Keywords: planetary ejections, tektites, Field-dynamical Earth Model, cratering, meteorites, animal falls, Tunguska event, anomalies
As with all the web pages on the Living Cosmos web site, this web page is a fully referenced work, and is only a portion of the factual, empirical support for the ideas presented. However, these references are not included on this web page, but are included in the book, The Vital Vastness. This book is now published with the full scope and references, and is available for purchase. An attempt will be made to address queries, but not all queries can be answered. Excerpts are presented here as indented paragraphs, and those lines appearing with quotes are from some of the cited references.
Click here for more advertisers
Table of Contents
Return to Home Page
Click here for more advertisers
The new model of planets presented in The Vital Vastness calls for planetary cores of thermonuclear fusion and fields that guide particle flow, and are referred to as Field-dynamical Models. To see a brief discussion on this model see the web pages The Need for a New Model of the Earth -- The Living and Dynamic Earth, and The Similarities of the Planets and Other Celestial Objects. This energy source can allow for explosive ejection that causes cratering. Here are a few excerpts from The Vital Vastness on the subject. There is much more to support this theory than what is presented here.
New research brings doubt about the late heavy bombardment, which is purported to be responsible for most of the cratering in the solar system. See the PhysOrg.com news release.
Ever since the earliest investigations of craters, there has been controversies surrounding their origin. Investigations of numerous craters in the first half of the 20th Century brought about the unwarranted tendency to interpret craters of internal origin (geoblemes), as those which resulted from impacts (astroblemes). In fact, internally produced, volcanic-like explosions were originally referred to as cryptoexplosions (below-ground explosions), but now all craters are referred to in this way. Another factor that encouraged the interpretation of craters as impact phenomena is the belief that there was an era of bombardment in the formation of the planets. However, with the new hydrogen fusion model of the planets, there is an energy source to produce cratering as the result of an internal process. Evidence supporting the theory that many craters are internally produced is quite substantial, but almost completely ignored.
Similarities in cratering on different planets and moons are very obvious. Studies of the Earth, Moon, Mars, Mercury and the outer moons suggest that crater characteristics are the same regardless of the target or the size of the proposed "impactor." While sizes range from large complex craters to small multi-ring craters, they display no drastic differences in structure. If craters were the result of different impactors of various compositions, sizes, shapes and speeds, hitting at various angles into objects of different composition, there should be a variety of crater structures. However, there is no great variety.
When there is both a peak and an inner ring in the same complex crater, the peak is smaller than normal, and the peak size decreases with increasing crater size. This is in contrast to experiments and computer models of impacts, which show that the peak should be larger with an inner ring and increasing crater size. Peak and ring structures, from small to large complex craters, disclose that there is an absence of diminished inner-ring diameters for the inner-planet (terrestrial) craters. This is unexplained, because terrestrial craters should be different due to the different compositions, and the differences in atmospheric composition (in some case no atmosphere). These facts alone suggest an internal and uniform process is at work.
Structures displaying rings within (concentric) rings are also unexplained. Similar spacing of basin rings inside and outside the main ring indicates that the location of the rings, if not their placement, reflects a common mechanism. The uniformity in groups of ring geometry from planet to planet, moon to moon, or planet to moon supports the idea that some common mechanism controls the spacing of the rings.
The effects of impacts cannot explain this uniformity, but the internal, explosive ejection of material (possibly by a field, such as an electromagnetic vortex), and an energy source involving hydrogen fusion can. Such a mechanism would create no drastic differences, because all would eject relative to the planet's core. An exploding object would create both a peak and a ring or rings with a smaller peak with greater size (resulting from more explosive internal force). Similarities would exist regardless of a planet's composition. Concentric rings with similar spacings would result from the magnetic properties of the material of the planet's composition (i.e., ferromagnetic constraints due to electrostatic and electromagnetic effects).
A number of other observations also reveal this internal mechanism is responsible for many craters. Heavy cratering occurs on only one side of the Moon, Titan, Mars and Mercury. This may also be true of the Earth for which we presently find more craters in the Northern Hemisphere. However, more land is in that hemisphere and the force of erosion may have obscured the actual situation. Originally, it was thought, according to the "Jovian generator" theory, that Jupiter knocks meteors from the asteroid belt between it and Mars. Yet, the outer planets of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune also have moons with cratering.
