Was Cold War a part of the Conspiracy?

I wonder if anyone is actually reading those tl;dr walls of texts?

A few bibliographical notes about Prince Michael Sturdza.

Prince Michael Sturdza had several diplomatic posts in Vienna, Budapest and Washington and later in the 1920s was a diplomatic agent in multiple nations across Eastern Europe.

In fact, Sturdza was in 1929 appointed as minister plenipotentiary for Latvia, Estonia and Finland, in Riga. In that capacity he acted in 1932 as Romania's representative in the negotiations with Soviet Russia about a non-aggression agreement. The negotiations failed, due to the Russian demand to discuss the disputed territory of Bessarabia, which was part of Romania by then.

Prince Sturdza's lifelong experience and activity in the diplomatic field have given him a tremendous insight into the events of the Twentieth Century; his memoirs which were written DURING those decades, and published at a later date, are an extraordinary account of the events before, during and after WWI and WWII.

In fact, and I quote: It is now impossible to write a history of World War II without referring to the memoirs of Prince Michel Sturdza.

Your ramblings ( he wasn't there at the time and he was writing some 50 years later it is far more likely this is a mistake on his part than the sign of a grand conspiracy) on the subject amount to nothing: as I said, you laxly accepted the official line without any problem at all.

Prince Sturdza had more insights than any other historian to tell the truth about what happened in Russia during the month of April 1917.

He shows clearly that there is an 18 day difference between the official accepted date of May 4 and that of April 17.


Clearly, just as usual, YOU FAILED to do your homework, you had no idea that the date you swallowed wholeheartedly was completely false and bogus.

A terrible mistake on your part, manarq: you are guilty of committing the very things that you have been accusing others of.


So far, you have not been able to show that I was wrong anywhere in our discussion: I provided the documentation for the Red Symphony (the original edition 1950 from Spain), the story behind the interview from 1938 and much more: any sane person would agree.

The naivety inherent in your belief that there are no conspiracies at all is matched only by the catastrophic research you brought to your aid as proofs; also, your unequivocal acceptance of the official date of May 4 speaks by itself.

I am very used to people questioning my messages, do a simple search for my debates here.




There have been other questions about this thread: it is an effort to better understand the events which went on behind the scenes, from 1910 to 1960, (from a conspirative point of view, very well documented).

So I can ignore this article http://www.wildboar.net/multilingual/easterneuropean/russian/literature/articles/whofinanced/whofinancedleninandtrotsky.html  that you link to as it confirms Trotsky was in custody on the 17th.

manarq...this will turn out to be a very good lesson in psychological warfare for you, as well.

I always think and plan ahead, in any debate.

You had no idea and no knowledge about Sturdza's memoirs...but I did.

I read your other messages and one thing became pretty obvious: no homework, no research, always trying to prove your adversary wrong using his own messages, utilizing tricks on your opponents.

In order to capture your attention, I used the following phrase: Is this good enough for you? (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1533776.html#msg1533776 ).

Immediately, just 30 minutes later, YOU FELL INTO THE TRAP and responded:

No.

If you don't mind let's break this down and just look at the first bit for now. You're going to have to prove the above.

Trotsky as you say was in New York then in custody between April 3rd and 29th April. He arrived in Russia on 4th May
Lenin left Switzerland on 7th April and arrived in Russia 16th April

Remember your accusations? That those who believe in conspiracies accept any information without checking up on the facts?

I already had the facts on Prince Michael Sturdza ready at my disposal, so I posted immediately the following response:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1533834.html#msg1533834

Our debate, therefore, was over and done for.

But, I remembered the hallmark of your own messages: the lack of research and the tricks your used on other users to get ahead in a debate.

