Tunguska Explosion... Sandokhan Go... Destroys Refraction Excuse

sandokhan, I am sorry but your way of debating does not impress anyone. I agree with RR that you didn't seem to even bother to read the thread at all, didn't even bother to address any question raised before. Honestly I am not interested in your theory if you cannot provide any proof. If you say that those things really happened in Tunguska then provide some credible evidence that show those things really happened in Tunguska. Without evidence, you are not better than a copy pasta.

Don't worry I will keep asking for evidence until you provide some.

Quote from: odes on September 30, 2013, 03:57:38 PM

Why is so much time being wasted on what the light was, that was being observed, the explosion or the aftermath or what-have-you? What difference does it make? Curvature would have blocked it out regardless.

The thermonuclear 'explosions', if fake, add value in that we know even less than we realize about explosions.

In order to claim that curvature would have blocked the light coming to London you need to know where the source of the light first. If the source of the light was actually above the observers like for example in the case of aurora then there is no point bringing in curvature. The phenomena could happen on round earth as well. But if you have some evidence that show the light source was in Tunguska, then you can argue that the earth is flat.

Talking about the aurora borealis, which stems from the solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere, presents such a terrible, awful example...  The sun is a much larger object than the particular body which caused the event.  The event occurred in only one area, and the light spread outwards.  light only, not particles like solar flares.

You are trying to change the subject from the event to the aurora borealis where you just say, "see, it has lights."

Instead of focusing on a sun with a greater distance from earth (seen by everyone in FE and RE theory alike) be realistic and focus on the explosion that occurred at 7 km.  That should not have been seen.  Neither should the light from the area have been seen.

Auroras are unrelated.

The Aurora and this event are so unrelated and different that your comparison makes no sense.  Please note the different colors of an aurora borealis, please note the wave like shapes.  Also notice, how an aurora never gets as bright as that.

Once again, solar particles, which hit a large area from solar flares, and impact areas with temperatures totaling millions of degrees stand completely different from each other.  The sun, being seen by everyone, can emit particles that affect large areas.  That scenario just poses a big DUH...  Tunguska was just one localized event within the earth's atmosphere and close to the ground.

Provide just one shred of evidence that an impact from an object and solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere are the same scenario. 

The explosion came from just one area...  Solar particles bombard many different portions of the atmosphere at the same time...

Quote from: Cartesian on September 30, 2013, 11:30:01 PM

Quote from: odes on September 30, 2013, 03:57:38 PM

Why is so much time being wasted on what the light was, that was being observed, the explosion or the aftermath or what-have-you? What difference does it make? Curvature would have blocked it out regardless.

The thermonuclear 'explosions', if fake, add value in that we know even less than we realize about explosions.

In order to claim that curvature would have blocked the light coming to London you need to know where the source of the light first. If the source of the light was actually above the observers like for example in the case of aurora then there is no point bringing in curvature. The phenomena could happen on round earth as well. But if you have some evidence that show the light source was in Tunguska, then you can argue that the earth is flat.

Talking about the aurora borealis, which stems from the solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere, presents such a terrible, awful example...  The sun is a much larger object than the particular body which caused the event.  The event occurred in only one area, and the light spread outwards.  light only, not particles like solar flares.

You are trying to change the subject from the event to the aurora borealis where you just say, "see, it has lights."

Instead of focusing on a sun with a greater distance from earth (seen by everyone in FE and RE theory alike) be realistic and focus on the explosion that occurred at 7 km.  That should not have been seen.  Neither should the light from the area have been seen.

Auroras are unrelated.

The Aurora and this event are so unrelated and different that your comparison makes no sense.  Please note the different colors of an aurora borealis, please note the wave like shapes.  Also notice, how an aurora never gets as bright as that.

Once again, solar particles, which hit a large area from solar flares, and impact areas with temperatures totaling millions of degrees stand completely different from each other.  The sun, being seen by everyone, can emit particles that affect large areas.  That scenario just poses a big DUH...  Tunguska was just one localized event within the earth's atmosphere and close to the ground.

Provide just one shred of evidence that an impact from an object and solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere are the same scenario. 

The explosion came from just one area...  Solar particles bombard many different portions of the atmosphere at the same time...

No, unfortunately this is not the case. Whereas solar particles are are incident on the Earth's magnetic field in many different locations, the field lines channel the particles to specific regions where aurora happens. The aurora is not particles, it is the energy dissipated from the particles' interaction with air molecules. The light is the relevant focus here.

"Once again, solar particles, which hit a large area from solar flares, and impact areas with temperatures totaling millions of degrees stand completely different from each other."

Aurora can be localized phenomena, but do not need to be. It depend on the Earth's magnetosphere and the interaction of it with particles from the Sun. It is a very complicated, non-linear, process. The mathematics needed to solve the recombination of the field lines (which can transport the particles) is insane. The plasma physics equations needed to understand the particle interactions is a nightmare.

