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.

 

Tunguska Event: The "Impactor" is buried in the bottom of Lake Cheko!

page: 3
43
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireballStorm

It's saying an asteroid/comet fragment entering the atmosphere would result in geomagnetic effects that are not at all like those produced when a nuclear devise detonates, but that is wrong The effects are very much like those of a nuclear blast, although each has it's own signature.


Do you mean that the geomanetic effect produced by an asteroid/comet entering the atmosphere could last as long as five hours? Very interesting!




posted on May, 20 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by CAELENIUM
"... An electrical discharge far more powerful than the lightnings we associate with storm activity. However, still nothing more than an electric lightning discharge. To cause the Tunguska explosion the power of the electric lightning would have to be millions of times more powerful than normal lighning activity. That is my original theory... Lake Cheko might be simply the crater left behind after the electrical explosion that came out of the ground at that precise locaton.


I posted this a couple posts ago: "maybe the obejct is a fulgurite caused by the bolt of lightning from Teslas's experiment?
www.minresco.com...

the crater was made when the marshy soil was blown back out of an impact point like a lightning strike. it would've also accounted for all the lit up skies. it will be interesting to see the shape and composition"

and I reiterate: the shape and composition will tell us if it's true. probably never hear about it again



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by FireballStorm
 

no they were saying "it was more of an artificial signature like when a nuclear blast occurs in the upper atmosphere and not naturally occurring"



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
I posted this a couple posts ago: "maybe the obejct is a fulgurite caused by the bolt of lightning from Teslas's experiment?"


This is what I found recently on Facebook:

"Wikipedia speaks: “...The Tunguska explosion may have been the result of an experiment by Nikola Tesla using the Wardencyffe Tower, performed during one of Admiral Robert Peary's North Pole expeditions.” Possible? In fact, far from it. Commander (not Admiral) Robert Peary left New York for the North Pole on board the USS "Roosevelt" on July 8, 1908, whereas the Tunguska explosion occurred on June 30, 1908. It goes without saying that any attempt to communicate with Peary's expedition before it started would hardly have been reasonable, to say the least."



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Gabor2000
 


I don't see why it couldn't.

We know that even small fireballs and meteors ionize the atmosphere, so it stands to reason that larger bodies (and this one was unprecedented) would do so even more.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by samlf3rd
 


Van Daniken was kind of correct, lol. Instead of a wave of energy it was a massive ball of kinetic energy.

As for it's origins, who knows? Definitely not from another galaxy, but it may have travelled from far out side our own solar system before smacking into earth in 1908.

I had also read a few theories that said Tunguska was the effects of Tesla testing his death ray, I don't know if the dates line up but the theory says he turned on a death ray test, fired a shot, and wham, Tunguska explodes. Not saying I believed it, just throwing it out there because it's related.

Once again Ocum wins the day. The simplest explanation has always been that Tunguska blew up due to a catastrophic meteor or comet impact. Now they know for sure.
edit on 20-5-2012 by W3RLIED2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by FireballStorm
 

no they were saying "it was more of an artificial signature like when a nuclear blast occurs in the upper atmosphere and not naturally occurring"


The article does not say in what way the signature was different, so without knowing this, it's impossible to counter the argument.

And, as I said before, the effects are not that different to a nuclear blast. So it sounds like an assumption to me - "it was like a nuke, so it it must be artificial" - which is not true.

At the end of the day, many respectedresearchers have pored over the evidence, and come to the conclusion that it was probably a natural object. Whilst that does not prove that the object was natural with out any doubt, it does strongly suggest that it was.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireballStorm
reply to post by Gabor2000
 

I don't see why it couldn't.


Just because the high-temperature plasma formed around an asteroid or a comet core entering the atmosphere (as well as in their trails) would recombine in several minutes, not in several hours.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireballStorm
At the end of the day, many respectedresearchers have pored over the evidence, and come to the conclusion that it was probably a natural object. Whilst that does not prove that the object was natural with out any doubt, it does strongly suggest that it was.


Sometimes it is difficult to judge who is respected and who is not. I think that we should respect, first of all, those scientists who investigated the Tunguska problem, rather than those who attempted to solve it hurriedly – being only aware that in 1908 something flew over Siberia and this “something” exploded. For more information about this problem I would recommend the following books:The Tungus Event or The Great Siberian Meteorite, by John Engledew (Algora Publishing, ISSN 9780875867809), The Tunguska Mystery, by Vladimir Rubtsov (Springer N.Y., ISSN 9780387765730) and, with some reservations, The Mystery of the Tunguska Fireball, by Surendra Verma (Totem Books, ISSN 9781840467284). After reading these books, I now understand that “natural” assumptions are not so tenable as their supporters would like to think. Most probably, the final solution of this enigma will exceed the bounds of conventional theories.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gabor2000
Just because the high-temperature plasma formed around an asteroid or a comet core entering the atmosphere (as well as in their trails) would recombine in several minutes, not in several hours.


