Large Explosions and Earth's curvature (Nukes, Tunguska Event and Snadokhan)

  • 858 Replies
  • 22525 Views
New elements from the letter.

I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight.  I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.


fortnight
/ˈfɔːtnʌɪt/
noun
BRITISH
a period of two weeks.

So, contrary to what the RE were saying, Mrs. Stephen had been observing the skies FOR TWO WEEKS.

I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

If it's July 1, 1908 (0:00 am July 1, 1908), then NOTHING happened before this date.

However, the peak of the anomalies occurred starting with 0:00 am June 30, 1908, of course.

If pressure is the cause of weight then why does my weight stayed the same as the barometric pressure changes?

The pressure takes place at the most infinitesimal level of each cell, atom, particle, not on the surface area.

Barometric pressure has nothing to do with your weight. The atmosphere is levitated by the ether strings, that is why the bathroom scale does not register the 2,000 pounds.

This allows satellites such as the ISS, GPS

Explain the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

Weyl's formula is used by satellites manufacturers to obtain levitation and change of direction.
When will you learn how to use the the quote function
If you can't learn how to use the  quote function how can you fathom the nature of the globe.
to use the quote function [ quote ] the stuff you want to  quoted [ /quote ]  just remove the spaces.
 
Quote
the stuff you want  quoted
tested

This allows satellites such as the ISS, GPS
thy work.
 using italicized is not a nuff
Quote
Explain the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.
what does that has to do with any thing.
Explain ORBITAL on a flat earth.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Quote
Sandokhan quoting
I just want heliocentric space to be true. I want to leave rabbit hole. I want my life to be normal again. I want to spend my days thinking about endless universe. I don't want constand headaches thinking about sandokhan's theories

I want my dream to be true

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6506
She said she'd been observing the sky for 2 weeks, but singled out "last night" as the time she saw something unusual. That is not contrary to what I've been saying. It's contrary to what you are saying.

You have been checkmated. Just like all of the other RE.

Your smirk is gone, and so is your usual condescending style of posting.

It is totally contrary to what you were saying.

So, contrary to what the RE were saying, Mrs. Stephen had been observing the skies FOR TWO WEEKS.

I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

If it's July 1, 1908 (0:00 am July 1, 1908), then NOTHING happened before this date.

However, the peak of the anomalies occurred starting with 0:00 am June 30, 1908, of course.



Explain ORBITAL on a flat earth.

 ;) The Earth is stationary.

Why don't we try to find any other reports?
I just want heliocentric space to be true. I want to leave rabbit hole. I want my life to be normal again. I want to spend my days thinking about endless universe. I don't want constand headaches thinking about sandokhan's theories

I want my dream to be true

*

sokarul

  • 18212
  • Discount Chemist
She said she'd been observing the sky for 2 weeks, but singled out "last night" as the time she saw something unusual. That is not contrary to what I've been saying. It's contrary to what you are saying.

You have been checkmated. Just like all of the other RE.

Your smirk is gone, and so is your usual condescending style of posting.

It is totally contrary to what you were saying.

So, contrary to what the RE were saying, Mrs. Stephen had been observing the skies FOR TWO WEEKS.

I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

If it's July 1, 1908 (0:00 am July 1, 1908), then NOTHING happened before this date.

However, the peak of the anomalies occurred starting with 0:00 am June 30, 1908, of course.



Explain ORBITAL on a flat earth.

 ;) The Earth is stationary.
Once again you show why you are the king of misinformation.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

She said she'd been observing the sky for 2 weeks, but singled out "last night" as the time she saw something unusual. That is not contrary to what I've been saying. It's contrary to what you are saying.

You have been checkmated. Just like all of the other RE.

Your smirk is gone, and so is your usual condescending style of posting.

It is totally contrary to what you were saying.

So, contrary to what the RE were saying, Mrs. Stephen had been observing the skies FOR TWO WEEKS.

I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

If it's July 1, 1908 (0:00 am July 1, 1908), then NOTHING happened before this date.

However, the peak of the anomalies occurred starting with 0:00 am June 30, 1908, of course.



Explain ORBITAL on a flat earth.

 ;) The Earth is stationary.

When did I ever say she wasn’t observing the sky for 2 weeks? And so what if she was?  It’s not exactly unprecedented for people to take note of the skies, particularly around the summer solstice. 

She stated she saw something unusual “last night”.  Not before.

Just to remind you of the point of all this.  Your claim God knows how long back was that event was visible instantaneously in the UK.  Thus discounting the possibility that light seen in the UK was due to particulate atmospheric effects.

So far the only 2 pieces of evidence of light visible in the UK you have provided are this letter written on July 1st, and a photo taken at 10:50pm July 1st.

Do you have any accounts to show unambiguously that the light was visible in the UK at the time of the explosion?

A mystery solved: Space shuttle shows 1908 Tunguska explosion was caused by comet

The mysterious 1908 Tunguska explosion that leveled 830 square miles of Siberian forest was almost certainly caused by a comet entering Earth's atmosphere, says new Cornell research. The conclusion is supported by an unlikely source: the exhaust plume from the NASA space shuttle launched a century later.

The research, accepted for publication (June 24) by the journal Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union, connects the two events by what followed each about a day later: brilliant, night-visible clouds, or noctilucent clouds, that are made up of ice particles and only form at very high altitudes and in extremely cold temperatures.


Source: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2009/06/researchers-connect-shuttle-plume-1908-explosion

A published paper that says it were noctilucent clouds.

EARTH'S CURVATURE.
Not just Earth's curvature, large explosions and Earth's curvature.

Yet instead of making it about that, you want to avoid your failings and make it about every possible thing you can think of.

Gravity has no place in this thread. Even if people cannot or wont explain it to you, that doesn't magically make Earth flat.

Her testimony is very clear: the SUDDEN atmospheric anomalies started at MIDNIGHT.
STOP LYING!
It indicates no such thing.
It says she first saw it shortly after midnight.
That does not mean it was sudden nor that it started then, just that she first saw it then.

Her not seeing it does not mean it isn't occurring.