I would suggest that none of us (FE or RE) are fluent enough in these topics to be able to make any claims about what it IS and IS NOT with respect to aurora. I know enough about these topics to be able to communicate how incredibly complicated they are.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on October 01, 2013, 07:35:00 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on September 30, 2013, 11:30:01 PM

Quote from: odes on September 30, 2013, 03:57:38 PM

Why is so much time being wasted on what the light was, that was being observed, the explosion or the aftermath or what-have-you? What difference does it make? Curvature would have blocked it out regardless.

The thermonuclear 'explosions', if fake, add value in that we know even less than we realize about explosions.

In order to claim that curvature would have blocked the light coming to London you need to know where the source of the light first. If the source of the light was actually above the observers like for example in the case of aurora then there is no point bringing in curvature. The phenomena could happen on round earth as well. But if you have some evidence that show the light source was in Tunguska, then you can argue that the earth is flat.

Talking about the aurora borealis, which stems from the solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere, presents such a terrible, awful example...  The sun is a much larger object than the particular body which caused the event.  The event occurred in only one area, and the light spread outwards.  light only, not particles like solar flares.

You are trying to change the subject from the event to the aurora borealis where you just say, "see, it has lights."

Instead of focusing on a sun with a greater distance from earth (seen by everyone in FE and RE theory alike) be realistic and focus on the explosion that occurred at 7 km.  That should not have been seen.  Neither should the light from the area have been seen.

Auroras are unrelated.

The Aurora and this event are so unrelated and different that your comparison makes no sense.  Please note the different colors of an aurora borealis, please note the wave like shapes.  Also notice, how an aurora never gets as bright as that.

Once again, solar particles, which hit a large area from solar flares, and impact areas with temperatures totaling millions of degrees stand completely different from each other.  The sun, being seen by everyone, can emit particles that affect large areas.  That scenario just poses a big DUH...  Tunguska was just one localized event within the earth's atmosphere and close to the ground.

Provide just one shred of evidence that an impact from an object and solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere are the same scenario. 

The explosion came from just one area...  Solar particles bombard many different portions of the atmosphere at the same time...

No, unfortunately this is not the case. Whereas solar particles are are incident on the Earth's magnetic field in many different locations, the field lines channel the particles to specific regions where aurora happens. The aurora is not particles, it is the energy dissipated from the particles' interaction with air molecules. The light is the relevant focus here.

"Once again, solar particles, which hit a large area from solar flares, and impact areas with temperatures totaling millions of degrees stand completely different from each other."

Aurora can be localized phenomena, but do not need to be. It depend on the Earth's magnetosphere and the interaction of it with particles from the Sun. It is a very complicated, non-linear, process. The mathematics needed to solve the recombination of the field lines (which can transport the particles) is insane. The plasma physics equations needed to understand the particle interactions is a nightmare.

I would suggest that none of us (FE or RE) are fluent enough in these topics to be able to make any claims about what it IS and IS NOT with respect to aurora. I know enough about these topics to be able to communicate how incredibly complicated they are.

An aurora borealis occurs when solar particles interact with the earth's magnetic field.  I know this.

However, the light generated from interactions from solar particles, and the light from an impact event possess no similarity. 

No matter how many different ways one kneads the dough.  It still does not bake...

The sun lies in the open to everyone.  Its rays and flares touch all directions.

This 7 km altitude event touched a large region, it could not have been visible on FE.  In addition, the event lacked UV light and radiation.  No solar radiation = no similarity. 

Solar flares cause cancer, this type of light does not cause cancer.

In addition, the spectra of an aurora hold different characteristics.

Cartesian didnt say that this was caused by aurora. Its an example of a phenomena that appears over many places at once. Its simply an example of a known phenomena that does this and he's drawing a comparison to the tuskanga, an event we don't understand.

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 01, 2013, 08:06:40 AM

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on October 01, 2013, 07:35:00 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on September 30, 2013, 11:30:01 PM

Quote from: odes on September 30, 2013, 03:57:38 PM

Why is so much time being wasted on what the light was, that was being observed, the explosion or the aftermath or what-have-you? What difference does it make? Curvature would have blocked it out regardless.

The thermonuclear 'explosions', if fake, add value in that we know even less than we realize about explosions.

In order to claim that curvature would have blocked the light coming to London you need to know where the source of the light first. If the source of the light was actually above the observers like for example in the case of aurora then there is no point bringing in curvature. The phenomena could happen on round earth as well. But if you have some evidence that show the light source was in Tunguska, then you can argue that the earth is flat.

Talking about the aurora borealis, which stems from the solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere, presents such a terrible, awful example...  The sun is a much larger object than the particular body which caused the event.  The event occurred in only one area, and the light spread outwards.  light only, not particles like solar flares.

You are trying to change the subject from the event to the aurora borealis where you just say, "see, it has lights."

