Re: Planet X: TUNGUSKA as Example
In Article <email@example.com> Dan wrote:
> The Small Kahuna <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I would be willing to bet that it will also show that
>> the "methane explosion" theory supports the
>> "simplest explanation" criteria, when you analyze
>> *all* of the facts.
> The butterfly pattern of the knocked down trees is
> consistent with a meteor exploding in mid-air and is
> inconsistent with a methane explosion.
Wrong, youve got that reversed. Explosion experts
will tell you that the pattern of an air centered
1. Rapidly diminishing pressure and heat from the
center of the explosion.
2. The side striking a push-back (such as the ground)
is able to push in the directions that do not have a
push-back (up and to the sides) so that the rush is
UPWARDS from the ground, not down into it.
3. Upwards pressure in any case receives the greater
outlet as the atmosphere is lighter there, thus
causing an air sweep upward, NOT downward.
4. If close enough to the ground that high heat and a
downward pressure are evident at ground level,
then the pattern is such that everything is
quashed TO the ground, not knocked sideways.
The pattern of an explosion AT the ground level,
however, fits the butterfly pattern of trees knocked
SIDEWAYS. And the lack of meteor particles or
dust proves that it was NOT an exploding meteor.
Methane, once burned or disbursed into the air,
leaves no trace, which is why the mystery continues.
Who-Done-It needs a footprint, and there is none in
evidence! Meteors leave traces, methane does not.
We win this argument Dan, you lose.