremity of the earth
if it was there?
"The reason is very simple and
can best be explained by asking another question.
"Why did not man discover by
looking around him, that he was living on the surface of what is,
practically speaking, an immense sphere (to be exact spheroid)? And why
did man for centuries think that the earth was flat? Simply because the
sphere was so large that he could not see the curvature but thought it
was a flat surface, and that he should be able to move all over the
surface of it appeared so natural that, when scientists first told him
it was a sphere he began to wonder why he did not fall off, or at
least, if he lived in the Northern Hemisphere, he wondered why the
Australians did not fall off - for he had no conception of the law of
"Now, in the case of the polar
explorers the same thing is true. They sail up to the outer edge of the
immense polar opening, but that opening is so vast, considering that
the crust of the earth over which it curves is eight hundred miles
thick, that the downward curvature of its edge is not perceptible to
them, and its diameter is so great - about 1,400 miles - that its other
side is not visible to them. So, if an explorer went far enough he
could sail right over that edge, down over the seas of the inner world
and out through the Antarctic orifice, and all that would show him what
he had done would be that as soon as he got inside he would see a
smaller sun than he was accustomed to - only to him it might look
larger owing to its closeness - and he would not be able to take any
observations by the stars because there would be neither stars nor even
a night in which to see them.
"But, says the reader, would not
the force of gravity pull the explorer who got inside the orifice away
from the surface into the central sun; for does not gravity pull
everything to the center of the earth?
"The answer to this is, that in
gravitational pull it is not the geometrical position that counts.
Center, in the geometrical sense of the word, does not apply. It is the
mass that attracts. And if the great mass of the earth is in its thick
shell, it is the mass of that shell that will attract, and not a mere
geometrical point which is not in the shell at all, but 2900 miles away
from it, as is the approximate distance between the central sun and the
inner surface of the earth. As a matter of fact it is the equal
distribution of the force of gravity all through the shell that keeps
the sun suspended in the spot which is equidistant from every part of
the shell. When we are on the outside of the shell it is the mass of
the shell that attracts us to its surface. When we go over to the
inside of the shell that same force will still keep our feet solidly
planted on the inner surface.
"We shall see all that when we
explore the Arctic in earnest, as we shall easily be able to do with
the aid of airships. And when once we have seen it we shall wonder why
it was that for so long we were blind to evidence which, as is shown in
this book, has been before men's eyes for practically a whole century
Twenty-seven years after Gardner
wrote this, Admiral Byrd did exactly what he hoped would be done. He
flew by airplane into the north polar opening for 1700 miles and came
to a land of trees, as Gardner believed would exist there, and also a
warmer climate, as shown by the rivers, lakes, vegetation and animal
life he observed there.
"That the musk-ox is not the
only animal to be found where we should hardly expect it, is evident
from a note in Hayes' diary. When he was in latitude 78 degrees, 17
minutes, early in July, he said: `I secured a yellow-winged butterfly,
and - who would believe it - a mosquito. And also ten moths, three
spiders, two bees and two flies.'"
Since these insects are not found
further south, a land of ice and snow, the only explanation Gardner
could offer for their origin is that they came from the interior of the
earth through the polar opening.
Hayes' observations of insect life
in the extreme north were confirmed by Greely, in his book "Three Years of Arctic
Service," describing his
observations in the Arctic, begun in 1881. In the preface to his book,
Greely tells us that the wonders of the Arctic regions are so great
that he was forced to modify his actual notes made at the time, and
understated them rather than lay himself open to the suspicion of
exaggerating. That the Arctic regions are so full of life and strange
evidence of life farther north, that an explorer cannot describe it
without being accused of exaggerating is surely a very strange thing if
these regions only lead to a barren land of everlasting ice, as
according to older geographical theories.
Greely reports birds of an unknown
species, butterflies, flies and temperatures of 47 to 50 degrees, also
plenty of willow to make fires, and much fresh driftwood. He found two
flowers different from any that he had ever seen.
In many pages of astronomical
evidence, Gardner discusses the bright lights seen shining from the
polar caps of Mars, Venus and Mercury, and concludes that these planets
all have central suns and polar openings. He claims that the earth has
the same and that the aurora borealis results from the projection of
the rays of the central sun, passing through the polar opening, on the
night sky. Gardner summarizes the evidence in favor of his theory as
"As explorers go north of about
80 degrees north latitude, they find that the water, instead of
becoming colder in the same ratio in which it had been getting colder
as they left the temperate zone, gradually begins to get warm again,
and they find that this warmth is brought down from the so-called
frozen north in a warm current flowing from the polar regions.