Instead of focusing on a sun with a greater distance from earth (seen by everyone in FE and RE theory alike) be realistic and focus on the explosion that occurred at 7 km.  That should not have been seen.  Neither should the light from the area have been seen.

Auroras are unrelated.

The Aurora and this event are so unrelated and different that your comparison makes no sense.  Please note the different colors of an aurora borealis, please note the wave like shapes.  Also notice, how an aurora never gets as bright as that.

Once again, solar particles, which hit a large area from solar flares, and impact areas with temperatures totaling millions of degrees stand completely different from each other.  The sun, being seen by everyone, can emit particles that affect large areas.  That scenario just poses a big DUH...  Tunguska was just one localized event within the earth's atmosphere and close to the ground.

Provide just one shred of evidence that an impact from an object and solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere are the same scenario. 

The explosion came from just one area...  Solar particles bombard many different portions of the atmosphere at the same time...

No, unfortunately this is not the case. Whereas solar particles are are incident on the Earth's magnetic field in many different locations, the field lines channel the particles to specific regions where aurora happens. The aurora is not particles, it is the energy dissipated from the particles' interaction with air molecules. The light is the relevant focus here.

"Once again, solar particles, which hit a large area from solar flares, and impact areas with temperatures totaling millions of degrees stand completely different from each other."

Aurora can be localized phenomena, but do not need to be. It depend on the Earth's magnetosphere and the interaction of it with particles from the Sun. It is a very complicated, non-linear, process. The mathematics needed to solve the recombination of the field lines (which can transport the particles) is insane. The plasma physics equations needed to understand the particle interactions is a nightmare.

I would suggest that none of us (FE or RE) are fluent enough in these topics to be able to make any claims about what it IS and IS NOT with respect to aurora. I know enough about these topics to be able to communicate how incredibly complicated they are.

An aurora borealis occurs when solar particles interact with the earth's magnetic field.  I know this.

However, the light generated from interactions from solar particles, and the light from an impact event possess no similarity. 

No matter how many different ways one kneads the dough.  It still does not bake...

The sun lies in the open to everyone.  Its rays and flares touch all directions.

This 7 km altitude event touched a large region, it could not have been visible on FE.  In addition, the event lacked UV light and radiation.  No solar radiation = no similarity. 

Solar flares cause cancer, this type of light does not cause cancer.

In addition, the spectra of an aurora hold different characteristics.

"The sun lies in the open to everyone.  Its rays and flares touch all directions." No, they do not. The particles that create aurora follow specific paths along the Earth's magnetic field lines. Just because sunLIGHT touches all directions, does not mean aurora is a diffuse phenomena. That reasoning is erroneous.

You mean it could not have been visible on a RE, not FE, but I know what you meant.

"In addition, the event lacked UV light and radiation.  No solar radiation = no similarity." UV light and radiation are the same thing...radiation IS light. The way you are discussing this is imprecise. You believe solar radiation consists of UV light only? You should learn what solar radiation IS, and I would be very interested to hear what you know about the spectra of aurora and how THAT SPECIFIC spectra compares with the corresponding waveband of THAT SPECIFIC spectra in the explosion. You must compare the total energy, its distribution, and propagation in this waveband. You must be specific, avoiding qualitative comments such as "it doesn't add up" and instead using quantitative comments like: "if you compare the spatial distribution of the total energy in the range corresponding to ____ to ____ nm, etc..."

This is how we should compare it. Only by addressing the specifics can we lend any credibility to the FE view.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 30, 2013, 11:30:01 PM

In order to claim that curvature would have blocked the light coming to London you need to know where the source of the light first. If the source of the light was actually above the observers like for example in the case of aurora then there is no point bringing in curvature. The phenomena could happen on round earth as well. But if you have some evidence that show the light source was in Tunguska, then you can argue that the earth is flat.

picture

Talking about the aurora borealis, which stems from the solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere, presents such a terrible, awful example...  The sun is a much larger object than the particular body which caused the event.  The event occurred in only one area, and the light spread outwards.  light only, not particles like solar flares.

You are trying to change the subject from the event to the aurora borealis where you just say, "see, it has lights."

Instead of focusing on a sun with a greater distance from earth (seen by everyone in FE and RE theory alike) be realistic and focus on the explosion that occurred at 7 km.  That should not have been seen.  Neither should the light from the area have been seen.

Auroras are unrelated.

The Aurora and this event are so unrelated and different that your comparison makes no sense.  Please note the different colors of an aurora borealis, please note the wave like shapes.  Also notice, how an aurora never gets as bright as that.

Once again, solar particles, which hit a large area from solar flares, and impact areas with temperatures totaling millions of degrees stand completely different from each other.  The sun, being seen by everyone, can emit particles that affect large areas.  That scenario just poses a big DUH...  Tunguska was just one localized event within the earth's atmosphere and close to the ground.

Provide just one shred of evidence that an impact from an object and solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere are the same scenario. 