Also differences exist between the size distributions of craters for the inner planets compared to the outer planets. The heavily cratered surfaces of Jupiter's moons, Callisto and Ganymede, have less of the larger craters (>40 km. or 25 mi. diameter) and an overabundance of smaller craters (<20 km. or 12.5 mi. diameter). This has been claimed to be due to the different velocities for the proposed impactors in the inner Solar System than in the outer Solar System. Another explanation is that the inner planets were bombarded by objects orbiting around the Sun (heliocentric) mostly in the asteroid belt, while the outer planets' moons were bombarded by objects orbiting the planets (planetocentric).
Size and velocity differences would be better resolved with the understanding that the craters were produced internally. The greater density of the inner planets requires greater velocity for explosive ejection. The size of the object would also regulate crater size, and the inner planets are larger than the outer planets' moons. Finally, the heliocentric and planetocentric origin of impactors cannot resolve the fact that cratering is uniform for the inner planets and the outer moons, but a uniformity of internally generated explosions can.
A good example of this fact is Mercury, because it is more heavily cratered on one side. Mercury's spin is too fast to explain such a distribution as the result of a meteor and asteroid bombardment from the asteroid belt. Therefore, it is essential to find another reason for the one-sided excess.
A newly discovered moon of Neptune (1989N1) has a huge crater, with a central peak and rings. This crater covers nearly half of the surface! Evidently, had this crater been the result of an impact, the moon would have split into pieces or been pulverized. Meanwhile, an internally generated and electromagnetically controlled ejection could prevent the destruction of the moon.
A number of meteorites have been found on Earth that are from other planets. A golf-ball sized stone found in Antarctica in 1982, and another seven since have disclosed a makeup that is identical with Moon rocks brought back by the Apollo and other lunar missions. Three meteorites have gases that are distinctly Martian and were also uncovered in Antarctica, and may not be explained by an impact on Mars. It is possible that these meteorites were "ejected" onto the Earth, since impact would require very specific conditions, and there is no evidence of the meteorites being melted twice, once from impact on the Moon or Mars, and a second time from entry into the Earth's atmosphere.
Mars has a basin with a central peak at each pole, where there are Fields. A Mars geophysicist discusses these:
"Some comments should be made on the relative similarity between the giant basins situated at each pole. The encircling ramparts sloping down into a basin near the center of which is located a highland area is curiously similar to the morphology of some very much smaller scaled lunar and Martian craters -- namely, the ring-walled structures with central mountain peaks."
He continues by stating that these craters could not possibly be impact sites at each pole. They would require two objects of the same size and speed striking at an angle that would be impossible to achieve (essentially perpendicular to the ecliptic plane). Impacts on exactly opposite ends of Mars is more science fiction than fact. The only answer is that they are of internal origin and controlled by a similar mechanism. Furthermore, what was originally thought to be canals is now known to be aligned craters, again indicating an internal origin for the cratering that is relative to the core.
Another indication of Mars' cratering as internally produced is that they should have worn down long ago. Using spacecraft measurements of wind speeds and patterns, experiments were constructed to duplicate the erosional environment on Mars. The results indicated that the craters, estimated to be hundreds of millions of years old, should have been worn down long ago. This means that the craters are much younger than thought, and that the so-called era of bombardment was not responsible for the cratering.
Venus also displays mysterious craters. A geophysicist studying Venus comments that they are intrinsic (i.e., internal): "Some of the roughly circular forms previously inferred to be impact craters do no show the expected topography or shape, and thus may be of intrinsic origin." Venus also has a hundred times more rare (inert) gases than the Earth or Mars. These gases are not supposed to be created after a planet's formation. This indicates that Venus was not formed according to widely held theories of an era of violent bombardment of meteors and asteroids (accretion).