It's a well known and documented meteor anomaly - the plasma in a meteor train should not remain ionized for more than about a second, but for some unknown reason, the recombination process slows down in the case of meteors.


Most long duration trains are associated with bright meteors and fireballs. When a meteoroid plunges into the atmosphere at a velocity of between 12 and 72 km/s, the air simply does not have time to flow around the meteoroid and, instead, tears into it. The result is that the atmospheric atoms, and those of the meteoroid, collide releasing electrons to produce a highly charged plasma. However, the ions quickly recombine and any excess energy is released as light - which we call a meteor. The whole process normally takes 0.1 - 0.8 sec.

With long duration trains the process has, for some unknown reason, slowed down. Various theories have been proposed but they all have their flaws. It seems possible, however, that the processes involved in sustaining long duration trains may be similar to those that produce ball lightning or kugelblitz.

Source: Anomalous Meteor Phenomena

It's also often the case, that the bigger the fireball, the longer the train stays ionized. With big fireballs, many tens of minutes is not uncommon for visual observations of ionized trains, but ionization may still be present/detectable even after it is no longer visible.

Considering that Tunguska was the daddy of all fireballs/bolides, and we have no others like it to compare, I would say it's reasonable to assume (given what I said above) that a much larger object like the Tunguska object, could result in even more prolonged ionization than we see with the more frequently encountered size range objects.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by LoveisanArt
 


u are right, aliens did it, and even admit it!

law of the one session 17:

17.3 Questioner: In meditation I got the question about the crater in Russia in the, I believe, Tunguska region. Can you tell me what caused the crater?
Ra: I am Ra. The destruction of a fission reactor caused this crater.

17.4 Questioner: Whose reactor?
Ra: I am Ra. This was what you may call a “drone” sent by Confederation which malfunctioned. It was moved to an area where its destruction would not cause infringement upon the will of mind/body/spirit complexes. It was then detonated.

17.5 Questioner: What was its purpose in coming here?
Ra: It was a drone designed to listen to the various signals of your peoples. You were, at that time, beginning work in a more technical sphere. We were interested in determining the extent and the rapidity of your advances. This drone was powered by a simple fission motor or engine as you would call it. It was not that type which you now know, but was very small. However, it has the same destructive effect upon third-density molecular structures. Thus as it malfunctioned we felt it was best to pick a place for its destruction rather than attempt to retrieve it, for the possibility/probability modes of this maneuver looked very, very minute.

17.6 Questioner: Was its danger both blast and radiation?
Ra: I am Ra. There is very little radiation, as you know of it, in this particular type of device. There is radiation which is localized, but the localization is such that it does not drift with the winds as does the emission of your somewhat primitive weapons.

17.7 Questioner: I believe that analysis has detected very little radiation in the trees in this area. Is this low level of radiation a result of what you are speaking of?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. The amount of radiation is very localized. However, the energy which is released is powerful enough to cause difficulties.

one just needs to bother to read it and evaluate



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
What do I see here, my full nickname revealed by a thread title. The object cannot burn in the atmosphere and cause trees to lie on the ground, therefore, it may have happened. What is so special other than being a piece from outer space? I remember some UFO related stories around it. Why would they hide information regarding the falling of a meteor?



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireballStorm
Considering that Tunguska was the daddy of all fireballs/bolides, and we have no others like it to compare, I would say it's reasonable to assume (given what I said above) that a much larger object like the Tunguska object, could result in even more prolonged ionization than we see with the more frequently encountered size range objects.


But not for hours – this is physically impossible. Besides, the signature of the Tunguska geomagnetic effect is very similar to nuclear ones, and it differs from meteoritic effects. The Tunguska magnetograms may be seen here: www.scientificexploration.org... (p. 8). As for some nuclear magnetograms, they may be found in Nature, 1959, Vol. 184, No. 4688, p. B.A.52 & Journal of Geophysical Research, 1959, Vol. 64, No. 9, p. 1152.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Gabor2000
 

Wardenclyff was never functional to begin with but that's not to say one of his other experiments couldn't've caused it. didn't he have one in Arizona?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FireballStorm
 


I am now rereading Chapter 7 (“The Third Key”) of The Tunguska Mystery, by Vladimir Rubtsov, and I've discovered there a very interesting fact, to which I had not payed enough attention before. It appears that the Tunguska geomagnetic effect started some 6 minutes after the explosion: “At 0 h 20 min GMT, that is, 6 min after this body exploded, the intensity of the geomagnetic field abruptly increased by several gammas and remained at that level for about 2 min. This was the initial phase of the local geomagnetic storm...” (The Tunguska Mystery, page 163.) This fact rules out any possible connection of the geomagnetic effect with the plasma envelope formed around the Tunguska meteorite. The meteoritic magnetic effects accompany the flight of meteors through the ionosphere – and therefore, they start during the flight, not six minutes after its end.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join