The explosion came from just one area...  Solar particles bombard many different portions of the atmosphere at the same time...

Jingle, if you read my post carefully with a cool head you should know that, as RR pointed out to you as well, I didn't say that the glow had been caused by aurora. Actually I have never claimed I knew what caused the glow. Read again my post. It is actually a challenge for you (the bold ones). And also read what I said to SM:

Even testimonies from eye witnesses who live close to the blast centre only reported what happened during the blast. They didn't mention any strange phenomena during the nights following the blast.

But if you have some credible evidence that show the light source was in Tunguska several days after the blast, then you can argue that the earth is flat. Until then, your words alone mean nothing.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on October 01, 2013, 07:35:00 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on September 30, 2013, 11:30:01 PM

In order to claim that curvature would have blocked the light coming to London you need to know where the source of the light first. If the source of the light was actually above the observers like for example in the case of aurora then there is no point bringing in curvature. The phenomena could happen on round earth as well. But if you have some evidence that show the light source was in Tunguska, then you can argue that the earth is flat.

picture

Talking about the aurora borealis, which stems from the solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere, presents such a terrible, awful example...  The sun is a much larger object than the particular body which caused the event.  The event occurred in only one area, and the light spread outwards.  light only, not particles like solar flares.

You are trying to change the subject from the event to the aurora borealis where you just say, "see, it has lights."

Instead of focusing on a sun with a greater distance from earth (seen by everyone in FE and RE theory alike) be realistic and focus on the explosion that occurred at 7 km.  That should not have been seen.  Neither should the light from the area have been seen.

Auroras are unrelated.

The Aurora and this event are so unrelated and different that your comparison makes no sense.  Please note the different colors of an aurora borealis, please note the wave like shapes.  Also notice, how an aurora never gets as bright as that.

Once again, solar particles, which hit a large area from solar flares, and impact areas with temperatures totaling millions of degrees stand completely different from each other.  The sun, being seen by everyone, can emit particles that affect large areas.  That scenario just poses a big DUH...  Tunguska was just one localized event within the earth's atmosphere and close to the ground.

Provide just one shred of evidence that an impact from an object and solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere are the same scenario. 

The explosion came from just one area...  Solar particles bombard many different portions of the atmosphere at the same time...

Jingle, if you read my post carefully with a cool head you should know that, as RR pointed out to you as well, I didn't say that the glow had been caused by aurora. Actually I have never claimed I knew what caused the glow. Read again my post. It is actually a challenge for you (the bold ones). And also read what I said to SM:

Quote from: Cartesian on September 30, 2013, 11:51:18 PM

Even testimonies from eye witnesses who live close to the blast centre only reported what happened during the blast. They didn't mention any strange phenomena during the nights following the blast.

But if you have some credible evidence that show the light source was in Tunguska several days after the blast, then you can argue that the earth is flat. Until then, your words alone mean nothing.

the light source came from Tunguska. 

I submitted several websites which prove that tunguska was incredibly hot with light in all directions.  Moscow saw a great deal of light to the point where a magnesium flash was not used... 

That is all I have to say...  You are just angry, because those were actual testimonies from people...  Real people...

Yes those links make it clear that A light source came from Tunguska. However, they don't make it clear that the light seen from London necessarily comes from Tunguska.

the light source came from Tunguska. 

I submitted several websites which prove that tunguska was incredibly hot with light in all directions.  Moscow saw a great deal of light to the point where a magnesium flash was not used... 

That is all I have to say...  You are just angry, because those were actual testimonies from people...  Real people...

Show me the testimonies from eyewitnesses in Tunguska region which say there was a constant bright light for several days and nights in Tunguska. I am not talking about the testimonies related to the blast. I am talking about testimonies in the days and night following the blast.

Until then, your words alone mean nothing.

In order to assist you, I am giving some examples of eyewitness reports from the blast area which I don't want you to provide because they only reported the moment of the blast. I want the eyewitness reports from Tunguska area of the days and nights following the blast.

Until then, your words alone mean nothing.


Testimony of S. Semenov, as recorded by Leonid Kulik's expedition in 1930

At breakfast time I was sitting by the house at Vanavara Trading Post [65 kilometres/40 miles south of the explosion], facing north. [...] I suddenly saw that directly to the north, over Onkoul's Tunguska Road, the sky split in two and fire appeared high and wide over the forest [as Semenov showed, about 50 degrees up—expedition note]. The split in the sky grew larger, and the entire northern side was covered with fire. At that moment I became so hot that I couldn't bear it, as if my shirt was on fire; from the northern side, where the fire was, came strong heat. I wanted to tear off my shirt and throw it down, but then the sky shut closed, and a strong thump sounded, and I was thrown a few metres. I lost my senses for a moment, but then my wife ran out and led me to the house. After that such noise came, as if rocks were falling or cannons were firing, the earth shook, and when I was on the ground, I pressed my head down, fearing rocks would smash it. When the sky opened up, hot wind raced between the houses, like from cannons, which left traces in the ground like pathways, and it damaged some crops. Later we saw that many windows were shattered, and in the barn a part of the iron lock snapped.