Sure the photograph is from the evening of July 1, 1908: it shows that, one day before, on the evening of June 30, 1908, there was the same brightness.
PURE GARABGE!
It shows no such thing.
How could a photon taken on the evening of July 1 show that the same conditions were present on June 30th?
That makes no sense at all.

Which day could Mrs. Stephen have been referring to?
As she wrote it on July 1st, and said "last night", she was clearly referring to the night that started on June 30th and ended on July 1st.
Any other interpretation is just a blatant lie to try and pretend she meant something she clearly didn't.

If you wish to reject the meaning of that simple, common, English phrase as here not meaning that, then why not just reject it all as it is clear she doesn't understand English so her letter could mean anything. Perhaps by light, she didn't actually mean light and actually tomatoes?

So you lose big on this one.
Nope, that it still you, blatantly lying about what she said to fit your fantasy and trying to photos which cannot possibly be evidence for your claim.

You know what you must do: provide an explanation on how a body of water stays in place next to the outer surface of a sphere, or accept defeat.
No, we don't need to provide an explanation for gravity, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
Meanwhile, you do need to provide an explanation for how the sunset works on a FE, and then clearly explain why this substitute for the very real curvature of the Earth wouldn't have the same effects.

There was brightness as intense as during the day starting on the evening of June 30, 1908. At 22:00 pm you could read newspapers outside without street lighting.
So you finally admit you are full of crap?
It started on the evening of June 30th, i.e. the night which starts on June 30th and ends on July 1st. Exactly the evening described by her.
1 day after the explosion?

After midnight, on July 1, 1908
It was only 2 hours after you now claim it started.

No. My evidence comes from the recorded atmospheric anomalies witnessed all over Europe starting with June 30, 1908, 0:00 am.
Which you are yet to provide.
Instead you appear to be using circular reasoning, claiming that it started on the morning of June 30th, so you can claim that Mrs Stephens was clearly taking about just after midnight on June 30th, so you can try to use her account as evidence that it started on June 30th.

All so you can try to claim the light was the light from your magical 3 day explosion and thus the 7 km altitude of the explosion would create a visual obstacle of made up BS due to the curvature of Earth so you can claim that Earth can't possibly be round, while ignoring the fact that FE needs a pathetic substitute for curvature that would have the same effect.

Here is the graph which assembles all of the data ever collected:
You mean here is the graph which has so many problems already pointed out with it which you choose to ignore because you know it destroys your argument.
Firstly, it doesn't provide the time you claim.
It shows a single point per day. So it could have started at 12 or 2 or 10 and show up as the same point. So you have no basis to claim it shows it starting at midnight.
It also doesn't provide a location.
Are these anomalies recorded in London, France Moscow, Tunguska? Where? Without that information it is completely useless for your baseless claims.

But far more importantly, it provides no indication of what is meant by the date.
Is the point for June 30th describing the night starting on June 29th and ending on June 30th, or is it describing the night starting on June 30th and ending on July 1st?

In this case there is genuine ambiguity, but you ignore it and pretend it could only possibly mean whatever fits your delusional fantasy.

Mrs. Stephen clearly refers to 0:00 am, June 30, 1908 - 7:00 am in Siberia.
Stop lying, by her use of "last night" on July 1st, she is clearly referring to 12 am on July 1st.

P.S. if you use am/pm, it is 12. If you use 24 hour time there is no am/pm.

several times in the last fortnight.

Several:
more than two but not many.

So she was not observing it every day.
She clearly indicated that she had just observed in several times, not every night.
So did she try to observe it on the night starting June 29th?
Who knows.

So contrary to more delusional claims from you, she was not observing it every night for 2 weeks. So you still have no basis for your claim.
But even if she was, it just goes against you.
The plain meaning of her words indicate that the light she saw was first observed by her just after midnight on July 1st, which would then mean that the light did not start at the time of the explosion.

Now again, care to actually address the issues which have been raised and you have repeatedly ignored?
Explain whatever pathetic BS you are using as a substitute for the real curvature of Earth. Explain how this substitute causes the sun to set to allow it to be night in London, noting that the sun doesn't just magically vanish and instead appears to drop below the horizon.

Then explain why the light from your magical 3 day long explosion you claim to be brighter than the sun and closer was only observed to the west of it and only for a distance of 5000 km, significantly less than the sun.

If you can't do that, then you have failed, yet again.
If you bring up other irrelevant garbage, like you claims regarding curvature or the English channel, YOU FAIL!
If you just lie about Mrs Stephen's claim again and claim it magically means the night before last rather than last night, YOU FAIL!

Pretty much, if you don't directly address why the sun sets and why whatever FE magical substitute for curvature that causes it to set doesn't also effect your explosion, YOU FAIL!
If you don't explain why it was only observed to the west, YOU FAIL!

Why are we focusing on one report? There must be others!
Because this is likely the only one Sandy can easily lie about to pretend it meant just after midnight on June 30th, due to his misuse of the word "last night"

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6506
You have been checkmated.

Mrs. Stephen's account clearly indicates that the light from the explosion was seen instantaneously from London.

I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

If it's July 1, 1908 (0:00 am July 1, 1908), then NOTHING happened before this date.

However, the peak of the anomalies occurred starting with 0:00 am June 30, 1908, of course.



As for the curvature, you are claiming that the surface between London and Tunguska is curved, and so is the surface of the English Channel.

Clearly you are dodging the issue, since you are unable to explain the missing curvature.

Are you able to explain how the surface of the English Channel stays curved? If not, I win.

You are running away very scared from this entire debate since your stories are SF.

There is no curvature between London and Tunguska.

And now you have to deal with Mrs. Stephen's precise eyewitness account.

And you should cut the crap also: she saw the skies each and every day, nothing unusual up until midnight 0:00 am June 30, 1908.

So you lose on this issue too.

Sandokhan, how many other witness accounts for this event are there? What was the newspaper's response to the Stephen letter, or other letters in response?

Even if we "dig" Ms Katharine Stephen up, I doubt, she's up for any sort of cross-examination, if you know what I mean?  ;)

It's a well-written letter, but there is just no information on Ms Katharine Stephen to guage how reliable her observations were. Can anybody be certain she wasn't watching the glow from a distant building fire on the same night, or fireworks display? Was she seeing the aurora borealis? There's a chance she was watching a separate event to the Tunguska explosion.

