link to Home Page

Re: TUNGUSKA

 Article: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected](Nancy )
Subject: Re: TUNGUSKA
Date: 13 Mar 1997 15:14:38 GMT

In article <[email protected]> Jim Scotti writes:
> Some unsupported hypothesis that some undetected methane
> source caused the Tunguska blast even though its side affects
> and even its causes cannot begin to fit the observations is not
> one of these solutions.
> [email protected] (Jim Scotti)

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])

  1. The production of methane gas in buried muck and grass and dead mastodons is supported by the dead mastodons found in the Ivory Islands and Siberia and Alaska, with grass and buttercups between their teeth and in their stomachs
  2. the degree of ice on Greenland, which is outstanding compared to the rest of the polar region on all sides
  3. the positions of the Tunguska tundra and Greenland, which would allow a pole shift pushing Greenland off the North Pole to pull Tunguska up toward the North Pole.
  4. the degree of methane gas that bubbles up from swamps and must be vented from landfills
  5. the fact that natural gas has methane as a component, and is highly explosive
  6. the fact that methane burns blue, and a blue light as an Aurora was seen prior to the explosion, over a wide area
  7. the fact that the wick that lit the methane cloud was seen to travel BACK along the path that the prevailing westerlies would take it
  8. the fact that earthquakes occurs during that time, explaining why the permafrost would have cracked and released the methane gas

Our argument addresses ALL the factors present during the Tunguska explosion. We win the debate! Admit it!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <[email protected]> Jim Scotti writes:
> Meteor impacts on planets happen. We have estimated their
> timescales by observing bright meteors and by observing
> asteroids out in space and the observations made by the
> eyewitnesses are fit very well by such an event and the side
> affects of the blast as measured by meteorological equipment
> worldwide fit very well with such an event.
> [email protected] (Jim Scotti)

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])

  1. You have your meteor, a LARGE meteor, vaporizing without a trace when your own space junk does not so vaporize.
  2. You have the meteor dropping through the atmosphere at a steady high speed, ignoring utterly the braking effect that air, like water, has.
  3. You have the meteor heating at the center to such an extent that in explosion occurs, ignoring the evidence your own shuttles have that air friction heats from the outside in.
  4. You have the meteor surface remaining rigid, so the heated interior must explode, ignoring the fact that heated rock and metal becomes molten.

Your argument loses on all counts! Admit it!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])