Testimony of Chuchan of Shanyagir tribe, as recorded by I.M. Suslov in 1926

We had a hut by the river with my brother Chekaren. We were sleeping. Suddenly we both woke up at the same time. Somebody shoved us. We heard whistling and felt strong wind. Chekaren said, 'Can you hear all those birds flying overhead?' We were both in the hut, couldn't see what was going on outside. Suddenly, I got shoved again, this time so hard I fell into the fire. I got scared. Chekaren got scared too. We started crying out for father, mother, brother, but no one answered. There was noise beyond the hut, we could hear trees falling down. Chekaren and I got out of our sleeping bags and wanted to run out, but then the thunder struck. This was the first thunder. The Earth began to move and rock, wind hit our hut and knocked it over. My body was pushed down by sticks, but my head was in the clear. Then I saw a wonder: trees were falling, the branches were on fire, it became mighty bright, how can I say this, as if there was a second sun, my eyes were hurting, I even closed them. It was like what the Russians call lightning. And immediately there was a loud thunderclap. This was the second thunder. The morning was sunny, there were no clouds, our Sun was shining brightly as usual, and suddenly there came a second one!
Chekaren and I had some difficulty getting out from under the remains of our hut. Then we saw that above, but in a different place, there was another flash, and loud thunder came. This was the third thunder strike. Wind came again, knocked us off our feet, struck against the fallen trees.
We looked at the fallen trees, watched the tree tops get snapped off, watched the fires. Suddenly Chekaren yelled 'Look up' and pointed with his hand. I looked there and saw another flash, and it made another thunder. But the noise was less than before. This was the fourth strike, like normal thunder.
Now I remember well there was also one more thunder strike, but it was small, and somewhere far away, where the Sun goes to sleep.

Sibir newspaper, July 2, 1908

On the 17th of June [in old Russian calendar which is equivalent to 30th June in modern calendar], around 9 a.m. in the morning, we observed an unusual natural occurrence. In the north Karelinski village the peasants saw to the north west, rather high above the horizon, some strangely bright (impossible to look at) bluish-white heavenly body, which for 10 minutes moved downwards. The body appeared as a "pipe", i.e., a cylinder. The sky was cloudless, only a small dark cloud was observed in the general direction of the bright body. It was hot and dry. As the body neared the ground (forest), the bright body seemed to smudge, and then turned into a giant billow of black smoke, and a loud knocking (not thunder) was heard, as if large stones were falling, or artillery was fired. All buildings shook. At the same time the cloud began emitting flames of uncertain shapes. All villagers were stricken with panic and took to the streets, women cried, thinking it was the end of the world. The author of these lines was meantime in the forest about 6 verst [6.4 km] north of Kirensk, and heard to the north east some kind of artillery barrage, that repeated in intervals of 15 minutes at least 10 times. In Kirensk in a few buildings in the walls facing north east window glass shook.

Siberian Life newspaper, July 27, 1908

When the meteorite fell, strong tremors in the ground were observed, and near the Lovat village of the Kansk uezd two strong explosions were heard, as if from large-caliber artillery.

Krasnoyaretz newspaper, July 13, 1908

Kezhemskoe village. On the 17th an unusual atmospheric event was observed. At 7:43 the noise akin to a strong wind was heard. Immediately afterwards a horrific thump sounded, followed by an earthquake that literally shook the buildings, as if they were hit by a large log or a heavy rock. The first thump was followed by a second, and then a third. Then the interval between the first and the third thumps were accompanied by an unusual underground rattle, similar to a railway upon which dozens of trains are travelling at the same time. Afterwards for 5 to 6 minutes an exact likeness of artillery fire was heard: 50 to 60 salvoes in short, equal intervals, which got progressively weaker. After 1.5–2 minutes after one of the "barrages" six more thumps were heard, like cannon firing, but individual, loud and accompanied by tremors. The sky, at the first sight, appeared to be clear. There was no wind and no clouds. However upon closer inspection to the north, i.e. where most of the thumps were heard, a kind of an ashen cloud was seen near the horizon, which kept getting smaller and more transparent and possibly by around 2–3 p.m. completely disappeared.

I submitted testimonials from Everik tribal members.  They described it looking as a column of light brighter than the sun.

No deception there. 

Why alter the subject with more testimonials?  I validated that the event occurred and that a great deal of energy and light was released in the form of fire and heat. 

A 30 million degree ball of fire causes gravel and rock to burn white hot like magnesium... All that power lingered in the skies and radiated outward.  This situation only transpires on a flat earth, where no curvature obstructions exist.

I submitted testimonials from Everik tribal members.  They described it looking as a column of light brighter than the sun.

