It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Theory about Tunguska and Bemuda triangle

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Wel I was just thinking the tunguska explosion was huge bigger than any man made one and a lot of theories state it was a nuclear explsion.
And the bermuda triangle has had a lot of electromagnetic disturbance.
Well arent the 2 at magnetic opposites and couldnt tunguska have created the bermuda triangles problems.
Just an idea.




posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
NO because the Bermuda triangle has been around for Century's when we 1st noticed it in recorded history with ships, it has most likely existed alot longer than 100000 years or more id say.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
The Bermuda Triangle is no longer a mystery, It has been explained by land movement (undersea) that scours away the top layer of sediment releasing gas hydrates that :
1) are explosive which is how planes disappear
2)agitate the water which is what creates the magnetic disturbance on compasses
3)aerates the water and ships lose their bouyancy

Once these things fall into the water, the sediment settles and covers them over which is why things "disappear"
Similar "triangles" exist around the world

As for Tunguska, it happened before we had nukes (it fits the nuclear explosion footprint though) so probably was a UFO (IMHO)
However!!! Mt St Helens also fit that footprint so it didn't have to be nuclear, or a UFO... it was high velocity what ever it was, perhaps a meteorite?



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
The best guess so far based on the evidence regarding tunguska is an anti-matter meteor or a low density meteor.

Whatever it was, it was a huge airburst.

keybored covered the rest.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
O.K now I know sorry for not knowing any of that.

Wow I've been told.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Do not apologize for not knowing.

Judging by your typing grammar, you're very young, probably haven't had much time to pick up what some of these old Gray Panthers know, and, while the science didn't back it up, your hypothesis was interesting.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Personally as no chunks have been found of a meteor I still leans towards the theory that Nikola Tesla's experiments at the time caused it. All in all I think it is at least as plausible as a freak "airburst meteor" that totally destroyed itself at most a few hundred feet above the ground. And a whole butt load more likelly than marauding aliens out screwing around in the back 40 lighting off cosmic firecrackers. And anti matter meteor.... You are joking right? Last Time I checked the nitrogen oxygen and other assorted gases of our atmosphere are on the periodic table, hence they are matter



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
" I still leans towards the theory that Nikola Tesla's experiments at the time caused it."

quote from www.galisteo.com...
To this day the vast Tunguska region remains a desolate area of mosquito-infested bogs and swamps amid the beautiful hilly taiga. To reach the epicenter you are dropped off by helicopter. Or you hike in.

not a great place for a lab eh ?


why is it so hard to believe it was a comet or asteroid that more or less vaporized from friction as it entered our atmosphere ?

[edit on 20-7-2005 by syrinx high priest]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

why is it so hard to believe it was a comet or asteroid that more or less vaporized from friction as it entered our atmosphere ?


Because for the people on this board, facts are imaginary and capable of being dismissed by science fiction and dreams.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
The Tunguska event has a great deal of evidence suggesting an airburst, and thus rocky, object. These objects, not being strong iron nickel, simply reach the pressure where the object cannot hold together, and turns all its kinetic energy into an explosion, and a rather big one. Airburst causes more destruction as its not inhibited by the ground, much like nuclear bombs.

I dont see any other way to account for the tree pattern, the trace elements, and the reports, though skechy, of a fireball. Not a real mystery.

Also, look at a globe, Siberia and the Atlantic are not polar opposites.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
There is a very good article about the Tunguska event (June 30, 1908) on WikiPedia.

"The size of the blast was later estimated to be between 10 and 15 megatons. It felled an estimated 60 million trees over 2,150 square kilometers."

WikiPedia: Tunguska event

Here´s a picture taken about 19 years after the blast.

Trees felled by the Tunguska blast. Photograph from Kulik's 1927 expedition.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Would that gas (methane?) really reach such high altitudes in large enough quantities to combust effectively? Wouldn't it diffuse too much throughout the atmosphere on its way up?



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaknafein
Would that gas (methane?) really reach such high altitudes in large enough quantities to combust effectively? Wouldn't it diffuse too much throughout the atmosphere on its way up?

I think those planes who disappeared in the triangle were all flying low. The methane gas causes the planes to fall down. It causes the plane´s wings to no longer be able to support or hold the planes up in the air. The gas has the same effect on boats. They simply no longer float and sinks like a stone.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   
We're not talking airliners, here, but smaller planes at 14,000 feet and below.
Let's imagine a large cloud of flamable gas being expelled, and then an airplane flying into that cloud. The airplane would ignite the gas, and there'd be little left of the plane to find.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Hi,
Well here is my 2cents worth. Basically Tunguska is known to be a highish airburst right? Caused by the build up of pressure as it entered the atmosphere causing it to explode.... right?

Well, if you look at the knock down pattern in the trees you can see that the centre of the pattern is very small. IE. there is one point of land in Tunguska where you can stand and all the trees around you point outwards.... the higher this thing bursts th larger the centre.... but in Tunguska the centre is very small....

So.....
how can something that bursts that high leave such a centralised and confined middle.....

Just something that has bugged me for a while

BTW - I do like Nexus magazines article on Terminator UFOs, which blew up the object to save man kind....
part of their defense system that they left for us
which was nice of them



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
I think those planes who disappeared in the triangle were all flying low. The methane gas causes the planes to fall down. It causes the plane´s wings to no longer be able to support or hold the planes up in the air. The gas has the same effect on boats. They simply no longer float and sinks like a stone.


I heard the same thing, the methane doesn't ignite, it causes less lift in the wings due to being a less dense gas and also causes the altimeter to show a false reading of being too high, so the pilot tries to correct by pointing the plane down and crashes into the ocean. The methane gas can also cause the engine to die due to lack of oxygen.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   


The best guess so far based on the evidence regarding tunguska is an anti-matter meteor.


I'd like to see this proof, if an object made of anti-matter even the size of a marble, were to interact with the normal matter anywhere, including are atmosphere, well the explosion would be alot bigger, a very lot bigger.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei



The best guess so far based on the evidence regarding tunguska is an anti-matter meteor.


I'd like to see this proof, if an object made of anti-matter even the size of a marble, were to interact with the normal matter anywhere, including are atmosphere, well the explosion would be alot bigger, a very lot bigger.


im gonna agree with ya here

i would think even a grain of sand sized antimatter ; could destroy the entire earth
not just the surface; i mean like blow us into chunks

a new asteroid belt if u will

thats just my opinion based on what einstein or teller said i forget who



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
JSUt asking cos im not really sure but havent a lot of planes in the bermuda triangle area had magnetic problems.
Also now I know that the 2 are not at exact magnetic oppsoites but what if it was something likein line with the meteor.What if it hit at an angle and sent a shiockwave right at bermuda. Also could this somehow speed up how fast the methane gas is produced.

And at the Tunguska crater Kulik the only person to ever really investigate found that there were 'globules of any unidentifiable substance' at the epicentre of the impact area.
When the area was tested for radiation nothing was found but I tink this wasnt unitl around 20-30 years after the impact. ALthough trees and insects grew quicker and bigger than the same species in the rest of Siberia.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Interesting thoughts. Surely you can also have a theory on Planes and Jets that vanished. Some of which called into the tower and received final landing clearance then -puuff- gone.

Dallas



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join