One ought to rely on ALL accounts of this event from 112 years ago, not just one from one Ms Katharine Stephen.  C:-)
« Last Edit: May 10, 2020, 10:40:00 PM by Smoke machine police »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6506
Can anybody be certain she wasn't watching the glow from a distant building fire on the same night, or fireworks display? Was she seeing the aurora borealis? There's a chance she was watching a separate event to the Tunguska explosion.

The first thing that the researchers did is to verify that no other atmospheric anomaly was present during the interval June 27 - July 3, 1908.

Plenty of other eyewitness accounts from Stockholm, Antwerp and Berlin.

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.



Mrs. Stephen's eyewitness account permits us to precisely pinpoint the exact time when the inhabitants of London saw the explosion.

Can anybody be certain she wasn't watching the glow from a distant building fire on the same night, or fireworks display?

In London, newspapers could be read without the need of street lighting. The photograph taken on the evening of July 1, 1908 shows the extraordinary brightness recorded.

*

Stash

  • 6309
Can anybody be certain she wasn't watching the glow from a distant building fire on the same night, or fireworks display? Was she seeing the aurora borealis? There's a chance she was watching a separate event to the Tunguska explosion.

The first thing that the researchers did is to verify that no other atmospheric anomaly was present during the interval June 27 - July 3, 1908.

Plenty of other eyewitness accounts from Stockholm, Antwerp and Berlin.

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.



Mrs. Stephen's eyewitness account permits us to precisely pinpoint the exact time when the inhabitants of London saw the explosion.

Can anybody be certain she wasn't watching the glow from a distant building fire on the same night, or fireworks display?

In London, newspapers could be read without the need of street lighting. The photograph taken on the evening of July 1, 1908 shows the extraordinary brightness recorded.

See, here's where it all falls apart for you.

"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"
   &
"The photograph taken on the evening of July 1, 1908 shows the extraordinary brightness recorded."

Your contention has been all along that Katharine could see the actual blast, it's epicenter 7 KM high. She saw the sky a night later and reported on it. So that's just that. But more importantly, all of these eyewitness reports span days, NOT just the actual explosion.

Did the explosion last for days? No, of course not, but some sort of lasting almost Aurora Borealis atmospheric effect from it did. That's what everyone is reporting on over days, not the pinpoint of an explosion 7 KM in the sky.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6506
You have been checkmated.

Mrs. Stephen's account clearly indicates that the light from the explosion was seen instantaneously from London.

I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

If it's July 1, 1908 (0:00 am July 1, 1908), then NOTHING happened before this date.

However, the peak of the anomalies occurred starting with 0:00 am June 30, 1908, of course.


Mrs. Stephen's eyewitness account permits us to precisely pinpoint the exact time when the inhabitants of London saw the explosion.


No it doesn't. She never mentions seeing an explosion. This has been explained to you many times. Stop trolling the thread.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6506
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.

No one, on a spherical Earth, could have seen/observed anything at all from a distance of 5,200 km, with a visual obstacle measuring some 2,882 km.

Nothing could have been seen.

This is what you have to explain: any of the lights seen from June 30 to July 2, 1908.

 

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.

No one, on a spherical Earth, could have seen/observed anything at all from a distance of 5,200 km, with a visual obstacle measuring some 2,882 km.

Nothing could have been seen.

This is what you have to explain: any of the lights seen from June 30 to July 2, 1908.

I shared a link to a published paper that said it is noctilucent clouds. An explosion does not last for multiple days, that is physically impossible.

You're going around in circles, going back to something that was discussed way earlier in the topic. I guess that is a way of not having to admit that you've been defeated.

*

Stash

  • 6309
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.

No one, on a spherical Earth, could have seen/observed anything at all from a distance of 5,200 km, with a visual obstacle measuring some 2,882 km.

Nothing could have been seen.

This is what you have to explain: any of the lights seen from June 30 to July 2, 1908.

"This is what you have to explain: any of the lights seen from June 30 to July 2, 1908."

Correct. And the explosion occurred at 7:00 AM Tunguska time, right? Yet it was reported that the skies were aglow for days, right?

So certainly the explosion wasn't still exploding at 7KM high above the Tunguska forest for days, right? The sky was aglow for days, that's what was reported.

Either you think the explosion continually exploded for days at 7 KM high
OR
People witnessed an atmospheric glow as a result of the explosion

Which is it?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6506
I shared a link to a published paper that said it is noctilucent clouds. An explosion does not last for multiple days, that is physically impossible.

And nobody paid any attention to your paper (comet hypothesis).

You have to explain the mid flight change of course, the soil analysis (Ytterbium/Yttrium).

So certainly the explosion wasn't still exploding at 7KM high above the Tunguska forest for days, right? The sky was aglow for days, that's what was reported.

The explosion activated the ether strings to such a degree that they produced light for three days, the very reason for the glow.

On a FE it is easily explained.

Now explain how any lights starting with Mrs. Stephen eyewitness account of the explosion itself at 0:00 am June 30, 1908 all the way to July 2, 1908, could have been seen from London.

You have to deal with the 5,200 km distance and with the 2,882 km visual obstacle.

A single photograph proves my point:



Evening of July 1, 1908.

Explain this on a spherical Earth.

Don't even think to conjure up the noctilucent clouds hypothesis.

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.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2020, 05:15:22 AM by sandokhan »

I already told you, that photo was taken an hour after sunset. I can make such a photo in summer without the need for special events in the sky. An exposure time of 20 seconds an hour after sunset creates an image resembling daylight.

That is easy photography stuff, which is something I do for a hobby and have great knowledge on.

*

Stash

  • 6309
I shared a link to a published paper that said it is noctilucent clouds. An explosion does not last for multiple days, that is physically impossible.

And nobody payed any attention to your paper (comet hypothesis).

It's not just whoever wrote that quote's hypothesis (please use the quote system!) it's the prevailing hypothesis also evidenced by samples found in 2012.

You have to explain the mid flight change of course, the soil analysis (Ytterbium/Yttrium).