No deception there. [emphasis added]

Why alter the subject with more testimonials?  I validated that the event occurred and that a great deal of energy and light was released in the form of fire and heat. 

A 30 million degree ball of fire causes gravel and rock to burn white hot like magnesium... All that power lingered in the skies and radiated outward.  This situation only transpires on a flat earth, where no curvature obstructions exist.

Until you can submit evidence which supports your claim your words mean nothing. Don't make me repeat this each time you post without evidence. Please.

And I hate liars:

sorry, I got them confused with another tribe... It was the Evenki tribe.  Everik was for something else...

sorry, I got them confused with another tribe... It was the Evenki tribe.  Everik was for something else...

Can you quote it here and post the link to the source as well? Highlight the passages which say that the phenomena was observed for days and nights after the blast. And try as best as you can not to deceive me again.

Not intentional deception, just a simple mistake with a tribal name...

http://www.slemen.com/tunguska.html

Almost 350 miles to the north of the train, the nomadic hunting tribes of the Evenki people felt the ground shake violently as they witnessed what seemed to be a second sun racing across the heavens. Only this sun seemed to be cyclindrical. By now, the immense apocalyptic object had been seen to change course as if it was being controlled or steered. After passing over the terrified travellers of the trans-Siberian train, the object made a forty-five degree right turn and travelled 150 miles before performing an identical manoeuvre in the other direction. The tubular shaped object then proceeded for another 150 miles before exploding over the Tunguska valley. The detonation occurred at a height of five miles, and the 12-megatonne explosion (it might have even been 30 megatonne) destroyed everything within a radius of 20 miles. Herds of reindeer were incinerated as they stampeded away from the explosion, and all wildlife in the area was ignited by the searing heat blast. Thirty-seven miles from the blast, the tents that the frightened Evenki people had taken refuge in were lifted high into the air by the resulting atmospheric shock wave, and the Evenki's horses galloped off in terror, dragging their ploughs with them. At the centre of the explosion a monstrous mushroom cloud rose steadily over Siberia. Such a strange and unsettling sight would not be witnessed for another thirty-seven years at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But this explosion was even fiercer than the A bombs which were dropped on the Japanese cities. The blast from the Tunguska explosion felled trees as if they were matchsticks for 20 miles around and set whole forests alight. The shockwave generated by the mysterious cataclysm travelled around the world twice and shook the recording pens of the microbargraphs at three meteorlogical stations in London, where they were interpreted as seismic jolts from some distant earthquake.

They found out only later than the furious object stood as the primary cause of every single deleterious event...

The first reports of a strange glow in the sky came from across Europe. Shortly after midnight on 1 July 1908, Londoners were intrigued to see a pink phosphorescent night sky over the capital. People who had retired awoke confused as the strange pink glow shone into their bedrooms. The same ruddy luminescence was reported over Belgium. The skies over Germany were curiously said to be bright green, while the heavens over Scotland were of an incredible intense whiteness which tricked the wildlife into believing it was dawn. Birdsong started and cocks crowed - at two o'clock in the morning. The skies over Moscow were so bright, photographs were taken of the streets without using a magnesium flash. A captain on a ship on the River Volga said he could see vessels on the river two miles away by the uncanny astral light. One golf game in England almost went on until four in the morning under the nocturnal glow, and in the following week The Times of London was inundated with letters from readers from all over the United Kingdom to report the curious 'false dawn'. A woman in Huntingdon wrote that she had been able to read a book in her bedroom solely by the peculiar rosy light. There were hundreds of letters from people reporting identical lighting conditions that went on for weeks after the Tunguska explosion. Scientists and meteorologists also wrote to the newspaper giving their opinions about the cause of the strange skyglare which ranged from the Northern Lights to dust in the upper atmosphere reflecting the rays of the sun below the horizon. No one connected the phenomenon with the strange object which had come down in Siberia to explode with the fury of a H-bomb.

Almost 350 miles to the north of the train, the nomadic hunting tribes of the Evenki people felt the ground shake violently as they witnessed what seemed to be a second sun racing across the heavens. Only this sun seemed to be cyclindrical. By now, the immense apocalyptic object had been seen to change course as if it was being controlled or steered. After passing over the terrified travellers of the trans-Siberian train, the object made a forty-five degree right turn and travelled 150 miles before performing an identical manoeuvre in the other direction. The tubular shaped object then proceeded for another 150 miles before exploding over the Tunguska valley. The detonation occurred at a height of five miles, and the 12-megatonne explosion (it might have even been 30 megatonne) destroyed everything within a radius of 20 miles. Herds of reindeer were incinerated as they stampeded away from the explosion, and all wildlife in the area was ignited by the searing heat blast. Thirty-seven miles from the blast, the tents that the frightened Evenki people had taken refuge in were lifted high into the air by the resulting atmospheric shock wave, and the Evenki's horses galloped off in terror, dragging their ploughs with them. At the centre of the explosion a monstrous mushroom cloud rose steadily over Siberia. Such a strange and unsettling sight would not be witnessed for another thirty-seven years at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But this explosion was even fiercer than the A bombs which were dropped on the Japanese cities. The blast from the Tunguska explosion felled trees as if they were matchsticks for 20 miles around and set whole forests alight. The shockwave generated by the mysterious cataclysm travelled around the world twice and shook the recording pens of the microbargraphs at three meteorlogical stations in London, where they were interpreted as seismic jolts from some distant earthquake.