Furthermore they find that birds and animals migrate to the north to
feed and breed, instead of to the south. In fact, when they get into
really high latitudes, explorers find a greater wealth of animal and
vegetable life than they do in the lower latitudes of the Arctic and
"And as they are sailing to
these northern regions they find, scattered on the icebergs and
glaciers, the red pollen of plants that grow - where? Only in the
interior of the earth. And they find logs and other debris of the land
washed down in these warm currents just spoken of. And this is not all.
In our chapter on the mammoth and mastodon we shall adduce evidence to
show that the mammoth still lives in the interior - in fact we shall
exhibit case after case where the mammoth has floated out from the
interior incased in glaciers and icebergs and has been frozen in
crevasses in the interior near the polar openings, and then carried
over the lip by glacial movement into Siberia."
In addition to driftwood found in
the extreme north, whose origin, according to Gardner, could only be
the earth's interior, there is found trees with green buds in the
Arctic seas. Seeds of unknown tropical species have also been found
drifting down in the northern currents, coming from the north, not the
south. Among these was the seed of the entada bean, a tropical seed,
which was found by a Swedish expedition near Trurengerg Bay. Gardner
"This seed must have come from
the interior of the earth, for it is of a tree that only grows under
tropical conditions, and it would have been disintegrated had it been
drifting all over the world for many months, as would be the case if it
had come up from the tropical regions of the exterior of the planet."
Sverdrup found so many hares
around 81 degrees north latitude that one inlet was called Hare Fjord.
There was also enough other game to keep the whole exploring party well
fed with meat.
Captain Beechey saw so many birds
on the west coast of Spitzbergen that the place reverberated with their
cries from dawn till dark. The little auk were so numerous and so close
together that sometimes a single shot killed thirty of them. With
sixteen birds to a cubic yard, there were about four million of them.
Rotgers were so numerous as to darken the sky, and their chorus could
be heard for four miles. There were also reindeer and ducks. There were
four varieties of seagulls over the surrounding ocean, plus fish and
amphibious animals, from the huge whale to the minute clio on which it
feeds, swallowing perhaps a million with each mouthful.
Franklin saw large numbers of
geese migrating to the unknown north, at a high latitude, indicating
land there. He notes that no matter how far north the explorer goes, he
always finds the polar bear ahead of him. No matter how far north these
bears are met, they are always on their way north.
At latitude 82, Kane found
butterflies, bees and flies, as well as wolves, foxes, bears, geese,
ducks, water-fowls and partridges. A strange fact all explorers observe
is that animals do not migrate south to escape the cold Arctic winter,
but instead go north.
Commander McClure explored Banks
Land and found immense quantities of trees thrown in layers by glacious
action, which evidently brought them from the north. In one ravine he
found a pile of trees closely packed, to a height of forty feet. While
some wood was petrified, much of it was of recent origin. These trees
were found far beyond the latitude where trees grow.
Nansen was puzzled by this
driftwood which is continually found along the Greenland coast. He said
that as far north as latitude 86 degrees he found such driftwood.
Gardner says that it is the
unanimous testimony of explorers that "the further north you go, the
more animal life there is, a complete proof that there is in the far
north a great asylum of refuge where every creature can breed in peace
and with plenty of food. And from that region must come also those
evidences of vegetable life that explorers have repeatedly seen, the
red pollen of plants that drifts out on favorable breezes and colors
whole icebergs and glacier sides with a ruddy tinge, those seeds and
buds and branches, and most impressive of all, those representatives of
races of animals that yet live on in the interior, although they have
disappeared from the outside of the earth. (Gardner here refers to
mammoths found frozen in ice.)
"What a veritable paradise of
animal and vegetable life that must be: And perhaps for some sort of
human life, also, it is a land of perpetual ease and peace. The Eskimo
people who are still living there will have been modified from the type
that we see on the outer surface. Their life will be easier, as they
will have no cold climates and food scarcities to contend with. Like
the inhabitants of some of our tropical islands, they will reflect the
ease of their lives in easy-going and lovable temperaments. They will
be... eaters of many fruits and other vegetable products unknown to us.