You think for even just one second that I do not know what my own bibliographical references include? I am very well acquainted with Sutton's treatises, Griffin's Die Absteiger (Des Griffin, that is) and much more. I knew, that, since you have nothing else at your disposal, you will you use, once again, by default, some kind of treachery at the end of our debate, that is why I left the link with the May 4 date (which of course is completely wrong, having been laxly accepted by virtually all historians, except for those who dilligently research very carefully any facts), so that you will bring up this fact here exposing your methods to everybody in full sight: since you have no other facts, no other idea, nothing else to add, you will use any information left by your opponent in his messages to try and get the upper hand in the debate.

It is sad to use such tactics and at the same time ignore the extraordinary facts about the Soviet Revolution which can be gathered from Prince Sturdza's memoirs.



Here is the theory.

I shall tell you even more: Do you know who financed the October revolution? "They" financed it, in particular through those same bankers who had financed Japan in 1905, i.e. Jacob Schiff, and the brothers Warburg; that means through the great banking constellation, through one of the five banks who are members of the Federal Reserve, through the bank of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., here there took part also other American and European bankers, such as Guggenheim, Hanauer, Breitung, Aschberg, the "Nya Banken" of Stockholm. I was there "by chance," there in Stockholm, and participated in the transmission of funds. Until Trotzky arrived I was the only person who was an intermediary from the revolutionary side. But at last Trotzky came; I must underline that the Allies had expelled him from France for being a defeatist. And the same Allies released him so that he could be a defeatist in allied Russia ... "Another chance." Who arranged it? The same people who had succeeded that Lenin passed through Germany. Yes, "They" were able to get the defeatist Trotzky out of a Canadian camp to England and send him on to Russia, giving him the chance to pass freely through all the Allied controls; others of "Them" - a certain Rathenau - accomplishes the journey of Lenin through enemy Germany.

If you will undertake the study of the history of the revolution and civil war without prejudices, and will use all your enquiring capabilities, which you know how to apply to things much less important and less obvious, then when you study informations in their totality, and also study separate details right up to anecdotal happenings you will meet with a whole series of "amazing chances."

(Red Symphony)


Here is the practice.

Now the conspirators faced the question of how to get the rebels and equipment from Switzerland to Russia. The answer was furnished by the ROTHSCHILD agent and chief of the German secret police MAX WARBURG. He had them all packed in a sealed railway carriage and made sure this passed safely through Germany to the Russian border. When the train stopped in Germany for the first time, two German officers got on to escort it. They had been commandeered by General ERICH LUDENDORFF.

Max Warburg was the brother of Paul Warburg, the first chairman of the “Federal Reserve Bank”.

According to writings of General A. Nechvolodov the French secret service had found out that Jacob Schiff had directly supplied the Russian revolutionaries with a further 12 million US$. Nechvolodov also name Felix Warburg, Otto Kahn, Mortimer Schiff, Jerome H. Hanauer and Max Breitung in the U.S. and Max Warburg, Olaf Aschburg and Jivtovshy in Europe as further financiers of the Bolshevik Revolution.

The ambassador of the Russian Empire to the U.S., Bakhmetiev, declared that after the Bolshevik victory 600 million Roubled in gold were transferred from Russian to the Kuhn Loeb Bank in New York between 1918 and 1922.

The book “The Sealed Train” by Michael Pearson shows that – according to documents of the German Foreign Office – up to February 5, 1918 Germany had supplied 40,580,997 Marks for propaganda and “special requirements”. In the same document it is stated that the German treasury released 15 million Marks to Russia one day after Lenin seized power.

One of the best sources of information on the financing of the Bolshevik Revolution is "Czarism and the Revolution" by an important White Russian General named Arsene de Goulevitch who was founder in France of the Union of Oppressed Peoples. In this volume, written in French and subsequently translated into English, de Goulevitch notes:

"The main purveyors of funds for the revolution, however, were neither the crackpot Russian millionaires nor the armed bandits of Lenin. The 'real' money primarily came from certain British and American circles which for a long time past had lent their support to the Russian revolutionary cause...

De Goulevitch continues:

"The important part played by the wealthy American banker, Jacob Schiff, in the events in Russia, though as yet only partially revealed, is no longer a secret."