This describes the blast! I don't want this. I want the report from Tunguska describing the phenomena days after the blast.

The first reports of a strange glow in the sky came from across Europe. Shortly after midnight on 1 July 1908, Londoners were intrigued to see a pink phosphorescent night sky over the capital. People who had retired awoke confused as the strange pink glow shone into their bedrooms. The same ruddy luminescence was reported over Belgium. The skies over Germany were curiously said to be bright green, while the heavens over Scotland were of an incredible intense whiteness which tricked the wildlife into believing it was dawn. Birdsong started and cocks crowed - at two o'clock in the morning. The skies over Moscow were so bright, photographs were taken of the streets without using a magnesium flash. A captain on a ship on the River Volga said he could see vessels on the river two miles away by the uncanny astral light. One golf game in England almost went on until four in the morning under the nocturnal glow, and in the following week The Times of London was inundated with letters from readers from all over the United Kingdom to report the curious 'false dawn'. A woman in Huntingdon wrote that she had been able to read a book in her bedroom solely by the peculiar rosy light. There were hundreds of letters from people reporting identical lighting conditions that went on for weeks after the Tunguska explosion. Scientists and meteorologists also wrote to the newspaper giving their opinions about the cause of the strange skyglare which ranged from the Northern Lights to dust in the upper atmosphere reflecting the rays of the sun below the horizon. No one connected the phenomenon with the strange object which had come down in Siberia to explode with the fury of a H-bomb.

This is NOT from Tunguska! I don't want this. I want the report from Tunguska describing the phenomena days after the blast.

What do you mean?  The second quote describes exactly what occurred many days after the blast...

The Tunguska event presents a very simple case, where testimony exists as to what happened.  Why do you make this so difficult?

From above...

There were hundreds of letters from people reporting identical lighting conditions that went on for weeks after the Tunguska explosion.

It went on for so, so long....  Like forever...

I'm not sure that the conditions after the event directly over Tuskanga are that important. We want to know about the conditions over London and places between it and Tuskanga.

What do you mean?  The second quote describes exactly what occurred many days after the blast...

The Tunguska event presents a very simple case, where testimony exists as to what happened.  Why do you make this so difficult?

You claimed that light originating from Tunguska was seen up to London for several nights because the earth was flat. Didn't you? If that's the case, then people in Tunguska would have seen this light as well. This is what you need to prove.

So show me some eyewitness reports from Tunguska area describing the phenomena days/nights following the blast.

It went on for weeks....

here is another quote.

http://www.grandunification.com/hypertext/Tunguska_Explosion.html

"An unusual night sky brightness persisted for nearly two months after the event"

The power of the blast was so great... It was the heat and fire from the impact area... The heat was so great that rocks and trees were turned molten, thus no impact crater manifested.

Reflective cometary dust cannot be the answer as well, because the moon, when full, never provides that much light.  One cannot read under moonlight, impossible.

It went on for weeks....

here is another quote.

http://www.grandunification.com/hypertext/Tunguska_Explosion.html

Quote

"An unusual night sky brightness persisted for nearly two months after the event"

The power of the blast was so great... It was the heat and fire from the impact area... The heat was so great that rocks and trees were turned molten, thus no impact crater manifested.

Reflective cometary dust cannot be the answer as well, because the moon, when full, never provides that much light.  One cannot read under moonlight, impossible.

Which part of show me some eyewitness reports from Tunguska area describing the phenomena days/nights following the blast you don't understand?

Do you not see the irony in this?

You think this is definitive proof of the earth being flat even though there is a lack of sufficient information to make a determination.

On the other hand, you think that the earth can't be round even though there is an abundance of information that says it is.

Another quote

The nights following the Tunguska meteorite were anomalous. Abnormally bright nighttime illumination was reported throughout Europe and Western Russia to the extent that people could read news print at midnight without artificial lighting (Kridec 1966).

Tunguska lies in Russia.  Western Russia validates the event and the production of light...

 Once again, Western Russia and the areas surrounding Tunguska admit to the sheer horrific terror of this instance. 

Nothing in the immediate vicinity of Tunguska survived...

Nothing in the immediate vicinity of Tunguska survived...

Anyone who had reported seeing or feeling the physical impact of the blast, including Evenki tribe, would have been able the see the light days/night after the blast. Find the eyewitness reports from those people which describe the phenomena days following the blast for me please.