The Moon also presents some mysteries that do not fit impact theory. One lunar group comments on the regular distribution of the craters: "On the other hand, this nonrandom distribution might not be surprising if the craters were formed by internal processes." The biggest craters all had formed so that they lied along the ancient equators. Furthermore, small craters have a glassy surface that appears to be due to radiation melting the surface. Pressure-induced, shocked rock is richer in rare earth elements and (alkali) metals, and are known to have a composition that is similar to meteorites (carbonaceous-chondrite-like material). As discussed previously, the Moon's craters between the 40o latitudes display numerous phenomena that indicate internal energy, such as gamma rays, luminous phenomena, gravity anomalies and more.
The giant fresh lunar craters, those that formed after the formation of mares (large smooth basin like plains), are generally believed to be of meteor-impact origin. However, the distribution of these large, fresh craters is far from random, which is contrary to formation by impact. Some of these fresh craters are on mare borders, such as Aristarchus and Copernicus, which are noted for transient lunar phenomena (TLP); ejected luminous phenomena.
Theories about the surface of both the Moon and Mercury went from volcanic to impact cratering back to volcanic in the opinions of various scientists. Scientists traditionally label such structures as volcanic not realizing that their roots are far deeper than assumed. For example, the great crater of Caloris in the equatorial region of Mercury has flows that cover a very wide area that is not typical of an impact. The supposition is therefore that it may be volcanic. About 20% of Mercury's equatorial region appears to be smooth and may also be volcanic. On the Moon, the Appennine Bench Formation within the Imbrium Basin, which was formed at the ancient equator, may also be volcanic. These few examples demonstrate the underlying conflict of ideas, because there is something that displays the characteristics of both impact cratering and volcanic activity -- that is, the only thing that can be said for sure is that force and internal processes are involved (see sections 3.2 and 3.3 for other discussions).
Want to know more about this subject? Click here.
Tektites, a word derived from the Greek tektos, meaning melted, also display what could be predicted from a hydrogen fusion model of the planets that produces ejection phenomena. Their origin is highly controversial (for more on tektites see sections 2.10, 3.2 and 3.3). The surface pits, grooves and shapes indicate that they were once molten, and their outer surfaces were aerodynamically molded by (hypersonic) flight through the Earth's atmosphere. They possess a magnetism that is the result of ionizing radiation, probably resulting from their formation with lightning-like discharges (i.e., the time-varying electrostatic pulses of the Fields). Tektites also have thermoluminescent properties, which are known to arise from ionizing radiation (i.e., neutrons, gamma rays, etc.; see 2.10 and 3.4e for references and other discussions).
Their composition is similar to sedimentary rock from the Earth, such as sandstone mixed with a little clay, with the exception of one type (Ivory Coast). The heavy hydrogen (deuterium) to hydrogen ratio observed in their composition is like that of ocean water. The Fields on Earth are situated in ocean water. The lack of air bubbles in the glass is impossible within the short time of an impact, as well. Yet, the two proposed theories of origin are impact on the Earth with the lofted material reentering and melting, or impact or volcanic activity on the Moon spewing material earthward.
Meanwhile, both theories are incompatible with the full spectrum of evidence. All of the experts concede that origin by impact on the Earth is inconsistent with the laws of physics that underlie the making of glass, which is a major component of tektites. Furthermore, chemical similarities exist between tektites and Earth rocks, which have not been matched by lunar samples. An expert comments on the force involved, "it appears that such velocities are essentially unattainable without the use of light gases such as helium or hydrogen, or the use of temperatures which would destroy the tektite." When considering the composition is like Earth rocks, isotope (D/H) ratios are like ocean water, and the escape speed for the particles to be ejected beyond the Earth's (or Moon's) gravity requires hydrogen or helium, a hydrogen fusion model, Field-dynamical Earth Model (FEM), fits all of the necessary conditions, unlike the other theories.
This expert on tektites discusses some of our mistaken ideas about the Moon. He states, "within certain large classes of lunar craters, internal origin predominates over impact." That is, most of the Mare craters with diameters from the 100- to 1,000-meter (330- to 3,300-feet) range are of internal origin. He also concludes "that the rate of arrival of meteorite material on the lunar surface has not varied widely [since its origin]; i.e., the notion of an era of violent bombardment is wrong."
