Re: Planet X: TUNGUSKA as Example

<tholen@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message news:KfN_6.19684$WI.6325011@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com
> J. William Dell writes:
>
> >>>> Evidence, please.  Where is the seismological data?
> >> Insufficient.
> > The site I referred you to contains most available data on the event.
> And as I said, it's insufficient.
>
> > Observational data is all your going to get from an event that 
> > happened 100 years ago.
> Why is that? Were there not seismographs in 1908? There were 
> barometers in England that recorded the atmospheric shock wave

    ...  we are not disputing that an explosive event occured.

> > You asked for evidence, you got it.
> And it was insufficient.
> > BTW there is insufficient physical evidence of a meteor or meteor
> > crater to support the asteroid theory.
> Why do you expect a meteor crater to form from an atmospheric
> explosion 8 km in altitude?

    I do NOT expect this alleged gigantic rock to vanish, leaving NO 
    physical evidence.

> >> Large pockets of methane gas do not form in the atmosphere,

    I have listed examples of methane gas concentrating in the 
    atmosphere to refute your statement above.
    Your only comment is  "Irrelevant".
    Reminds me of Galileo trying to convince the RC Church the earth
    rotates around the sun.They would not look either and found any 
    evidence irrelevant.
>
> > 1) Note: Potentially hazardous pockets of methane gas do form in 
> >    the atmosphere. the gas usually collects in confined spaces.
>
> Since when is the atmosphere a confined space?

    Never said it was. Read carefully,

    A number of meteorological events can cause concentrations of gases
    in areas of the atmosphere, one in particuliar is called an inversion. 
    Usually associated with High Pressure areas.

    Your statement was "Large pockets of methane gas do not form in the 
    atmosphere". I have given you examples where this occurs.
    You choose to ignore.

> > a) http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Products/Pglossary/methane.html
> >    Sudden explosions of methane gas occur frequently near the edges 
> >    of active lava flows.
> > b) Methane gas migration can be a potential problem at many of 
> >    Missouri's older landfills.
> >    http://www.epa.state.il.us/environmental-progress/v24/n2/methane-gas.html
> >    Methane Gas Buildups Force Residents From Homes
> >    Methane gas blamed for duplex explosion after pilot ignited

> > 2) Large pockets of Methane ( usually methane hydrates ) are knowno
> >    to occur both under the ocean and in pockets under land.
>
> Also irrelevant, given that the destruction pattern is consistent 
> with an atmospheric explosion at several kilometers altitude.  Of 
> course, I already said that.

    In previous paragraphs I am providing evidence to refute your 
    contention that "Large pockets of methane gas do not form in the 
    atmosphere" and to show that methane exists in great quantities 
    around the world.


> >> but the pattern indicates an atmospheric blast, not a ground blast.
>
> > 2.2. THE FOREST FALL
> >      The Tunguska spacebody explosion stimulation undertaken by 
> >      Victor Korobeinikov, corresponding member of the Russian 
> >      Academy of Sciences, with co-workers at the Academy's 
> >      Computer Center has shown the internal energy of the  
> >      spacebody to be commensurate with its kinetic energy to 
> >      produce the existent forest fall [6]. In plain language, 
> >      this means that the Tunguska meteorite had to be an
> >      enormous block of super-explosive!

    You have removed further data dealing with the type of forces 
    required to create this specific blast pattern and anomalies in 
    blast pattern not supportable by meteor belief.

> You have a problem with that?

    What chemical compounds floating in space as asteroids around
    earth have the ability, when heated, to create megatonnage 
    explosions? What is the composition? What is the temperature 
    required to ignite? What remains as debris?

> I suggest you acquaint yourself with the 1994 February 1 
> atmospheric double event over the western Pacific. The object 
> was estimated to be an order of magnitude smaller in diameter.

    Estimated?  A shockwave was detected?
    Did you find the rock? Further verifiable evidence. Please.

> > JD) No argument the blast occured above the ground (in the atmosphere)

    And to reiterate , I too, believe the blast was above ground level. 
    The only argument is what caused it.

> And how do you propose to confine methane gas in such a location?

    Glad you asked.

    Location
    The center of the blast was located over a large volcanic caldera 
    in a permafrost area of Siberia.
    (which at one point, was thought to be the alleged meteor crater)

    Atmospheric conditions
    High pressure area over event site.

    Weather changing to low pressure early morning June 30 1908.
    There were also some peculiarities in global atmospheric 
    circulation at about the Tunguska date. In June 1908 a high 
    barometric maximum was lying in the north (the Arctic region), 
    and the winds were blowing from the north [49,50]. Cyclones 
    over the Siberia in June were much deeper than usual, it
    led to significant increase of air pressure gradients [51] 
    (it could also lead to activation of tectonic processes). 
    Another peculiarity was a unusual warm (hot) weather over the 
    Europe and, especially, Siberia in the second half of June.

    Scenario

    Earthquake activity opens fissures over methane hydrate deposits.
    heat generated by earthquakes, release of pressure, and hot 
    springs within dormant volcanoe heated methane hydrate deposits
    releasing methane gas into the caldera area.
    High pressure over area created inversion in caldera trapping gas
    (just like the duplex).
    Early morning of June 30, the weather changed causing methane gas 
    cloud to mix with air and begin drifting towards the southwest.
    Tail of gas cloud met an ignition source and was seen burning 
    between 4 to 10 minutes (depending on observer) high in the air 
    back towards the Event Site. This was followed by an explosion.
    And shortly after, British Barometers detected an atmospheric 
    disturbance.

>
> >> Furthermore, I'd like to see a seismometer output, not an "observer
> >> report".
> > 1) There were not a lot of seismic stations in 1908 especially 
> >    in Siberia, so don't expect to find a "seismometer output". 
> >    Although I understand Irkursk (sp) had one.
> So what?  Seismometers don't need to be local for sufficiently powerful
> earthquakes to register.

    Then I suggest you contact the Irkursk station and verify what these
    researchers are telling you.

> > 2) Those that propose an asteroid or comet strike are also basing their
> > theory on " observer reports".
> On the contrary, there are the British barometers, for example, plus
> many other more recent, but smaller, atmospheric events.

    We can detect shock waves with barometers, that does not tell us the cause
    of the wave.

    I am really starting to get curious how many of these "smaller, atmospheric
    events" from geologic origin are lumped in with true astronomic events.

> >> Observers can see all sorts of things, like UFOs, and "diffuse
> >> objects" near Orion.
> > And observers look through telescopes and conjecture all the answers to 
> > our universes mysteries.
> Few professional astronomers actually look through a telescope nowadays.
> > Observational data is not relevant ??? Hmmm.
> There is a difference between hard numbers produced by something like
> a CCD camera and somebody saying "I saw a diffuse object where Nancy
> predicted something to be".  Don't lump those together under the title
> "Observational data".

    And there is a difference between Observation & Conjecture.

    JD