General Alexander Nechvolodov is quoted by de Goulevitch as stating in his book on the Bolshevik Revolution:

"In April 1917, Jacob Schiff publicly declared that it was thanks to his financial support that the revolution in Russia had succeeded.

In the Spring of the same year, Schiff commenced to subsidize Trotsky ...

Simultaneously Trotsky and Co. were also being subsidized by Max Warburg and Olaf Aschberg of the Nye Banken of Stockholm ... The Rhine Westphalian Syndicate and Jivotovsky, whose daughter later married Trotsky."

Still another important financier of the Bolshevik Revolution was an extremely wealthy Englishman named Lord Alfred Milner, the organizer and head of a secret organization called " The Round Table" Group which was backed by Lord Rothschild (discussed in the next chapter).

De Goulevitch notes further:

"On April 7, 1917, General Janin made the following entry in his diary ('Au G.C.C. Russe"-At Russian G.H.Q., Le Monde Slave, Vol. 2, 1927, pp.296-297): Long interview with R., who confirmed what I had previously been told by M. After referring to the German hatred of himself and his family, he turned to the subject of the Revolution which, he claimed, was engineered by the English and, more precisely, by Sir George Buchanan and Lord [Alfred] Milner. Petrograd at the time was teeming with English... He could, he asserted, name the streets and the numbers of the houses in which British agents were quartered. They were reported, during the rising, to have distributed money to the and incited them to mutiny."

So, here is a scenario:

John and Jane are married and have a daughter name Joan. John is in the military and has to go overseas before he ever gets the chance to see his daughter Joan walk.

While away he receives mail containing pictures sent from his beloved Jane that appear to be of his daughter Joan walking. This makes no sense to him as she is only 6 months old and he had heard that walking  usually happens at about 10 to 12 months. He ponders, "Was she just upright briefly? Maybe this is Joan's version of a silly little joke?" So in his response letter he inquires.

But he never got a response. One day, he suddenly stops hearing from Jane and he starts to conjure up ideas about what could be going on. He receives no mention from either Jane or their mutual friends about where his family could be. He thinks, "I bet there is someone else."

John feels let down and abandoned. Defeated, he decides to stay overseas for the rest of his career. At the end of his service in the military he returns to his hometown and happens across his former spouse Jane at the local pub. A bit of a distressing situation but after 20 years it had enough time to settle. Of course John asked many questions about his daughter, one of which is about that old picture of Joan where she appeared to be walking. He asks, "So Jane, was Joan able to walk at a mere 6 months?"




One can infer that the inquiry matters personally to John but cannot infer that she had never learned to walk.

rottingroom wrote:

The scientific way to go about explaining the world requires falsifiability. If I were to present a hypothesis and intentionally cover what could be holes in it by making conditions that make it impossible to prove wrong then that hypothesis cannot be taken seriously.


I agree.

Here are some of the gaping holes in the attractive gravity theory.

Gases do not obey an attractive gravitational law:

SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN BAROMETRIC PRESSURE

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.


“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”


One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles (official atmospheric data).



GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE DO NOT OBEY AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATIONAL LAW

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?


Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.”  Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.


Liquids do not obey an attractive gravitational law:

Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.”

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.


Solids do not obey an attractive gravitational law:

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.


According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".



In Dr. Bruce DePalma's Spinning Ball Experiment, a ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.


DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also not-rotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.

It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,50942.msg1248776.html#msg1248776

(Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation)

By your own account, gravity as a force of attraction is completely false.


rottingroom also wrote:

I KNOW the earth is round because as a meteorologist I have to understand round earth models to accurately predict and forecast weather for a moving vessel in the dark ocean.

Most probably you studied at the same university John did (your former doggerrel essay)...

Please read again the BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX, and leave meteorology for others to study.


Remember: next time we meet, we will discuss in full details the Tunguska event, the end of the road for your round earth whimsical "beliefs".

Sorry to make a low-content post, but that's a fascinating contrib, sandokhan.

odes, thank you for your high-content post.

What do you say we end rottingroom's career right here and now?

