Some one just told me that CIA crawl all over these lists. Hey CIA people,
this is for you. Do you have your spots all picked out in the underground
cities? If not, your gonna be stuck up here on top just like the rest of us,
if and when the poles tip! Even if you do have reservations, what are you
going to do when you come topside and see everything dead and destroyed? It
ain't going to be much fun then either. Will all of your family and friends
get admission to the underground city? You can deny the possibility but that
won't stop the truth of the matter. You will die just like the rest of us,
or you will wish you were dead. Your fun and games will end up killing us
all. Get your butts in gear and get us ANTIGRAVITY ICECUBE CUTTER/TRANSPORTS
so we can start trimming the South Pole Icecap or you will die like dogs
just as the rest of us will. Time is running out...
If I die because of your stupidity, I will be so upset, I will find some way
of coming back... :(
Dennis C. Lee
> > I'm really sick of this nonsense and
> > appalled at the ignorance of elementary
> > physics that allows it to propagate.
> > NOTHING will twist the rotational axis of
> > the earth perceptibly except collision
> > with another heavenly object having
> > enormous mass.
>
>Well, I'm afraid when you read this you're going to get even sicker.
>
>My elementary geophysics tells me that the the earth is very, very, nearly
>a perfect sphere. The much talked about equatorial bulges or "oblate
>spheroid" shape is extremely small compared with the size of the earth.
>
>Then, my elementary physics tells me that a perfect spinning sphere has
>*NO* gyroscopic stability. Nada, none at all. If the earth were a perfect
>sphere, after a few years a gang of fleas all farting in the same direction
>could tilt the earth off its axis. Of course it's not quite a perfect
>sphere. So how does that tiny equatorial bulge stack up against the ice
>packs anyway? Is much of that equatorial bulge made up of seawater? I'd
>really be interested in a good explanation of the physics of the stability
>of a spinning *elastic* sphere (perhaps fluid filled, like a near-spherical
>water balloon for instance). I'd think its centrifugal bulge would
>contribute to stability as expected, but is it truly the same as a rigid
>solid having a fixed equatorial bulge? How would such a fluid system react,
>for instance, to a field which applied force to all the elements (molecules
>or whatever) of the system all at once? The earth, even the solid rock,
>might as well be considered a near-fluid when taken altogether as a planet.
>
>There may be other forces between the earth and sun, or even the other
>planets, that loom large but unknown against the simple electrogravitic
>(plain old gravity in straight radiated 'as in electrostatic' lines).
>Obviously electrostatic forces aren't small, and even gravity itself might
>have some glitches to it involving large spinning masses. I know the
>magnetogravitic effect from such systems is thought to be vanishingly
>small, but that might not be the whole story. Remember "Jove rules the
>heavens", and there's physical evidence to back the claim (angular momentum
>of the solar system). Would that be a clue?
>
>The ancients seemed terribly intersted in tracking the heavens, and
>evidence indicates they experienced enormous relief and celebration when
>observations showed that things were continuing to move in their expected
>paths. Why this paranoia about celectial objects reappearing in their
>proper places? Don't they always? Why would anyone think it could be
>otherwise? Maybe they knew something we don't? Maybe they or their
>ancestors had certain bad experiences in this regard?
>
>I'm not buying into any of this 5/5/2000 or polar shift stuff without any
>good evidence either. But I'm not so sure I can dismiss all of it out of
>hand without some good answers to some of these other questions.
>
Tall Ships
http://pw1.netcom.com/~atech/tallship.html