Some of the more interesting tektite finds relate to the Australasian tektites. The lunar sample 14425, a speckled sphere eight millimeters in diameter, is similar in composition to the Australasian tektites. Moreover, two tektites were reported from Liberia (west central Africa) and also show a fission track date and chemical composition that coincides with this same tektite event. Another tektite with the same fission track date and uranium content was found in southwest Africa. While the Australasian tektite event is given a date of about 700,000 years ago, there seems to have been an earlier fall in that region about four million years ago.
Another enigma for present theoretical perspectives is the great distances that tektites travel, some travel over distances of hundreds or thousands of kilometers, especially the Australasian and North American tektite strewn fields. Atmospheric resistence is so great for such small-diameter particles that they should fall to Earth within a short distance. In fact, it would be difficult to loft them for hundreds of kilometers, yet they have traveled for thousands of kilometers. The atmosphere would have to be removed to allow for these distances. Such as removal would require tremendous energy (1032 ergs), typical of nuclear explosions.
If they were produced by an impact it would have left behind a crater of several hundred kilometers in the case of the Australasian tektites. No such crater exists, nor is a crater found for the North American strewn field, both of which are the largest and most recent events. Again, the Field's release of ionizing radiation would displace the atmosphere, and with FEM's hydrogen fusion there is more than enough potential energy. Interestingly, simulations with atomic blasts are capable of lofting the particles into the stratosphere where they might drift with winds. The finer particles should also fall closest to the proposed impact than the larger tektites, but the observations display the opposite, with the smallest the farthest away. This implies that there is an "atmospheric entrainment scenario;" again, the evidence points to FEM.
The origin of tektites has not been satisfactorily explained, but the facts clearly implicate FEM. Iridium is a siderophile or "iron lover," meaning it combines readily with iron. Most iridium that naturally occurs on Earth is theorized to be deep within the interior. As a result, theories embrace impacts on the Earth or on the Moon, or an explosive volcanic-like origin (geobleme).
Meanwhile, the scientists who originated two of these theories admit that there are major problems with their own theories. The facts indicate that tektites caused by impact on the Earth is inconsistent with the laws of physics, and that origin by lunar impact contradicts the tektites' chemical composition. However, the facts are in accord with the hydrogen fusion model of the Earth (FEM).
An expert on tektites comments on the speeds required to eject the material either from the Earth or Moon: "It appears that such velocities are essentially unattainable without the use of light gases such as helium or hydrogen." In fact, this scientist even calls for a revolution in our understanding of planets in order to account for the tektites. He calls for a planetary model that includes hydrogen or helium (other than radiogenic degassing). FEM involves hydrogen fusion which produces helium. The worldwide distribution of iridium at the end of the Cretaceous can only be produced by explosive, hot gases.
Tektites are dispersed in what are called strewn fields. These tektite strewn fields are located in the regions of the Fields. For example, the North American tektite strewn field spreads out in a fan-like arrangement and the narrow end of this fan is pointing right at the North Atlantic Field. The Australasian tektite strewn field spreads out from the Japanese, and East and West Australian Fields. Even the iridium layer of the Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary, the time of the dinosaurs extinction, spreads around the world along mid-latitudes (the Fields are along the mid-latitudes). The North American and Australasian tektite strewn fields are the youngest, and no crater for either has been found. If they were created by impacting bodies where is the crater? Also, conforming to the Field-dynamical Earth Model, with its core of thermonuclear energy, spherules like tektites and shocked quartz are found in the areas of atomic blasts.
These strewn fields require a mechanism that displaces the atmosphere to allow for these great distances and energy. That mechanism is the Fields of the Field-dynamical Earth Model (FEM). This is also indicated by unusual meteorites and animal falls.
Want to know more about this subject? Click here.