Mid-flight changes, already explained:

It didn't change mid-flight let alone 'steer'. As mentioned, eyewitness reports can be faulty and there were just a couple that suggested a flight change. More recently a paper was published in the 80's in the journal, 'Meteoritics & Planetary Science':

Title: Trajectory and orbit of the Tunguska meteorite revisited
Authors: Bronshten, V. A.
Journal: Meteoritics & Planetary Science, vol. 34, p.137-143

Abstract - A critical survey is presented of all determinations of the azimuth and inclination of the Tunguska meteorite's trajectory based either on eyewitness testimonies or on the mathematical treatment of the forest leveling field in the area of the catastrophe.

The eyewitness testimonies collected in the neighborhood of the Nizhnyaya Tunguska River indicate the most probable azimuth of the trajectory projection to be 104° from the north to the east, which is close to the most recent azimuth estimate from the forest-leveling field, 99°.

A comprehensive statistical analysis of the testimonies of all 708 eyewitnesses (Demit et al., 1984) reveals a contradictory picture of a spread in the bolides-flight directions, where not only eastern and southeastern directions but also southern and western ones are present.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1999M%26PSA..34..137B/0000139.000.html

As you can see from the last bit, the 708 eyewitnesses were not in agreement as to the trajectory. Contradictory, in fact. So no, I don't lend any credibility to the 2 folks who said they saw it change direction.

As for Ytterbium/Yttrium, it is found around earth.

So certainly the explosion wasn't still exploding at 7KM high above the Tunguska forest for days, right? The sky was aglow for days, that's what was reported.

The explosion activated the ether strings to such a degree that they produced light for three days, the very reason for the glow.

On a FE it is easily explained.

Ether strings have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

On a Globe Earth it is easily explained. The sky glowed for days, that's what was reported, that would be the region above your head.

Now explain how any lights starting with Mrs. Stephen eyewitness account of the explosion itself at 0:00 am June 30, 1908 all the way to July 2, 1908, could have been seen from London.

You have to deal with the 5,200 km distance and with the 2,882 km visual obstacle.

Your problem is that you conflating the actual explosion with what was seen in the sky the following days. What was seen in the sky the following days was NOT 7KM high.

A single photograph proves my point:



Evening of July 1, 1908.

Explain this on a spherical Earth.

Don't even think to conjure up the noctilucent clouds hypothesis.

Why not, far more plausible than 'ether strings'.

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.

What makes you think the explosion was a pinpoint at 7KM and somehow kept exploding right there for days?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6506
I have already debunked the Bronshten reference, twice, which means you are trolling this thread.

Do you have the intelligence to understand that I already addressed your reference, not once, but twice?

The Bronshten reference is not even a joke.

V.A. Bronshten has no idea of the extraordinary research performed by none other than Dr. Felix Ziegel, aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation who took into account ALL EYEWITNESS reports and physical data, and concluded:

"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.

Moreover, V.A. Bronshten does not include the ballistic analysis performed by Florensky and Zolotov:

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.


https://web.archive.org/web/20151109201710/www.andras-nagy.com/ufo03/10.htm

It is unfortunate that V.A Bronshten did not take into account these observations.

And V.A. Bronshten committed even more pronounced mistakes/errors in his analysis:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1945-5100.1999.tb01384.x/pdf (Bronshten thinks the explosion was caused by a comet)

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.


Moreover, professor Giuseppe Longo (University of Bologna)  examined resin from the core of trees in the blast zone. Looking at trapped particles within the resin the team found high levels of materials that could not be found in comets.


HERE IS A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE CATASTROPHIC ERRORS MADE BY V.A. BRONSHTEN IN ANALYZING THE TUNGUSKA EVENT:

http://saturniancosmology.org/files/tunguska/zlobin.note.txt

The distortion of Tunguska's trajectory was produced mainly by russian
astronomer and member of Committee of meteorites V.A.Bronshten in the
middle of XX century. He was expert in astronomy, but he was not expert
in gasdynamics. He did not understand laws of shock waves formation and
made erroneous conclusions concerning azimuth angle of Tunguska's
trajectory in atmosphere due to his imagination about symmetry of
"butterfly-like" region of trees fall. In accordance to V.A.Bronshten,
the Tunguska space body was moving across the sky from east to west.
Unfortunately, a lot of scientists did not notice this blunder and
include erroneous opinion by V.A.Bronshten into their own papers. It was
tragical moment in the history of science, when the blunder by
V.A.Bronshten distorted real imagination about the Tunguska event.


You still have to explain the heavily documented mid flight change of course.

As for Ytterbium/Yttrium, it is found around earth.

Pure trolling.

The concentrations found in the soil analysis at Tunguska are much higher than could be found in a natural body.

Ytterbium is used for lasers.


On a Globe Earth it is easily explained. The sky glowed for days, that's what was reported, that would be the region above your head.]

You are joking of course.

HOW DID THE LIGHT FROM THE TUNGUSKA EXPLOSION REACH LONDON INSTANTANEOUSLY OVER A DISTANCE OF 5,200 KM WITH A 2,882 VISUAL OBSTACLE?

HOW THE THE LIGHT FROM THE TUNGUSKA EXPLOSION REACH LONDON ON JULY 2, 1908?


You got nothing.

*

Stash

  • 6309
I have already debunked the Bronshten reference, twice, which means you are trolling this thread.

Do you have the intelligence to understand that I already addressed your reference, not once, but twice?

The Bronshten reference is not even a joke.

V.A. Bronshten has no idea of the extraordinary research performed by none other than Dr. Felix Ziegel, aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation who took into account ALL EYEWITNESS reports and physical data, and concluded:

"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.

Hilarious: Felix Ziegel was the first in the USSR to come with the hypothesis for Tunguska blast having been the result of an alien spacecraft crash which, according to the author, had made a 600-kilometers-curve maneuver before exploding in the air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Ziegel

There's your explanation for the mid-flight maneuver - Aliens.

Moreover, V.A. Bronshten does not include the ballistic analysis performed by Florensky and Zolotov:

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.

https://web.archive.org/web/20151109201710/www.andras-nagy.com/ufo03/10.htm

It is unfortunate that V.A Bronshten did not take into account these observations.

More hilarity ensues...Where do you get these crackpot sources?

