Dec 31, 2001 10:02 PST
"GregoryThomas. Williams" wrote:
| ||Are some of you saying that the Tunguska Blast was caused by a|
magnifying generator made by Tesla [some sort of electromagnetic
pulse generated remotely]
Some believe so. I don't.
| ||and that no debris from an exploding source [comet, meteor, space|
craft] was ever found?
Essentially none. Possibly at the particle (dust) level.
| ||If so, could the Strategic Air Command's global "backscatter" radar|
system be secretly capable of such or similar remote pulses?
If thats the OTH-B system, as, eg prototyped in Maine.
I suggest the answer is no. Others will differ. I had a
public tour of that facility some years back. Power levels
are well below (multiple orders of magnitude) those required
for Tunguska type event. (others will differ.)
If as the one i visited (which was to be one of many), they
| ||I live near one of these installations which were mothballed|
immediately after their construction because of the "end of the cold
never met their design goals. The technology could only
be tested full scale, over time. Once tested, the
improvement over existing systems was insufficient to justify
proceeding. The installations may have stayed (i gather they
did) for research purposes.
| ||I have heard of late that they are reactivating them or at least|
upgrading their mothball status..
Possible, surely. Technology (and the perceived threats)
| ||----- Original Message -----|
From: David Thomson <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 6:13 AM
Subject: [Elfrad-Group] Just appeared discussion group on Tunguska event
| ||The most credible explanation IMO is an above ground explosion of a|
meteor or comet. This accounts perfectly for the butterfly-shaped
blast pattern in the fallen trees based on scale modeling by a
scientist who has studied the area extensively.
| ||I liked the theory when I heard it. The blast patterns do match|
an above ground explosion. But in all honesty, I cannot think of
a single substance that could fall from the sky and explode with
an atomic force that doesn't leave some kind of material behind as
Any explosive would do. Airbursting will leave the chemical
remnants 'blowing in the wind'. In the case of a comet, the
speculation tends to 'dirty snowball', which would 'melt',
dumping water vapor in the atmosphere. (the 'dirt' would
blow in the wind, dispersing.) (Melt is imprecise, the
temperatures are SO high that near nuclear condition would
be reached, the water would dissociate to H and O.)
Something similar could account for certain classes of
In either of these cases, there need not be an explosive
(as such), simply the HUGE amount of energy represented
by the speed of the object being braked, rapidly, to a halt.
There are, in any case, apparent trace level chemical anomalies
in the area, more or less as if some stray chemicals had been
'dropped' there, eg, the non water parts of a 'dirty snowball'
or the remnants of a meteorite.
| ||That is, unless it was an intense electrical burst.
| ||What material can create an atomic blast
There is little evidence, if any, of an atomic blast at
Tunguska. There are indications of a blast, of unknown,
probably nonnuclear origin. (an 'explosion' is a lot of energy
released at once. could be chemical, nuclear or the result of
large amounts of mechanical energy (large object, moving fast)
being expended. (object braked to a halt). A nuclear blast
(of any known type) would leave large amounts of radioactivity
(and a LOT more mutations than found... probably also a
'dead zone'. (There had been reports of 'radioactive
contamination', i believe they were later NOT confirmed.)
| ||greater than Hiroshima, that falls naturally from the sky,
Comets & meteorites.
Large, fast, ones have large kinetic energy. (The energies
available roughly match those of the Tunguska event, if i
recall. Depending on how fast the object is coming and
how rapidly it stops, the energy may appear as an
| ||and that completely vaporizes without a trace of even dust?
Also, i believe trace level contaminants ('dust') have been
| ||Had there been any material involved at all, it would have been|
imbedded in the fallen trees that it had pushed over.
I believe such traces have been found in the mosses, buried in
the bog. I'd expect them to have bounced off/been washed off
the trees, by natural rainfall. They might perhaps be
recoverable from growing trees at the edge of the area, in
the appropriate annual ring. Be an interesting thing to check.
(may have been done.....)