TUNGUSKA 1908, June 30

The event at Tunguska COULD NOT have been caused by a meteorite, comet or asteroid:

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 60º55' N, 101º57' 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.

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.



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.


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.

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.


Here is a diagram of what this would look like.  The large circle represents a  cutaway of a spherical Earth.  I divided the Earth into 24 evenly spaced time zones.  Point A represents an event happening.  Point B represents an observer 7 time zones away.  The line extending along the horizon at point B represents the line of view of the person at that point.  He would never see the event happen.



Even the original trajectory (10 minutes duration) was seen from London before the actual explosion:

... 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.

When will it say "flat earth believer" under my name? Surely I qualify?

I think some of the most informed posters could easily collaborate on a book. They should leave aside some ancillary theories, like the earth being hollow, or history being deliberately falsified, even if these things be true. Just focusing in on the hard elements illustrating that the earth surely cannot be a sphere would be a fascinating book, and then a section showing how the normal notions can be reinterpreted, or are mistaken.

TUNGUSKA 1908, June 30

The event at Tunguska COULD NOT have been caused by a meteorite, comet or asteroid:

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.

Because the meteor exploded in the sky just like the one in June although it was at smaller scale (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23066055)

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.



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.


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.

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 is misleading, what they observed from London was not the explosion itself. The phenomena lasted for few days after the explosion. It is called Skyglow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyglow)

sandokhan,

First of all, it is apparent that you are guilty of copypasta. I don't feel that it is my duty to teach what you should be learning in a physics class (which you desperately need). Nevertheless, I will answer the onset of your questions regarding gas to provide you an example of how much you really don't know about weather.


GASES

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

I will need to see a source for this information regarding maximums and minimums of course but I'll go on anyway.

At night time the air is going to cool which will increase your barometric pressure. As heating occurs, pressure will lower to give you this "10am" maximum and then your minimum at "4pm".  At this time the offset occurs in which pressure starts to increase again giving you that minimum. It is merely heat transfer affecting the gas particles as each transition occurs and it is that transition that gives you the semidiurnal max and min.

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles (official atmospheric data).

Is this even relevant? Are you trying to say that there is so much atmosphere that it should be heavier? Where it is warmer, it will be lighter because that atmosphere has expanded due to less density. While the inverse is true when it is colder as you go polar.

As air gets less dense we are actually removing mass. Therefore, it is inversely proportional to the amount of atmosphere thickness.

So this is just the gas part. I can assure you that your liquid and solid statements feature the same clear misunderstanding of physics and weather. This arrogant ignorance is baffling. I don't need to take time from my day to respond to a wall of copypasta that you don't even understand.

cartesian, the explosion at Tunguska WAS NOT caused by either a meteorite, an asteroid, or a comet.

How could you miss the very clear biographical material I posted in that very message?

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 60º55' N, 101º57' 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.



The fact that the glow persisted for days, IS DUE to influence of the telluric currents which were activated (received more energy) from Tesla's ball lightning.

http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm

As to projecting wave-energy to any particular region of the globe, I have given a clear description of the means in technical publications. Not only can this be done by the means of my devices, but the spot at which the desired effect is to be produced can be calculated very closely, assuming the accepted terrestrial measurements to be correct.  My wireless plant will enable me to determine it within fifty feet or less, when it will be possible to rectify many geodetical data and make such calculations as those referred to with greater accuracy.

Nikola Tesla, 1907


Your explanation evades the following very obvious fact: 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.

HOW did the light travel from point A to point B in the atmosphere? Through which medium?

What is actually light, and what is magnetism?

These are questions which the official science has failed to answer ever since Maxwell's original equations were modified/altered/truncated.

Here is the proper explanation of magnetism and light:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1495370.html#msg1495370

The latest laboratory information about magnetism, the double helix theory of subquark strings:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714


More information here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785


Light travels through double helix (double torsion) subquark strings which fill every nanometer of aether (search for the proofs of the existence of aether in my messages, please): the glow was an activation of these strings, which persisted for days, due to the energy it injected in those very strings.

