Is there a point to distiguishing between different brands of lunatics?
What I mean is, that site doesn't seem to be bothered with scientific rigour. It's just a collection of "facts" with varying degree of relevance or seriousness which is supposed to paint a complete picture in the mind of the reader without any attempt to provide consistency.
What I mean is, that site doesn't seem to be bothered with scientific rigour. It's just a collection of "facts" with varying degree of relevance or seriousness which is supposed to paint a complete picture in the mind of the reader without any attempt to provide consistency.
What are you hoping to get? A "peer reviewed" and published mainstream science article?
If you're too lazy to think for yourself then I cannot help you. Perhaps Admiral Byrd is reputable enough for you to take these theories seriously, if you insist on some authority telling you what's what.
Admiral Richard E Byrd - Hollow Earth Video Interview
As for different brands of lunatics, if you're the guy who would like to call the author of that hollow earth blog a lunatic, then I have no respect for you. The guy is igniting thought and explaining how it is plausible for the planets to form as hollow. You call open-mindedness lunacy? If you're not joking, you have serious problems with your expectation bias which forces you to think inside a really cramped box.
In situations like this I always like to provide a link to the following video:
NASA PROVES HOLLOW EARTH THEORY... PROOF EVIDENCE EARTH IS HOLLOW
Although the title of the video is a bit of an exaggeration, if this doesn't open your mind for the possibility of hollow planets, nothing will.