Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here. With no wind present, those droplets defy attractive gravitation...given the difference in weight (800 times heavier than air). The explanation accepted by science is silly, and defies the visible facts.
What do you find silly about it? If you think there's an error in it, it would be helpful to point it out rather than just saying 'It's silly'.
With attractive gravity, OZONE WOULD DESCEND IMMEDIATELY AS ITS SPECIFIC WEIGHT IS GREATER THAN THAT OF OXYGEN.
What makes you think it will descend faster than it's being destroyed and replenished? As far as I can tell, your evidence consists of the fact you think it shouldn't work, and little else.
The Soviet Academy Science states quite clearly: the explosion was seen from Irkutsk and from the shores of Lake Baikal, here is their map:
Firstly, I suspect that the map includes the area where the object was visible, not just where the explosion could be seen from. As it likely started higher in the atmosphere than the height at which it exploded and the fact that it was apparently moving, it's not surprising that it was seen over an area slightly larger than the 400 km you keep mentioning.
Secondly, there's nothing to suggest that the explosion was seen from Irkutsk itself. You are making things up.
No other explosion occurred at 7:15 over Asia; give up the nonsense...do the research and prove to us here otherwise...
The research is already there. You have one set of reports over the Tunguska area, and you have another report of an object in a different direction to Tunguska. This suggests to me that there are two different objects.
We have the glow of the trajectory, on one side of a globe, and the immediate, instant observation on the other side the same globe, from London.
Why do you think it is a trajectory that's glowing? I through such a thing would be a line, not something spread all over the place.
It's not really an immediate, instant observation either. It was apparently going on all through the night, not just at the time the Tunguska event occurred.