HOWEVER, the very trajectory of the object was seen BEFORE THE EXPLOSION EVER TOOK PLACE, between 0:00 am and 0:15 am (London time) - the explosion itself occurred at 7:15 - 7:20 am (Tunguska time):

“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."

INSTANTANEOUSLY, the explosion itself caused these phenomena all over Europe:

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.


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.

Please do your homework before posting here...

sandokhan,

Do you always write this long? Can't you summarize or organize your writing into more easily readable sections? Or did you copy paste from somewhere else? Why don't you just link it?

Anyway back to the topic, first let me tell you that I don't like to speculate on something like this especially I don't know the credibility of your sources. Secondly, I was rectifying some of your claims in order to be more objective.

You seemed to be surprised that no crater was found when an object exploded mid air. Didn't you know that we had similar situation at a smaller scale just few months ago. They didn't find any crater because that object exploded mid air. So explosion mid air = no crater IS NORMAL.

And my second response was because you intentionally or ignorantly misled the reader.

rotting, the upper forums are research level places for discusion and debate.

Any serious work will present bibliographical material as supporting evidence.

If you are looking for originality, you will find plenty of that in my messages: from the vortex model of the atom, to the galactic orbit paradox, to the Tunguska event explanation, and much more.

Since you obviously do not understand these things (you are complaining about a few paragraphs containing the very best material on gases/liquids/solids gravitational paradoxes), here is an example for you.

This work is one of my favorite works on higher mathematics (something way beyond your Meteorology 101 course):

http://books.google.ro/books?id=GYcOfuZDOKMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=wiggins+introduction&hl=en&sa=X&ei=idkpUsmEJcjDswbKqIHoAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=wiggins%20introduction&f=false

Look closely at the bibliographical material which is presented copiously throughout the entire work.


I will need to see a source for this information regarding maximums and minimums of course but I'll go on anyway.

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

For example, here is the data on the barometric pressure in Taiwan:


http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.htm

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan, for example, (at 25 degrees N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST.

Furthermore, and I quote:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. (National Weather Service)

Your pseudo-explanation (At night time the air is going to cool which will increase your barometric pressure. As heating occurs, pressure will lower to give you this "10am" maximum and then your minimum at "4pm".  At this time the offset occurs in which pressure starts to increase again giving you that minimum. It is merely heat transfer affecting the gas particles as each transition occurs and it is that transition that gives you the semidiurnal max and min. ) was offered a long time ago, but Lord Rayleigh dismissed it: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’

At night time the air is going to cool which will increase your barometric pressure.

This means that at night we should have a MAXIMUM amount of barometric pressure, AND NOT A MINIMUM AT 4 AM, as the air at 4:00 am is certainly cooler than at 10:00 pm.

You simply do not understand the physics involved here, and are making serious errors.


That is why the heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


As heating occurs, pressure will lower to give you this "10am" maximum and then your minimum at "4pm".

But at 10:00 am certainly there has not been enough of the heating effect of the Sun (as a possible explanation) for the pressure to become much higher than at 4:00 am (of course the heating effect of the Sun SHOULD LOWER THE PRESSURE EVEN MORE, and not make it HIGHER - which is the very essence of the barometric pressure paradox).

A maximum at 10 am means the PRESSURE IS GREATEST AT THAT TIME (THE VERY MEANING OF THE WORD MAXIMUM), AND NOT A LOWER VALUE AS YOU SUGGEST: As heating occurs, pressure will lower to give you this "10am" maximum...

Moreover, the minimum during the day should occur at some period of time between 12:00 pm and 3:00 pm and NOT at 4:00 pm, each and every day, no matter what the season.

What is most amazing about the Barometric Pressure Paradox is the fact that it occurs each and every day, at those precise points in time: if the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


Are you trying to say that there is so much atmosphere that it should be heavier? Where it is warmer, it will be lighter because that atmosphere has expanded due to less density. While the inverse is true when it is colder as you go polar.