When we penetrate their land we shall find growing almost to the inner
edge of the polar opening those trees of which we have seen so many
drifting trunks and branches.
"We shall find, nesting perhaps
in those trees, perhaps in the rocks around the inner polar regions the
knots and swans and wild geese and ross-gulls that we have so often
seen in the preceding pages, flying to the north to escape the rigors
of climate which we in our ignorance have for so long supposed to be
worse in the north than elsewhere."
Speaking of Nansen, who reached
further north than any other explorer, Ottmar Kaub comments:
"Marshall B. Gardner was right
when he wrote his book in 1920. On August 3, 1894, Dr. Fritzjof-Nansen
was the first man in history to reach the interior of the earth. Dr.
Nansen got lost and admitted it. He was surprised at the warm weather
there. When he found a fox track, he knew he was lost.
"How could a fox track be there,
he wondered. Had he known that he had entered the opening that leads to
the hollow interior of the earth and that this was the reason why, the
further north he went, the warmer it became, he would have found not
only fox tracks but later tropical birds and other animals, and finally
the human inhabitants of this `land beyond the Pole,' into which
Admiral Byrd penetrated for 1,700 miles by plane and which completely
Gardner claims that the mammoth
and elephant-like creatures of tropical origin found frozen in the
Arctic ice, which is derived from fresh water (not salty water as one
would suppose, since this is the only water found there) are really
animals from the interior of the Earth that came to the surface and
became frozen, and are not prehistoric animals as commonly supposed.
Gardner's theory of the subterranean origin of the mammoth found
confirmation in Admiral Byrd's observation of a living mammoth during
his 1,700 mile flight into the land beyond the North Pole, within the
Gardner claims that these strange
animals not known on the Earth's surface were carried by rivers from
the Earth's interior, freezing within the ice that was then formed.
This theory seems very reasonable, in view of the ice being formed from
fresh water not found in the Arctic Ocean. Since this ice, like
icebergs, could not have been formed by ocean water, the only
explanation is that it comes from other water - fresh water rivers
flowing out through the polar opening from the earth's interior.
Since these animals are found
inside of icebergs, which are composed of fresh water, this water, like
the animals frozen in the ice it forms on reaching the surface and
exposed to its lower temperature, must come from the earth's interior.
Gardner speaks of herds of mammoths, elephants and other tropical
animals which, when they venture out to the colder regions near the rim
of the polar opening, together with glaciers which form there from
water from the interior flowing outward and freezing become frozen in
the ice. Or they might fall into crevasses, perhaps concealed by snow,
and the moment they fall in, they will be covered by snow and
snow-water from above and hermetically sealed in the ice.
This would account for the fresh
condition in which these mammoths frozen in the ice are found after
these glaciers have gradually worked their way over the rise of the
polar opening and out into the Siberian wastes where these frozen
animals are found in a perfectly fresh and edible condition.
Robert B. Cook tells of the
remains not only of mammoths, but of hairy rhinoceros, reindeer,
hippopotamus, lion and hyena, found in northern glacial deposits. He
claims that these animals which were unable to endure cold weather were
either summer visitors during the severity of the glacial period or
permanent residents when the country had a milder climate. But Gardner
maintains that these animals came from inside the earth for the
"Since the reindeer, lion and
hyena are present day forms of life and not as old as the mammoth (at
least in the form in which we know them today and in which these
remains show them to have been when they were alive), it is evident
that these animals visited the spots where their remains were found not
from southerly climates during early glacial epochs, but that they are
remains of visitors from the land of the interior. Otherwise these
present day forms would not be found alongside those of the mammoth
which we have shown to be a present day inhabitant of the interior of
the earth. Not knowing this, Mr. Cook has great difficulty in
explaining the occurrence together of these forms which in his view are
earlier and later forms of life. But when we shall see that they are
really contemporaneous (and both came from the interior of the earth),
the difficulty vanishes."
In the stomach of the mammoth was
found undigested food consisting of young shoots of pine and fir and
young fir cones. In others are found fern and tropical vegetation. How
could an Arctic animal have tropical food in its stomach? One
explanation is that the Arctic region once had a tropical climate, and
that a shift of the earth on its axis suddenly brought on the Ice Age
and changed the climate to a frigid one.