"All this came as no surprise to science writer James Oberg. In his 1982 book, UFOs and Outer Space Mysteries,he had traced the origins of the Russian Tunguska UFO obsession to a science fiction writer named Kazantsev, who wrote a story attributing the mighty blast to an exploding nuclear power plant of a spaceship from Mars. Other Russians took the bait. Astronomy lecturer Feliks Zigel, who was also a flying saucer enthusiast, became a spokesman for the spaceship theory of Tunguska, and a scientist named Aleksey Zolotov, began claiming, almost annually but without proof, that he had found radioactivity at the blast site."
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,688585,00.html

No wonder your sources have to be plucked from the wayback machine.


On a Globe Earth it is easily explained. The sky glowed for days, that's what was reported, that would be the region above your head.]

You are joking of course.

HOW DID THE LIGHT FROM THE TUNGUSKA EXPLOSION REACH LONDON INSTANTANEOUSLY OVER A DISTANCE OF 5,200 KM WITH A 2,882 VISUAL OBSTACLE?

HOW THE THE LIGHT FROM THE TUNGUSKA EXPLOSION REACH LONDON ON JULY 2, 1908?

You got nothing.

How did the explosion last for 3 days at 7KM high?

You have been checkmated.

Mrs. Stephen's account clearly indicates that the light from the explosion was seen instantaneously from London.

I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

If it's July 1, 1908 (0:00 am July 1, 1908), then NOTHING happened before this date.

However, the peak of the anomalies occurred starting with 0:00 am June 30, 1908, of course.

Of course it doesn’t mean nothing happened at all.  It just means she didn’t see anything.

Over in Siberia, there was a bloody great explosion in the morning of June 30th (local time).

This is one of the reasons why your graph can’t be used to show  when anything was visible in the UK .  It puts all reports of atmospheric anomalies from Europe and Asia together.  People living near the explosion would have undoubtedly noticed something odd at the time.

Quote
And now you have to deal with Mrs. Stephen's precise eyewitness account.

And you should cut the crap also: she saw the skies each and every day, nothing unusual up until midnight 0:00 am June 30, 1908.

So you lose on this issue too.

You mean the precise eyewitness account where she clearly states what she saw a day later than you claim.

You are the one repeatedly disregarding the time she said she saw something and claiming she must have a really meant a different date, purely to fit what you want.

At first this could have been a simple mistake or language barrier, but you continue to attempt to twist her account to fit your narrative after having the error pointed out to you repeatedly.

If you don’t want to take my word for it, ask any native English speaker what the words “last night” mean.

Can anybody be certain she wasn't watching the glow from a distant building fire on the same night, or fireworks display? Was she seeing the aurora borealis? There's a chance she was watching a separate event to the Tunguska explosion.

The first thing that the researchers did is to verify that no other atmospheric anomaly was present during the interval June 27 - July 3, 1908.

No one is disputing that what she saw was a result of the Tunguska event. 

Quote
Plenty of other eyewitness accounts from Stockholm, Antwerp and Berlin.

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.

“The night of June 30th” would refer to the night following the day of June 30th, starting around 20 hours after the explosion.  The same night Mrs Stephen reported seeing unusual light around midnight.  Again, feel free to confirm what this expression means outside this forum.

You still have no accounts to back up your claim that anyone in the UK saw the actual explosion.

Everything you have presented is for the following night or nights.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2020, 01:50:39 AM by Unconvinced »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6506
How did the explosion last for 3 days at 7KM high?

The explosion activated the ether strings to such a degree that they illuminated the surface below for three days in a row.

Listen to Tesla:

In 1891, Nikola Tesla gave a lecture for the members of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers in New York City, where he made a striking demonstration. In each hand he held a gas discharge tube, an early version of the modern fluorescent bulb. The tubes were not connected to any wires, but nonetheless they glowed brightly during his demonstration. Tesla explained to the awestruck attendees that the electricity was being transmitted through the air by the pair of metal sheets which sandwiched the stage. He went on to speculate how one might increase the scale of this effect to transmit wireless power and information over a broad area, perhaps even the entire Earth. As was often the case, Tesla's audience was engrossed but bewildered.



Tesla had a bold fantasy whereby he would use the principle of rarefied gas luminescence to light up the sky at night. High frequency electric energy would be transmitted, perhaps by an ionizing beam of ultraviolet radiation, into the upper atmosphere, where gases are at relatively low pressure, so that this layer would behave like a luminous tube. Sky lighting, he said, would reduce the need for street lighting, and facilitate the movement of ocean going vessels.


Ether strings in action:



An Alley photograph from Colorado Springs documenting three lights receiving power by means of electrodynamic induction from an oscillator 60 feet (18 m) from the bulbs (placed on the ground outside the building to demonstrate they had no connection to the power source)

Carlson, W.B. (2013). Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age p. 290–301



Nikola Tesla holding a gas-filled phosphor-coated light bulb which was illuminated without wires by an electromagnetic field from the "Tesla Coil" (the energy was transmitted through the telluric currents).

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1891-05-20.htm

There is no subject more captivating, more worthy of study, than nature.  To understand this great mechanism, to discover the forces which are active, and the laws which govern them, is the highest aim of the intellect of man.

Nature has stored up in the universe infinite energy.  The eternal recipient and transmitter of this infinite energy is the ether.  The recognition of the existence of ether, and of the functions it performs, is one of the most important results of modern scientific research.  The mere abandoning of the idea of action at a distance, the assumption of a medium pervading all space and connecting all gross matter, has freed the minds of thinkers of an ever present doubt, and, by opening a new horizon—new and unforeseen possibilities—has given fresh interest to phenomena with which we are familiar of old.


Light is being produced from a distant source without wires or any other physical connection (this is true wireless) and with no heat.





It just means she didn’t see anything.

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.

No one, on a spherical Earth, could have seen/observed anything at all from a distance of 5,200 km, with a visual obstacle measuring some 2,882 km.

Nothing could have been seen.

This is what you have to explain: any of the lights seen from June 30 to July 2, 1908.


You mean the precise eyewitness account where she clearly states what she saw a day later than you claim.

Impossible.

I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

If it's July 1, 1908 (0:00 am July 1, 1908), then NOTHING happened before this date.