As air gets less dense we are actually removing mass. Therefore, it is inversely proportional to the amount of atmosphere thickness.

Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.

In the official science we have a 12 km difference in the height of the troposphere which cannot be explained by your naive air gets less dense/we are removing mass argument.


You missed the GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE PARADOX.

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?


Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.”  Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.


The other liquid and solid attractive gravitational defiance paradoxes cannot be explained at all, no matter what you say.

Let us return to the DePalma experiment.

In Dr. Bruce DePalma's Spinning Ball Experiment, a ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.


DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also not-rotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.

It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.

Dr. Bruce DePalma is a graduate of MIT and Harvard.


Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev was the greatest astrophysicist of the 20th century.

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.


According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".


And we also have the faint young sun paradox, the galactic orbit paradox, the biochirality paradox and much more.

One or two pages of the most interesting scientific descriptions of the explosion at Tunguska is not very long.

My sources are the most credible: please feel free to research on your own.

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.


This is the work done by experts in aerodynamics themselves: NO NATURAL OBJECT IS CAPABLE OF SUCH A FEAT.

I do not mislead the reader at all: INSTANTANEOUSLY, the explosion itself caused these phenomena all over Europe:

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.

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.


ps I am not surprised at all by the lack of the crater itself...where in the world did you find that?

This is incredibly annoying. What a novel. Let me see if I can find 4 hours of my time to devote strictly to giving my utmost attention to a FES forum. I don't doubt your debate skills and I do have contentions with the plethora of information you posted but come on. Slooooooow down.

sandokhan

Did you copy paste from http://www.andras-nagy.com/ufo03/00.htm?

Let me copy paste one passage from the same book which proves that what people in London was not the explosion

According to the London Times of July 4, 1908 [the explosion was on June 30], "The remarkable ruddy glows which have been seen on many nights lately have attracted much attention, and have been seen over an area extending as far as Berlin." The cause is assigned to "some condition of the atmosphere," such as occurred after Krakatoa, although "no volcanic outburst of abnormal violence has been reported lately." The Times notes that the recent "abnormal" glows appear in the sky only after the fading of twilight: the sky grows partially dark and then brightens again with "deep, lurid color."

All you have to do is select just about any paragraph from any of his walls of texts and paste it into a google search box. Results always yield a 100% match to various locations on the internet where the same text exists.

This is ridiculous.

This isn't research. This is flagrant plagiarism.

I think sandokahn is saying that Tunguska is (a) the result of a scientific experiment of some kind, and (b) evidence that the earth is flat. I haven't seen where sandokahn specifically rejected the idea that it is "skyglow", but it certainly is a long way from Tunguska to London.

I think sandokahn is saying that Tunguska is (a) the result of a scientific experiment of some kind, and (b) evidence that the earth is flat. I haven't seen where sandokahn specifically rejected the idea that it is "skyglow", but it certainly is a long way from Tunguska to London.

Then you haven't read what sandokhan or me wrote 

Quote from: odes on September 06, 2013, 08:32:47 AM

I think sandokahn is saying that Tunguska is (a) the result of a scientific experiment of some kind, and (b) evidence that the earth is flat. I haven't seen where sandokahn specifically rejected the idea that it is "skyglow", but it certainly is a long way from Tunguska to London.

Then you haven't read what sandokhan or me wrote 

Fail.

sandokhan was definitely misleading the readers.

Quote from: sandokhan on September 05, 2013, 07:24:03 AM

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.



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.


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.

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 is misleading, what they observed from London was not the explosion itself. The phenomena lasted for few days after the explosion. It is called Skyglow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyglow)

sandokhan

Did you copy paste from http://www.andras-nagy.com/ufo03/00.htm?