This theory has been offered to
explain both the tropical vegetation in the stomach of frozen Arctic
animals and the fact that many of these huge animals were of tropical
species, related to elephants. Great deposits of elephant tusks were
found in Siberia as evidence of the then northern habitat of tropical
animals. But there is another theory to explain these facts: that these
tropical animals came from the interior of the earth, which has a
tropical climate, coming out through the North Polar opening. On
reaching the cold exterior with its Arctic climate they froze, since
they were unaccustomed to such cold climate.
This is the theory held by Ray
Palmer, who does not accept the idea that these animals died in
prehistoric times as a result of a shifting of the earth on its axis.
"True the death must have been
sudden, but it was not because the Arctic was previously tropical and
suddenly changed to a frigid climate. The sudden Coming of the Ice Age
was not the cause of death. The cause of death was Arctic in nature,
and could have occurred any time, even recently. Since the Ice Age
there were no mammoths in the known world, unless they exist in the
mysterious land beyond the Pole, where one of them was actually seen
alive by members of the Byrd expedition."
"We have taken the mammoth as a
rather sensational modern evidence of Byrd's mysterious land, but there
are many lesser proofs that an unknown originating point exists
somewhere in the northern regions. We will merely list a few,
suggestions that the reader, in examining the records of polar
explorers for the past two centuries, will find it impossible to
reconcile with the known areas of food mentioned early in this
presentation of facts, those areas surrounding the polar area on your
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF GARDNER'S THEORY OF A HOLLOW EARTH
Gardner devotes a considerable
portion of his book to a discussion of astronomical evidence in support
of his theory of a hollow earth with polar openings and a central sun
by referring the original formation of planets from nebulae and the
polar lights observed from Mars, Venus and Mercury.
In reference to nebulae, Gardner
points out that planetary nebulae show a shell structure, generally
with a central star, as observed by H.D. Curtis of the Astronomical
Society of the Pacific in an article in "Scientific American" on October 14, 1916. He reports:
"Fifty of these nebulae have
been studied photographically with the Crosly reflector, using
different lengths of exposure in order to bring out the structural
details of the bright central portions as well as of the fainter,
outlying parts. Most planetary nebulae show a more or less regular ring
or shell structure, generally with a central star. "
On the basis of the above and
other astronomical evidence, Gardner claims that the shape of the
nebulae, as seen through the telescope, confirms his theory by showing
that in the original formation of planets from nebulae, they acquire a
hollow interior, polar openings and a central sun, as is indicated by
the shape of the ring nebula shown on the accompanying photograph.
"Why have scientists never
really considered the problem of the shape of the planetary nebula?
They know from actual observation and photographs that the planetary
nebula takes the form of a hollow shell open at the poles and having a
bright central nucleus or central sun at its center. Why have they
never thought what that must imply? It is evidently one stage in the
evolution of the nebula.
"Why have scientists never asked
themselves what that conformation must logically lead to? Why do they
ignore it altogether? Is it not because they cannot explain it without
too great a disturbance of their own theories? But our theory shows how
that stage in the evolution of a nebula is reached and how it is
passed, we show what precedes it in the history of the nebula and what
"We show a continuous evolution
passing through that stage to further stages in which those polar
openings are fixed, the shell solidified, the nebula reduced to a
planet. And it must be remembered that while the original nebula was
incomparably greater than a planet in size, measuring even millions of
miles across perhaps, at the same time that nebula is composed of gases
so attenuated and so expanded by their immense heat that when they
solidify they only make one planet."
Gardner points out that just as,
in the formation of the solar system, some of the original fire remains
at the center in the form of the sun, so, in the case of each
individual planet, by the same process by which the solar system as a
whole is formed, and by a continuation of the same general movement of
rotation and the centrifugal throwing out of the heavier masses to the
periphery (as shown by the fact that the most outermost planets, as
Uranus and Neptune, are larger than those nearer the sun, as Mercury
and Venus), in the case of each of the planets, in their formation,
some of the original fire remains in the center of each, to form the
central sun, while their heavier constituents are thrown to their
surface to form the solid crust, leaving the interior hollow.