However, the peak of the anomalies occurred starting with 0:00 am June 30, 1908, of course.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6506
Tthere were TWO BALL LIGHTNING OBJECTS flying over the Tunguska region on June 30, 1908 (7:00 a.m. - 7:13 a.m.), coming from two different directions: south to north, and east to north-west. Their collision caused the huge explosion at the epicenter. Also it demonstrates that no comet, meteorite (stone/iron/magnetic) could have caused the explosion.

Initially, the research done by Dr. Felix Zigel revealed that, given the eyewitness reports coming from both the southern and the eastern regions, the ball lighting sphere must have changed course abruptly over a distance of 600 km.

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 fight path of the cosmic object, as reconstructed from eyewitness testimony and ballistic wave evidence. Felix Zigel and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region. The arc at the bottom of the map indicates the scope of the area where witnesses either saw the fiery object or heard the blast.


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.



Two spheres travelling eastward, then abruptly changing course heading to the west to the epicenter.


http://www.qconference-athens-2011.grazian-archive.com/aspacekeytotheri/rubtsov-paperx.pdf (a 20 page summary of the Tunguksa Mystery book)



The Tunguska trees have been leveled over a butterfly-like area 70 km across and 55 km long. Over this area, the trees were found lying mainly in a radial direction. However, there are in the leveled forest two bands of leveled trees that form feeble but noticeable herring-bone patterns. One of them is running from the east-south-east to the west-north-west; the second nearly from east to west (lines AB and CD). These appear to be imprints of bow waves of two bodies that flew over the taiga in these directions.

The idea of two “Tunguska meteorites” is also confirmed by reports of eyewitnesses. The total number of eyewitness testimonies is about 700 (Vasilyev et al., 1981). The Tunguska space body was seen at a distance of up to 1000 kilometers from the place of its explosion. There are, however, two main areas of eyewitness reports.



First this is the southern sector where the Tunguska space body had been seen by inhabitants of settlements situated on the banks of the Angara river, and second the eastern sector (the upper reaches of the Lower Tunguska and Lena rivers). Data obtained inside each sector made it possible to create a statistically  reliable and coherent image of the Tunguska phenomenon, but these two images are different. In the south the phenomenon (including thunder-like sounds) lasted half an hour and more. The brightness of this Tunguska space body (let’s call it “southern”) was comparable to the Sun. The body looked white or bluish. It had a short tail of the same color. After its flight there remained in the sky iridescent bands resembling a rainbow and stretching along the path of the body’s motion. And it flew south to north.

In the east the brightness of the “eastern” Tunguska space body was much lower than the Sun. Its color was red, and the shape was that of a ball or “artillery shell” with a long tail. Usually eyewitnesses said simply: a “red sheaf” was flying. It was swiftly moving in the western direction, leaving no trace behind. The duration of this phenomenon did not exceed a few minutes.

Both space bodies did maneuver.

At a distance from the Southern swamp the “southern” body flew approximately south to north, but it approached the swamp from the east-southeast. Judging from that, it must have turned to the left for about 70 degrees shortly before the explosion.



As for the “eastern” object, it also maneuvered at a considerable distance from the Southern swamp. Materials collected in the eastern sector appear to testify that. There are five “eastern” reports in which eyewitnesses describe how the flying body changed its direction of flight. Here for example is the testimony of Vladimir Penigin who was born in 1893 and saw personally the Tunguska space body. His point of observation was on the right bank of the Lena river (some 500 kilometers from the epicenter to the east-south-east).

He describes: “Then I was a boy and helped to bring manure to the fields. We were upstream from the village. The fiery flying body was well seen. It resembled an airplane without wings, or a flying sheaf. It was as long as an airplane and flew as high, but more swiftly. The body was as red as fire or a tomato. It was flying horizontally, not descending, and passed in front of the cliff of Tsimbaly, at about two thirds of its height. Then the body covered some two kilometers more and made a sharp turn to the right, at a very acute angle”.
(Vasilyev et al., 1981)


Victor Konenkin discovered that the flying Tunguska space body had been seen not only to the south from the Great Hollow, but to the east as well, up to 500 km from the site.

Konenkin was born and grew up in the village of Preobrazhenka, on the riverside of the Nizhnyaya (Lower) Tunguska River, where in the long winter evenings he heard so often the tales of his older neighbors about the striking event of half a century before. In 1962, the teacher decided to find out what the enigmatic flying object had looked like and how it had flown. He traveled to dozens of villages on the Lower Tunguska and its tributaries, interrogating the surviving eyewitnesses. If the eyewitnesses still lived at the same settlement where they had seen the TSB, Konenkin asked them to come to the place of their observation. They took with them a compass and an angle gauge. The eyewitnesses showed Konenkin at which point in the heavenly sphere they had noticed the fiery body for the first time and where it had disappeared.

Konenkin’s investigations enabled him to determine where the TSB had traversed the Lower Tunguska River. The task was accomplished very simply. This part of the river flows almost strictly from south to north, so that eyewitnesses located upstream (farther south) from the place where the TSB was traversing the river saw it flying from right to left, while those downstream (farther north from the intersection) saw the TSB flying from left to right. After processing the data collected, it turned out that the TSB had flown over the river near the village of Konenkin’s Preobrazhenka. And its inhabitants did confirm this, saying that the fiery object had flown directly over their village in 1908.

So a simple method obtained a result that must be correct. But there appears a problem: the village Preobrazhenka is situated at a distance of 350 km from the Tunguska epicenter and almost directly to the east. Most previous eyewitness reports were gathered to the south of the epicenter – up to a distance of about 1,000 km. How, then, could the TSB have approached the Great Hollow simultaneously from the east and also from the south?

The information collected by Victor Konenkin was so startling that it needed verification. Several expeditions – sent by KMET, ITEG, and AAGS – left for the Lower Tunguska, and they confirmed that Konenkin’s data were correct. They also gathered additional eyewitness reports themselves. To the 35 accounts collected by Konenkin, another 150 were added.