Let me copy paste one passage from the same book which proves that what people in London was not the explosion

Quote

According to the London Times of July 4, 1908 [the explosion was on June 30], "The remarkable ruddy glows which have been seen on many nights lately have attracted much attention, and have been seen over an area extending as far as Berlin." The cause is assigned to "some condition of the atmosphere," such as occurred after Krakatoa, although "no volcanic outburst of abnormal violence has been reported lately." The Times notes that the recent "abnormal" glows appear in the sky only after the fading of twilight: the sky grows partially dark and then brightens again with "deep, lurid color."

I think sandokahn is saying that Tunguska is (a) the result of a scientific experiment of some kind, and (b) evidence that the earth is flat. I haven't seen where sandokahn specifically rejected the idea that it is "skyglow", but it certainly is a long way from Tunguska to London.

a) this is an hypothesis among others
b) inconclusive evidence.

An please Sandokhan, stop posting again the same stuff:  depalma, tesla, tunguska and so on. At least give the links to the original text. That's the purpose of hypertext.

I vote agnostic on Tunguska.

Then you haven't read what sandokhan or me wrote 

Fail.

Keep it out of the upper fora please.

The Tunguska event proves very clearly that the Earth is actually flat.

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.


Eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.

Even the original trajectory (10 minutes duration) was seen from London before the actual explosion:

... 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.


Here is a diagram of what this would look like.  The large circle represents a  cutaway of a spherical Earth.  I divided the Earth into 24 evenly spaced time zones.  Point A represents an event happening.  Point B represents an observer 7 time zones away.  The line extending along the horizon at point B represents the line of view of the person at that point.  He would never see the event happen.





Here is a precise map so that we can follow the path of the ball lightning created by Tesla:



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 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


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.


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."

Instantaneously, at the very precise point in time (7:15 am tunguska time), the explosion was seen from London.


Let us remember the discussion we had here a long time ago...

Not so.  In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.  If the earth were flat, the refraction would eventually cause the light to be pushed to the ground, but on a curved surface, the refraction continues to refract the light parallel to the earth's surface and for great distances.

To talk about ice crystals, with an explosion at some 7 km in the atmosphere on one side of the globe, and a very clear view of the initial trajectory/flash of the explosion from the other side of the hypothetical globe, means that you have no explanation for the facts involved here.

According to your explanation, we should have a 24 hour a day constant sunlight...this is what you wrote:

In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.

Certainly the sun's rays of light (official theory) will be parallel to some portion of the surface at some time in the earth's rotation...that is why I invited you to think.


How many times do we have to go through this? Two times, many times, n times?

The fact that the glow persisted for days, IS DUE to influence of the telluric currents which were activated (received more energy) from Tesla's ball lightning.

http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm

As to projecting wave-energy to any particular region of the globe, I have given a clear description of the means in technical publications. Not only can this be done by the means of my devices, but the spot at which the desired effect is to be produced can be calculated very closely, assuming the accepted terrestrial measurements to be correct.  My wireless plant will enable me to determine it within fifty feet or less, when it will be possible to rectify many geodetical data and make such calculations as those referred to with greater accuracy.

Nikola Tesla, 1907


Your explanation evades the following very obvious fact: 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.

HOW did the light travel from point A to point B in the atmosphere? Through which medium?

What is actually light, and what is magnetism?

These are questions which the official science has failed to answer ever since Maxwell's original equations were modified/altered/truncated.

Here is the proper explanation of magnetism and light:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1495370.html#msg1495370

The latest laboratory information about magnetism, the double helix theory of subquark strings:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714


More information here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785


Light travels through double helix (double torsion) subquark strings which fill every nanometer of aether (search for the proofs of the existence of aether in my messages, please): the glow was an activation of these strings, which persisted for days, due to the energy it injected in those very strings.

HOWEVER, the very trajectory of the object was seen BEFORE THE EXPLOSION EVER TOOK PLACE, between 0:00 am and 0:15 am (London time) - the explosion itself occurred at 7:15 - 7:20 am (Tunguska time):

“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."

INSTANTANEOUSLY, the explosion itself caused these phenomena all over Europe:

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.


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.

Please do your homework before posting here...


The Tunguska event is the final resting place of the round/spherical earth theory...

Sandokhan...

