The Tunguska event was not caused by a meteorite, asteroid or a comet.
I thought you understood this much.
In 1983, astronomer Zdenek Sekanina published a paper criticizing the comet hypothesis. He pointed out that a body composed of cometary material, travelling through the atmosphere along such a shallow trajectory, ought to have disintegrated, whereas the Tunguska body apparently remained intact into the lower atmosphere.
The chief difficulty in the asteroid hypothesis is that a stony object should have produced a large crater where it struck the ground, but no such crater has been found.
Fesenkov (1962) claims, "According to all evidence, this meteorite moved around the Sun in a retrograde direction, which is impossible for typical meteorites...." Fesenkov notes that meteorites rarely hit the earth in the morning, because the morning side faces forward in the planet's orbit. Usually the meteorite overtakes the earth from behind, on the evening side.
The most startling evidence concerns the path of the object:
T.R. LeMaire, a science writer, continues this thought, by suggesting "The Tunguska blast's timing seems too fortuitous for an accident" (LeMaire 1980). He claims that a five-hour delay would make the target of destruction St. Petersburg, adding that a tiny change of course in space would have devastated populated areas of China or India.
LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:
The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60ş55' N, 101ş57' E (LeMaire 1980).
Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.
"It is clear that the Tungus cosmic body ... could not have been a comet," wrote the geophysicist A.V.
Zolotov, speaking for many of his fellow Soviet scientists. "Neither could it have been a normal ice,
stone, or iron meteorite. The Tungus body obviously represents a new yet unknown, much more
complicated phenomenon of nature than has been encountered up to this time."
The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.
The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.
You have not done your homework, obviously.
The explosion was seen instantaneously across Europe, moreover the trajectory itself was also observed/seen from London:
“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.
We are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.
In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.
Therefore, you are out of luck: no other astronomical event occurred at 0:00 - 0:30 am at that time, other than the Tunguska event.
Newspapers could be read at midnight in London, photographs could be taken outdoors in Stockholm without flash apparatus; no other meteorological/astronomical phenomenon occurred at that time in the world, no such records exist.
If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.
This alone proves that we find ourselves in a geocentric context, where the Sun is much smaller than the Earth itself, and that my assertions are perfectly correct.
Since the Earth is actually flat, the Sun must be smaller than the Earth itself.
We are no longer debating the 149,000,000 km distance or the 384,000 km distance: these have been proved WRONG by the Tunguska event.
Since believing in attractive gravity is a serious sign of delusion, according to Newton himself, then this delusion is best kept alive denying the very obvious facts which can be seen with the naked eye in the transit videos and the photographs from Antarctica: the 149,000,000 km are nowhere to be found, as the ISS passes right in front of the Sun, and the 384,000 km are nowhere to be found as the "Moon" is located just some hundred of km from F. Bruenjes.
Your words (each and every RE's words) were: MASSIVE COMPRESSION.
Since this compression is not due to the equipment used, as it cannot be in the real world, the missing 149,000,000 km are just that: a sure sign that you are mistaken, and that the Sun orbits the flat earth at a much lower altitude than previously thought.
Scott Bideau:
Lens compression doesn’t technically exist. There is no magic in a lens that changes physics and compresses a scene. The “compression” is a byproduct of your working distance from the subject.
There you have it: the distance is all that matters.
And that distance if very small as proven the Tunguska event.
As for the other questions, they were already very well explained here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1499261.html#msg1499261
Poll