Also, due to their rotation on
their axis, centrifugal force causes the mass throughout to collect
more at right angles to the axis of rotation, causing a bulge at the
Equator, with a corresponding compensation at the poles in form of
polar depressions which open to the hollow interior, rather than being
It is Gardner's theory, in support
of which he presents astronomical evidence in his book, that all
planets are hollow and have central suns, this being the basic pattern
according to which solar systems are formed from the primordial nebulae
from which they originate. Also our universe must have a central sun
too, around which the stars circulate.
Gardner quotes the famous
astronomer, Professor Lowell, that he has seen gleams of light from the
polar cap of Mars. According to Gardner, this is due to the central sun
of Mars passing through the polar opening. Similar bright lights have
been observed coming from the polar region of Venus. During a transit
of Mercury across the sun, the planet, while black on the side toward
us, was observed to emit a bright light, comparable to the light of our
sun, coming from its black disc.
Gardner concludes that these three
planets are all hollow and have large polar openings misnamed polar
caps of ice and snow, but in reality are white due to the large amount
of fog and clouds in these regions, and that openings in the fog or
clouds permit the central sun to shine through. Such bright lights have
repeatedly been observed by astronomers who, not understanding the
reason, could not offer any satisfactory explanation. Gardner notes
that at times these polar caps disappear suddenly, due to a change of
weather and that ice and snow could not melt so rapidly. Professor
"There is no evidence that snow
like ours ever formed around the poles of Mars. It does not seem
possible that any considerable fall of such snow could take place, nor
is there any necessity of supposing actual snow or ice to account for
the white caps. "
In support of his claim concerning
the existence of lights seen at the pole of Mars, Gardner quoted
Professor Lowell who notes that on June 7, 1894, he was watching Mars
and suddenly saw two points of light flash out from the middle of the
polar cap. They were dazzling bright. The lights shone for a few
minutes and then disappeared. Green, some years earlier, in 1846, also
saw two spots of light at the pole of Mars.
Lowell tried to explain the lights
he saw as reflections of sunlight by polar ice, but Gardner denies
this, quoting Professor Pickering who saw a vast area of white form at
the pole of Mars within twenty-four hours, visible as a white cap, and
then gradually disappeared. Also Lowell saw a band of dark blue, which
he took to be water from the melting ice or snow cap. Gardner believes
that the so-called Martian ice cap was really fog and clouds, which
also could appear and disappear so rapidly. He writes:
"What Lowell really did see was
a direct beam - two direct beams at the same moment - flashing from the
central sun of Mars out through the aperture of the Martian pole. Does
not the blue rim around that area to which Lowell referred indicate the
optical appearance of the reflecting surface of the planet gradually
curving over to the interior so that at a certain part of the curve it
begins to cease reflecting the light? And the fact that it is not seen
often simply shows that it is only visible when Mars is in a certain
position with relation to the earth, when we are able to penetrate the
mouth of the polar opening and catch the direct beam.
"Why have scientists never
compared the facts of the light cap of Mars with the light that plays
over our own polar regions? Do they forget that the auroral display has
been observed to take place without any reference to the changing of
the magnetic needle? And if the aurora is shown to be independent of
magnetic conditions, what else can it be due to than a source of light?
Is not the reflection of the aurora light from the higher reaches of
the atmosphere comparable to the projection of the light of the Martian
caps into the higher reaches of the Martian atmosphere? And how do
scientists explain the fact that the aurora is only seen distinctly in
the very far north and only seen in a fragmentary way when we get
In support of his view that the
polar caps of Mars are not formed of ice and snow but represent the
light of its central sun shining through the polar opening, Gardner
"Why does the hot planet Venus
have polar caps like those of Mars if the Martian caps are really
composed either of ice, snow or frozen carbon dioxide? Also, why do the
polar caps of Venus and Mercury not wax and wane as those of Mars are
said to do? And why are the polar caps of Mars seen to throw a mass of
light many miles above the surface of the planet when they are seen in
a side view if they are really of ice? How could they be so luminous in
the first place - more luminous than snow is when seen under similar
circumstances? And how could Lowell see direct gleams of light from the
caps if there were not beams from a direct light source?
"Furthermore, how do scientists
account for the fact, noticed also by Professor Lowell, whose
observations on Mars all seem to support our theory, that when the
planet is viewed through a telescope at night, that its polar light is
yellow and now white, as the light from snow caps would be? The central
sun is an incandescent mass, and just as the glowing of an incandescent
electric light looks yellow when seen from a distance through darkness,
so the direct light of the Martian sun would appear yellow - but if
this light were reflected from a solid white surface it would certainly
appear white. But it does not, and so it is up to the scientists to
tell us just why it does not. But so far as we know they have not
succeeded in doing this."