The most reliable traces of the Tunguska phenomenon are material ones – the area of leveled forest, first of all. And we know that the second Fast’s TSB trajectory, determined from the axis of symmetry of this area, does run from the east to the west. Also in the same direction runs the TSB trajectory determined from the axes of symmetry of the zones of light burn and the thermoluminescent anomaly. These facts do demonstrate that over the Great Hollow the TSB was flying from the east to the west. Consequently, it is the eastern set of eyewitness testimonies that definitely has direct relation to the Tunguska phenomenon.


For your information, Dr. Felix Zigel was a Doctor of Science and docent of Cosmology at the Moscow Aviation Institute.

Your sources are talking about space bodies. How can space bodies exist on a flat earth with a dome over it?

We are talking about this for 21 pages, multiple times people have explained stuff to you. Yet you continue to go back to stuff you already shared pages ago. And which was refuted here. If you keep going in circles then we keep discussing the same stuff over and over, just to prevent that you have to admit that you have been defeated on this subject.

You have been checkmated.
You have a very strange idea of checkmating.
If we are going with Chess analogies, you are the pigeon that knocks over all the pieces, shits on the board, then flies back to its friends claiming victory.

Mrs. Stephen's account clearly indicates that the light from the explosion was seen instantanously from London.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same lie, it wont magically make it true.
There is no indication of that at all, especially considering her account was 24 hours AFTER the explosion.

Again, the alleged missing curvature of the English channel has nothing to do with this thread, stop spamming it just because you know you have failed yet again.

And now you have to deal with Mrs. Stephen's precise eyewitness account.
Again, that would still be you, with her clear account clearly identifying that she first saw it just after Midnight on July 1st.

And you should cut the crap also: she saw the skies each and every day
And another lie.
Just where do you think she said this?

You sure do love just making up whatever BS you want to pretend your claims are justified, but in reality, they are just more pathetic baseless claims which show how desperate you are.

In London on the night of June 30th
You mean the night starting June 30th? i.e. the one which would include just after midnight on July 1st? The one roughly 24 hours after the explosion? So the one which in no way supports your claim?

The simple fact is that as the light was observed for several days IT CLEARLY ISN'T AN EXPLOSION!
The fact that even your own reports only indicate these anomalies TO THE WEST of the explosion clearly indicate IT WASN'T THE EXPLOSION!
So any BS about the visual obstacle for an object with altitude of 7 km is pure BS.

Likewise, any claim that FE can magically explain it is likewise pure BS.
That is because any attempt to explain why the sun set and thus it was night directly contradicts FE trying to explain this.
That is because whatever BS you substitute for curvature likewise hides any magical 3 day explosion.

On a FE it is easily explained.
Really?
Then why have you repeatedly failed to explain whatever magical substitute the FE has for the real, observed, measured curvature of Earth that causes sunset and why this magic decided to magically not also hide the magical 3 day explosion?

FE can't explain the occurrence at all.

A single photograph proves my point:
No, it proves that you don't have a point and that you are blatantly lying.
The photo was taken roughly 45 hours after the explosion. The light that was used was clearly not from that explosion.

Nikola Tesla
Microwave power transmission does not help your claims at all.
That does not explain why the explosion magically lasted 3 days, unless you are going to try and claim Tesla put up a massive light 7 km above Earth and beamed microwave power to it, which clearly would have been noticed.

Tthere were TWO BALL LIGHTNING OBJECTS
Baseless, unsubstantiated garbage.
Now stop with the distractions.

How about instead of making ridiculous demands where you just ignore the explanations provide, you start providing answers yourself.

Explain what magic nonsense the FE uses to replace the real curvature of Earth to explain why the sun sets. Something you have been avoiding ever since it was brought up.

This is crucial to any use of this thread in a discussion of RE vs FE, as whatever the FE uses to replace curvature to explain why the sun sets, it likewise has the effect of causing objects to disappear and produces a similar visual obstacle, preventing the light from any magical 3 day explosion from reaching London.

With this explanation this nonsense in no way indicates Earth is not round.

Stop spamming the same refuted garbage and actually explain this.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6506
There is no indication of that at all, especially considering her account was 24 hours AFTER the explosion.

Impossible.

I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

If it's July 1, 1908 (0:00 am July 1, 1908), then NOTHING happened before this date.

However, the peak of the anomalies occurred starting with 0:00 am June 30, 1908, of course.



You have to account for your SF stories: you must explain how the surface of the English Channel stays curved and how the body of water stays in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.

Your inability to deal with this issue means I win.


Microwave power transmission does not help your claims at all.
That does not explain why the explosion magically lasted 3 days, unless you are going to try and claim Tesla put up a massive light 7 km above Earth and beamed microwave power to it, which clearly would have been noticed.


Not at all. The explosion injected enough energy into the ether strings to last for three days.

You, on the other hand, cannot explain any lights at all, which were seen from Europe and London, noctilucent clouds is not even a joke.

Baseless, unsubstantiated garbage.

No, pure science.

There were TWO BALL LIGHTNING OBJECTS flying over the Tunguska region on June 30, 1908 (7:00 a.m. - 7:13 a.m.), coming from two different directions: south to north, and east to north-west. Their collision caused the huge explosion at the epicenter. Also it demonstrates that no comet, meteorite (stone/iron/magnetic) could have caused the explosion.

Initially, the research done by Dr. Felix Zigel revealed that, given the eyewitness reports coming from both the southern and the eastern regions, the ball lighting sphere must have changed course abruptly over a distance of 600 km.

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 fight path of the cosmic object, as reconstructed from eyewitness testimony and ballistic wave evidence. Felix Zigel and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region. The arc at the bottom of the map indicates the scope of the area where witnesses either saw the fiery object or heard the blast.


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.



Two spheres travelling eastward, then abruptly changing course heading to the west to the epicenter.


http://www.qconference-athens-2011.grazian-archive.com/aspacekeytotheri/rubtsov-paperx.pdf (a 20 page summary of the Tunguksa Mystery book)



The Tunguska trees have been leveled over a butterfly-like area 70 km across and 55 km long. Over this area, the trees were found lying mainly in a radial direction. However, there are in the leveled forest two bands of leveled trees that form feeble but noticeable herring-bone patterns. One of them is running from the east-south-east to the west-north-west; the second nearly from east to west (lines AB and CD). These appear to be imprints of bow waves of two bodies that flew over the taiga in these directions.

