|
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: America
Posts: 427
|
![]() Quote:
I looked really closely at their cryosphere maps of the dates in question, 11/17 and 11/18, and I can't detect any noticable change that you could attribute to "blasts". I've been monitoring the cryosphere maps for months, and keep screen copies of various days throughout the past 3 months. However, it is now winter season, with storms and ice building up. So if there was "something" to be seen from above, I suspect that the snow and ice could have covered it within hours. But have you laughed yet when you see the black dot on their cryosphere? Right where the north pole should be? Take a guess as to what they are covering up????? On their web page, click on the 30 day animation link... and it will show you images for the past 30 days. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: socal
Posts: 114
|
![]()
No confirmation on any controlled nuclear detentions? Not matter what, that many earthquakes of that size so concentrated in that particular spot is fairly peculiar...
http://www.iris.edu/seismon/zoom/eve...24&lat=79.6563 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: great northern boreal forest
Posts: 440
|
![]()
the simple fact is that there were NO NUKES exploded in the canadian arctic. the area in question is inhabited by canadians and has a lot of gas and oil exploration. don't you think that the folks in the neighbourhood woulda noticed??
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 58
|
![]()
May be it was "the Mother Bomb "that Russia possess and it is not nuclear.They can be registered on sismographe.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 58
|
![]()
Correction:"The Mother of All Bomb"
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: great northern boreal forest
Posts: 440
|
![]()
i think that is even less likely that the russians are detonating anything in the canadian arctic.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: OC, CA and next...
Posts: 1,289
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 224
|
![]()
Okay, a friend just passed this on to me:
http://lantis.tv/amp/releases/seismic.html So maybe it isn't totally impossible. I still can't believe NINE but who knows? ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | ||
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,201
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 377
|
![]()
Funny how these openings to the hollow earth are at the poles where nobody goes. Keeps the "mystery" alive I suppose. Very convenient.
As for exploding 9 nukes to seal the entrance to hollow earth, probably a good idea, because if you seal it, it will stop 100 billion trillion gallons of Arctic Ocean from pouring down the hole. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: NS, Canada
Posts: 39
|
![]()
OK, well firstly, Canada is a non-nuclear nation; it isn't legal for anyone including our own government to possess nukes... not that that's stopping 'em.
I think that people have some misconceptions about where the Inuit people live... certainly there are settlements above the Arctic Circle, but nobody lives at the North Pole per se. The Quikiqtaaluk region extends northward from Baffin Island, and the landmass reaches about 83 degrees N. However, the northernmost Inuit community is Grise Fiord at about 75 degrees N, population: approximately 100 people. There aren't too many people at or near the north pole to confirm or deny any sort of activity, nuclear or otherwise. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: great northern boreal forest
Posts: 440
|
![]()
if you read the article, you would see that the explosions were sup[posedly near banks island. there is a settlement on banks island. the article is just plain stupid. it makes the canadian government look stupider than they really are. the nukes were supposedly exploded in holes ten kilometers deep (6 miles). i'm not sure where some othese people get this sh*t. obviously, the writer is making it up as he goes along. canada is becoming increasingly protective of arctic sovereignty. this simply could not happen.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: I live in Canada. http://ipower.ning.com/forum/topics/did-they-nuke-the-arctic-bush
Posts: 5
|
![]()
I joined this forum so that I could post a link to another site where we are following this topic, it would be great to get more information about what exactly happened, but the blasts HAVE been confirmed from more than one source.
http://ipower.ning.com/forum/topics/...he-arctic-bush |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: great northern boreal forest
Posts: 440
|
![]()
i have checked out your link, however, it's just a re-hash of the link in the original post in this thread. it just isn't believable or well sourced or reliable. nine drilled underwater holes, miles deep; nine nukes on canadian territory; a settlement on banks island, near the site...and no one heard or saw anything?? the net is overflowing with bogus alarming stories. this is one of them.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|