Mitchell saw two bright flashes of
light at the polar cap of Mars which gradually came together. Gardner
explains this as due to clouds which passed over the face of the
interior sun, causing variations in the light emitted through the polar
An English astronomer, W E.
Denning, writing in the scientific periodical, "Nature," concerning his observations in 1886, wrote:
"During the past few months the
north polar cap of Mars has been very bright, sometimes offering a
startling contrast to those regions of the surface more feebly
reflective. These luminous regions of Mars require at least as much
careful investigation as the darker parts. In many previous drawings
and descriptions of Mars, sufficient weight has not been accorded to
these white spots."
The English astronomer, J. Norman
Lockyer, in 1892, wrote about Mars:
"The snow zone was at times so
bright that, like the crescent of the young moon, it appeared to
project beyond the planet. This effect of irradiation was frequently
visible. On one occasion the snow spot was observed to shine like a
nebulous star when the planet itself was obscured by clouds, a
phenomenon noticed by Beer and Madler, and recorded in their work,
`Fragments Sur les Corps Celestes.' The brightness seemed to vary
considerably, and at times, especially when the snow zone was near its
minimum, it was by no means the prominent object it generally is upon
the planet's disc."
Gardner comments on the above
"No one who reads the above in
the light of our theory can fail to see how it fits in. Only direct
beams of light from a central sun could give that luminous effect above
the surface of the planet and varying as the atmosphere in the interior
or above it was clouded or clear. Had it been a mere ice cap, there
would not have been this luminosity when the planet was covered with
clouds, as Lockyer says it was. Furthermore, that luminosity is
precisely what our aurora borealis would look like if our planet was
viewed from a great distance. And the light is the same in both cases.
By turning to the planet Venus we shall demonstrate absolutely that the
polar circles are not snow, or ice, or even hoar-frost caps, but simply
apertures leading to the inner and illumined surface of the planet."
On Venus the extensive water vapor
tends to equalize the temperature, so that its polar caps are not
composed of ice and snow, as supposed in the case of Mars, but which
Gardner doubts. Speaking of the polar caps of Venus, MacPherson, in his
Modern Astronomy," says:
"Polar caps have been observed,
supposed by some to be similar to those on our own planet and Mars.
Some astronomers, however, do not regard them as snow."
The French astronomer Trouvelet,
in 1878, observed at the pole of Venus a confused mass of luminous
points, which Gardner attributes to light from the central sun
struggling through the clouds. Since the polar cap is not made of ice,
these lights cannot be a reflection of the sun. He believes this is the
same case with Mars.
Similar lights are seen coming
from Mercury. Richard Proctor, one of the best known astronomers of the
nineteenth century, wrote:
"One phenomenon of Mercury, if
real, might fairly be regarded as indicating Vulcanian energies
compared with which those of our own earth would be as the puny forces
of a child compared with the energies of a giant. It has been supposed
that a certain bright spot seen in the black disc of Mercury when the
planet is in transit indicates some source of illumination either of
the surface of the planet or in its atmosphere. In its atmosphere it
could hardly be; nor could any auroral streamers on Mercury be supposed
to possess the necessary intensity of lustre. If the surface of Mercury
were glowing with the light thus supposed to have been seen, then it
can readily be shown that over hundreds of thousands of square miles of
that surface must glow with an intensity of lustre compared with which
the brightness of the lime light would be as darkness. In fact, the
lime light is absolute darkness compared with the intrinsic lustre of
the sun's surface; and the bright spot supposed to belong to Mercury
has been seen when the strongest darkening-glasses have been employed.
But there can be no doubt that the bright spot is an optical phenomenon
Commenting on Proctor's statement,
"Again we agree with the
observation but not with the inference. Here is a spot of light on
Mercury, plainly seen through a telescope, so bright that the observer
compares it to the incandescence of a sun. It is a much brighter light
than any reflection could possibly give. To Proctor such an appearance
must have been shocking to the extreme. He was not expecting it and was
utterly unprepared to see such a phenomenon. So he is utterly unable to
explain it. So Proctor calls this light `an optical phenomenon only.'