The idea of two “Tunguska meteorites” is also confirmed by reports of eyewitnesses. The total number of eyewitness testimonies is about 700 (Vasilyev et al., 1981). The Tunguska space body was seen at a distance of up to 1000 kilometers from the place of its explosion. There are, however, two main areas of eyewitness reports.



First this is the southern sector where the Tunguska space body had been seen by inhabitants of settlements situated on the banks of the Angara river, and second the eastern sector (the upper reaches of the Lower Tunguska and Lena rivers). Data obtained inside each sector made it possible to create a statistically  reliable and coherent image of the Tunguska phenomenon, but these two images are different. In the south the phenomenon (including thunder-like sounds) lasted half an hour and more. The brightness of this Tunguska space body (let’s call it “southern”) was comparable to the Sun. The body looked white or bluish. It had a short tail of the same color. After its flight there remained in the sky iridescent bands resembling a rainbow and stretching along the path of the body’s motion. And it flew south to north.

In the east the brightness of the “eastern” Tunguska space body was much lower than the Sun. Its color was red, and the shape was that of a ball or “artillery shell” with a long tail. Usually eyewitnesses said simply: a “red sheaf” was flying. It was swiftly moving in the western direction, leaving no trace behind. The duration of this phenomenon did not exceed a few minutes.

Both space bodies did maneuver.

At a distance from the Southern swamp the “southern” body flew approximately south to north, but it approached the swamp from the east-southeast. Judging from that, it must have turned to the left for about 70 degrees shortly before the explosion.



As for the “eastern” object, it also maneuvered at a considerable distance from the Southern swamp. Materials collected in the eastern sector appear to testify that. There are five “eastern” reports in which eyewitnesses describe how the flying body changed its direction of flight. Here for example is the testimony of Vladimir Penigin who was born in 1893 and saw personally the Tunguska space body. His point of observation was on the right bank of the Lena river (some 500 kilometers from the epicenter to the east-south-east).

He describes: “Then I was a boy and helped to bring manure to the fields. We were upstream from the village. The fiery flying body was well seen. It resembled an airplane without wings, or a flying sheaf. It was as long as an airplane and flew as high, but more swiftly. The body was as red as fire or a tomato. It was flying horizontally, not descending, and passed in front of the cliff of Tsimbaly, at about two thirds of its height. Then the body covered some two kilometers more and made a sharp turn to the right, at a very acute angle”.
(Vasilyev et al., 1981)


Victor Konenkin discovered that the flying Tunguska space body had been seen not only to the south from the Great Hollow, but to the east as well, up to 500 km from the site.

Konenkin was born and grew up in the village of Preobrazhenka, on the riverside of the Nizhnyaya (Lower) Tunguska River, where in the long winter evenings he heard so often the tales of his older neighbors about the striking event of half a century before. In 1962, the teacher decided to find out what the enigmatic flying object had looked like and how it had flown. He traveled to dozens of villages on the Lower Tunguska and its tributaries, interrogating the surviving eyewitnesses. If the eyewitnesses still lived at the same settlement where they had seen the TSB, Konenkin asked them to come to the place of their observation. They took with them a compass and an angle gauge. The eyewitnesses showed Konenkin at which point in the heavenly sphere they had noticed the fiery body for the first time and where it had disappeared.

Konenkin’s investigations enabled him to determine where the TSB had traversed the Lower Tunguska River. The task was accomplished very simply. This part of the river flows almost strictly from south to north, so that eyewitnesses located upstream (farther south) from the place where the TSB was traversing the river saw it flying from right to left, while those downstream (farther north from the intersection) saw the TSB flying from left to right. After processing the data collected, it turned out that the TSB had flown over the river near the village of Konenkin’s Preobrazhenka. And its inhabitants did confirm this, saying that the fiery object had flown directly over their village in 1908.

So a simple method obtained a result that must be correct. But there appears a problem: the village Preobrazhenka is situated at a distance of 350 km from the Tunguska epicenter and almost directly to the east. Most previous eyewitness reports were gathered to the south of the epicenter – up to a distance of about 1,000 km. How, then, could the TSB have approached the Great Hollow simultaneously from the east and also from the south?

The information collected by Victor Konenkin was so startling that it needed verification. Several expeditions – sent by KMET, ITEG, and AAGS – left for the Lower Tunguska, and they confirmed that Konenkin’s data were correct. They also gathered additional eyewitness reports themselves. To the 35 accounts collected by Konenkin, another 150 were added.




The most reliable traces of the Tunguska phenomenon are material ones – the area of leveled forest, first of all. And we know that the second Fast’s TSB trajectory, determined from the axis of symmetry of this area, does run from the east to the west. Also in the same direction runs the TSB trajectory determined from the axes of symmetry of the zones of light burn and the thermoluminescent anomaly. These facts do demonstrate that over the Great Hollow the TSB was flying from the east to the west. Consequently, it is the eastern set of eyewitness testimonies that definitely has direct relation to the Tunguska phenomenon.




You mean the precise eyewitness account where she clearly states what she saw a day later than you claim.

Impossible.

If you don’t like what she said, maybe you should stop quoting her.

But what she said is absolutely clear no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.

Anyway, I’m out.  I’m done trying to reason with someone who thinks the way to debate is ignore the main points everyone else is making and just repeat the same thing over and over in big red font.

There is no indication of that at all, especially considering her account was 24 hours AFTER the explosion.
Impossible.
No, quite possible.
You have provided no reason to doubt it.
Instead all you have provided is circular garbage and blatant lies.

The explosion injected enough energy into the ether strings to last for three days.
Which would be in no way helped by Tesla.
Tesla held a globe in his hand. He didn't just magically charge the non-existent ether in his hand and have it emit light.

You, on the other hand, cannot explain any lights at all, which were seen from Europe and London, noctilucent clouds is not even a joke.
That's right, it is not a joke. Instead it is a fact that you cannot refute.

Now grow up, stop with the pathetic distractions and spam and actually address the issue you have been avoiding since the start.

What FE magic do you use in place of real world curvature to explain how the sun sets?
Why does this magic not also apply to your magic 3 day explosion?