Do you realize you've lost all credibility? Your tedious copypastas from unreputable conspiracy sites are boring.

When you logged on I went to the "Who's Online" sectioned and noticed you reading another topic. I then pressed F5 to see when you would start posting on this topic again. It took you all but 2 minutes to copy and paste your latest entry.

Sandokhan...

Do you realize you've lost all credibility? Your tedious copypastas from unreputable conspiracy sites are boring.

You have proven yourself to be no meteorologist at all.

In fact, the catastrophic analysis which you provided means you have not even graduated high school.

Here is what you wrote.

I will need to see a source for this information regarding maximums and minimums of course but I'll go on anyway.

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

For example, here is the data on the barometric pressure in Taiwan:


http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.htm

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan, for example, (at 25 degrees N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST.

Furthermore, and I quote:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. (National Weather Service)


Certainly you have no knowledge at all about meteorology: how could you pretend to be working in the field and at the same time have no understanding of this very basic fact about atmosphere mechanics?



At night time the air is going to cool which will increase your barometric pressure. As heating occurs, pressure will lower to give you this "10am" maximum and then your minimum at "4pm".  At this time the offset occurs in which pressure starts to increase again giving you that minimum. It is merely heat transfer affecting the gas particles as each transition occurs and it is that transition that gives you the semidiurnal max and min.

Your pseudo-explanation (At night time the air is going to cool which will increase your barometric pressure. As heating occurs, pressure will lower to give you this "10am" maximum and then your minimum at "4pm".  At this time the offset occurs in which pressure starts to increase again giving you that minimum. It is merely heat transfer affecting the gas particles as each transition occurs and it is that transition that gives you the semidiurnal max and min. ) was offered a long time ago, but Lord Rayleigh dismissed it: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’

At night time the air is going to cool which will increase your barometric pressure.

This means that at night we should have a MAXIMUM amount of barometric pressure, AND NOT A MINIMUM AT 4 AM, as the air at 4:00 am is certainly cooler than at 10:00 pm.

You simply do not understand the physics involved here, and are making serious errors.


That is why the heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


As heating occurs, pressure will lower to give you this "10am" maximum and then your minimum at "4pm".

But at 10:00 am certainly there has not been enough of the heating effect of the Sun (as a possible explanation) for the pressure to become much higher than at 4:00 am (of course the heating effect of the Sun SHOULD LOWER THE PRESSURE EVEN MORE, and not make it HIGHER - which is the very essence of the barometric pressure paradox).

A maximum at 10 am means the PRESSURE IS GREATEST AT THAT TIME (THE VERY MEANING OF THE WORD MAXIMUM), AND NOT A LOWER VALUE AS YOU SUGGEST: As heating occurs, pressure will lower to give you this "10am" maximum...

Moreover, the minimum during the day should occur at some period of time between 12:00 pm and 3:00 pm and NOT at 4:00 pm, each and every day, no matter what the season.

What is most amazing about the Barometric Pressure Paradox is the fact that it occurs each and every day, at those precise points in time: if the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


rottingroom has no experience as a meteorologist, again here is what he had the audacity to write:

As heating occurs, pressure will lower to give you this "10am" maximum and then your minimum at "4pm".

The heating effect of the Sun SHOULD LOWER THE PRESSURE EVEN MORE, and not make it HIGHER - which is the very essence of the barometric pressure paradox).

A maximum at 10 am means the PRESSURE IS GREATEST AT THAT TIME (THE VERY MEANING OF THE WORD MAXIMUM), AND NOT A LOWER VALUE AS YOU SUGGEST: As heating occurs, pressure will lower to give you this "10am" maximum...


The bibliographical material provided on the Tunguska event is the best to be found anywhere: it is my original research and idea, make no mistake about it.

Given what you wrote about the lowering of the pressure, WHEN AT 10:00 AM WE HAVE A MAXIMUM IN THE PRESSURE OF THE ATMOSPHERE, means you have no place writing here: please go back to the complete nonsense section.