But we cannot believe that Proctor's eyes have played him a trick. He
was a trained astronomical observer. So what he saw must have had some
explanation or cause behind it.
"It is obvious to us that what
he saw was the central sun of Mercury beaming directly through the
polar aperture, and as Mercury is a small planet, the interior sun
would be rather near the aperture, and there would be no aqueous
atmosphere with clouds to darken its beams, with the result that this
sun would shine with extraordinary brightness. It may be noticed that
its beams put Proctor in mind of the beams from the sun that shines
upon all the planets.
"What more could be wanted than
this to show that Mercury, as well as the other planets, has a central
sun, and that such a sun is to be met with universally? Is it not
significant that beginning with observations on Mars, we are able to go
on to Venus and Mercury, apply the same tests and get the same results?
The tests are direct observation or photographic observation. The
results are the invariable appearance of a central sun."
In addition to the above
astronomical evidence in favor of his theory, Gardner refers to the
structure of the heads of comets, showing a hollow center, outer crust
and central sun. In his book he presents a drawing of Donati's comet,
detected from a Florence observatory in 1858. As can be seen it had a
central nucleus or sun, which "shone with a brilliance equal to that of
the Polar Star" and was 630 miles in diameter. Gardner believes that a
comet is a planet which, came into the orbit of some other larger body,
like our sun, which tore it from its own orbit, and possibly collided
with another planet and the resulting heat transformed most of it into
a gaseous tail that trails after it. Gardner claims that the fiery
nucleus of the comet was once the central sun of the planet from which
it was formed after it broke into fragments.
THE AURORA BOREALIS
Just as there are polar lights
from Mars, Venus and Mercury, coming from their central suns shining
through their polar openings, so Gardner claims, the same occurs in the
case of our own planet, the polar lights which it gives off being the
aurora borealis, which is not due to magnetism but to the earth's
Gardner presents the following
theory of the origin of the Aurora Borealis:
"Why have scientists never
compared the facts of the light cap of Mars with the light that plays
over our own polar regions? Do they forget that the auroral display has
been observed to take place without any reference to the changing of
the magnetic needle ? And if the aurora is shown to be independent
of&127 magnetic conditions, what else can it be due to than a
source of light? Is not the reflection of the aurora light from the
higher reaches of the atmosphere comparable to the projection of the
light of the Martian caps into the higher reaches of the Martian
atmosphere? And how do scientists explain the fact that the aurora is
only distinctly seen in the very far north and only seen in a
fragmentary way when we get further south?"
Gardner concludes that the aurora
borealis is due to the central sun shining through the polar orifice on
the night sky; and the variations in the streamers of light are due to
passing clouds in the interior, which, in their movements, cut off the
light of the central sun and cause the reflection on the sky to keep
changing. That the aurora is not due to magnetism or electrical
discharges is proven by many observations of Arctic explorers showing
there is no disturbance of the compass nor crackling sounds that
accompany electrical discharges, when the aurora is most intense.
"There are some other
considerations which show that the aurora is really due to the interior
sun. Dr. Kane, in his account of his explorations, tells us that the
aurora is brightest when it is white. That shows that when the
reflection of the sun is so clear that the total white light is
reflected, we get a much brighter effect than when the light is cut up
into prismatic colors. In the latter case the atmosphere is damp and
dense (in the interior of the earth) - that being the cause of the
rainbow effect - and through such an atmosphere one cannot see so much.
Hence the display is not so bright as it is when the atmosphere is
clear and the light not broken up.
"Again, if the aurora is the
reflection of the central sun, we should expect to see it fully only
near the polar orifice, and see only faint glimpses of its outer edges
as we went further south. And that is precisely what is the actual fact
of the matter.
Says Dr. Nicholas Senn in his
the Heart of the Arctics:"
"`The aurora, which only
occasionally is seen in our latitudes, is but the shadow of what it is
to be seen in the polar region.'
"The aurora is not a magnetic or
electrical disturbance but simply a dazzling reflection from the rays
of the central sun. For if it warms continents and waters in the
interior of the earth, if, as we have seen, birds have their feeding
and breeding grounds there, if an occasional log or seed or pollen-like
dust is seen in the Arctic that came from some such unknown place as we
have described, it ought to be possible to obtain enough evidence of
Back to Contents