Another quote

Quote

The nights following the Tunguska meteorite were anomalous. Abnormally bright nighttime illumination was reported throughout Europe and Western Russia to the extent that people could read news print at midnight without artificial lighting (Kridec 1966).

Tunguska lies in Russia.  Western Russia validates the event and the production of light...

 Once again, Western Russia and the areas surrounding Tunguska admit to the sheer horrific terror of this instance. 

Nothing in the immediate vicinity of Tunguska survived...

Nothing in any of these reports says the bight nights was seen over Tuskanga but not in Europe. It seems to me like the light was seen in Europe, not FROM Europe. People in Europe saw the lights over them. The fact that they could read confirms this. They certainly were not reading newspapers thanks to light coming in at an angle from a source 3000 miles away. It seems to me that the light source was directly over their heads.

Nothing in any of these reports says the bight nights was seen over Tuskange but not in Europe. It seems to me like the light were seen in Europe, not away FROM Europe. People in Europe saw the lights over them. The fact that they could read confirms this. They certainly were not reading newspapers thanks to light coming in at an angle from a source 3000 miles away. It seems to me that the light source was directly over their heads.

Spot on. But Jingle doesn't seem to understand this. He still believes that there was some powerful torch from Tunguska area that could lit London sky. And to be honest, he and sandokhan seem to the only ones who use Tunguska event to support FET.

Why do you keep asking the same questions?

Are you searching for individual accounts?  Because I have a plethora of individual accounts on Tunguska, they describe what occurred only immediately before and after impact.  They all agree on the power of the event and the light produced.

Check out this website.

http://www.vurdalak.com/tunguska/witness/fowler_prof.htm

I have quotes and testimony from whole groups of people about the light which lasted for days.  Some eyewitness testimony from London...

The bright light and absence of magnetism made them think the event was not auroral.

Professor Fowler, South Kensington, England

“The Recent Nocturnal Glows,”
The Times of London, Saturday July 4, 1908

The remarkably ruddy glows which have been seen on many nights lately have attracted much attention and have been seen over an area as far as Berlin, There is considerable difference of opinion as to their nature. Some hold that they are auroral; their colour is quite consistent with this view, and there is also the fact that Professor Fowler of South Kensington predicted auroral displays at this time from his observations, which showed great disturbances in the sun’s prominences. There was a slight, but plainly marked disturbance of the magnets on Tuesday night, and this materially strengthened the auroral theory, as the two phenomena are very closely correlated. However, this was shaken on the following night, when the glow was quite as strong, but the magnets were exceptionally quiet....

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on October 01, 2013, 02:24:28 PM

Another quote

Quote

The nights following the Tunguska meteorite were anomalous. Abnormally bright nighttime illumination was reported throughout Europe and Western Russia to the extent that people could read news print at midnight without artificial lighting (Kridec 1966).

Tunguska lies in Russia.  Western Russia validates the event and the production of light...

 Once again, Western Russia and the areas surrounding Tunguska admit to the sheer horrific terror of this instance. 

Nothing in the immediate vicinity of Tunguska survived...

Nothing in any of these reports says the bight nights was seen over Tuskanga but not in Europe. It seems to me like the light was seen in Europe, not FROM Europe. People in Europe saw the lights over them. The fact that they could read confirms this. They certainly were not reading newspapers thanks to light coming in at an angle from a source 3000 miles away. It seems to me that the light source was directly over their heads.

I meant 'from' as in individuals who saw the event from that location.  They saw the event from Europe just implies, even in Europe, Tunguska lay plain to see...

Why do you keep asking the same questions?

Are you searching for individual accounts?  Because I have a plethora of individual accounts on Tunguska, they describe what occurred only immediately before and after impact.  They all agree on the power of the event and the light produced.

Check out this website.

http://www.vurdalak.com/tunguska/witness/fowler_prof.htm

I have quotes and testimony from whole groups of people about the light which lasted for days.  Some eyewitness testimony from London...

The bright light and absence of magnetism made them think the event was not auroral.

Quote

Professor Fowler, South Kensington, England

“The Recent Nocturnal Glows,”
The Times of London, Saturday July 4, 1908

The remarkably ruddy glows which have been seen on many nights lately have attracted much attention and have been seen over an area as far as Berlin, There is considerable difference of opinion as to their nature. Some hold that they are auroral; their colour is quite consistent with this view, and there is also the fact that Professor Fowler of South Kensington predicted auroral displays at this time from his observations, which showed great disturbances in the sun’s prominences. There was a slight, but plainly marked disturbance of the magnets on Tuesday night, and this materially strengthened the auroral theory, as the two phenomena are very closely correlated. However, this was shaken on the following night, when the glow was quite as strong, but the magnets were exceptionally quiet....

Jingle, can't you understand why you will never be able to find any eyewitness report from Tunguska describing the light that lasted for days after the blast? Because there was no light in Tunguska after the blast!