A similar type of mystery or controversy surrounds meteorites themselves. Organic matter, once thought to only derive from Earth or Earth-like planets, has been discovered in many meteorites. Carbonaceous chondrites are stony meteorites, which a scientist discusses: "Some of the most volatile substances occur in the Earth's crust in nearly the same proportions as in carbonaceous chondrites. This has led to the suggestion that the inner planets obtained their volatiles from carbonaceous-chondrite-like dust or larger bodies that had formed in colder parts of the nebula." The nebula referred to here is the protoplanetary nebula of the forming Sun that began the Solar System. However, an equally or more plausible explanation is that carbonaceous chondrites originate from the inner planets (and outer moons), which have a core of hydrogen fusion that could allow for ejection.
Meteorites of various types and falls of organisms also suggest this theory of ejected materials. Consider the various types of falls consisting of eels, fish, frogs, and other organisms, and Earth-like objects.
A number of historical references describe fish falls. One of the earliest recorded fish rains occurred in the 3rd Century AD, and lasted three days. This was recounted by Anthenaeus in Deipnosophistae describing Phoenias writing in Eresian Magistrates. Phylarchus, in the Fourth Book, tells us that people had often seen fish rains. Halsted's History of Kent disclosed that a fish rain took place on Easter in 1666. Reid's Law of Storms describes a heavy rain that included herrings on 9 March 1830 at the island of Islay, in the town of Argyllshire. These and other types of unusual rains occur in regions near the Fields. It is fitting that these falls should be aquatic organisms, since the Fields are located in ocean waters near coasts.
In The Vital Vastness it is revealed that there were many unusual falls. One source alone describes 50 fish falls. Other sources indicate that there were falls of snakes, black worms, mussels, other shellfish, sand-eels, frogs, seaweed, sponges, crinoids, coral, and even sedimentary rock. In some cases, such as the coral and sedimentary rocks, there is a fusion crust that indicates they were burned by flight through the atmosphere. Moreover, they had organisms typical of those on Earth, meaning if they did come from space it had to be from outside the Solar System. It seems much more reasonable to think that they were ejected from the Earth, and then fell back to Earth. It should be noted that nearly all of these animal falls are of the type that would be along coastal waters, and the Fields of the Field-dynamical Earth Model are in coastal waters.
In Chapter One it was noted that sulphate-reducing bacteria, precipitating iron from seawater, were found in gelatinous mats in the Field areas. A number of meteors of gelatin with a sulphur smell and bacteria, and meteors of bacterial mass are described in various sources. There were also rains of "blood", which were most likely iron-oxide or amorphous selenium. In Chapters Six and Seven, it is noted that there were a number of reports of fiery skies, black rains, and fiery hurricanes. See the web page In Defense of Nature: The History Nobody Told You About for a glimpse of that history. There were also some very unusual ice meteors.
Falls of ice have also taken place. As described, ionizing radiation creates a vacuum, which the upper, much colder atmosphere flows into. This can cause sudden heavy rains, snowfalls, hail or ice, and is the mechanism behind the formation of glacial cover and ice ages (see discussion in sections 5.3n and 5.3o).
Consider this ice fall. On 13 December 1973 ice fell on Fort Pierce, Florida, a very unlikely place for ice. It contained silver, the best conductor of all metals; gallium, a semiconductor; germanium, also a semiconductor; mercury, which dissolves in metals and is used in long-lived batteries; and selenium, which reacts with sulfur-like characteristics, reacts with metals, and is photovoltaic and photoconductive. There was also a high salt content reflective of sea water. Here we see the electrical conducting and producing constituents of the North Atlantic Field area in ice that fell on Florida, which is just east of the Field.
There were a number of other ice falls. They were as much as a ton in one case. There were also meteors with organic matter. Carbon and hydrocarbon rains are also noted. All of these falls occurred around the equinoxes and the solstices, indicating a solar-Earth linkage is involved (see the web page The Unity of the Sun, Earth, and Moon for more on this linkage). The falls with organic matter and other indications of life offer compelling evidence that there is ejection from the Earth. In The Vital Vastness we find this statement: "Meteorites such as these cannot be reconciled with extraterrestrial impactors, since they would have to come from outside the Solar System on a planet with life, water, hydrocarbons, and Earth-like elemental constituents."
Want to know more about this subject? Click here.
On the morning of 30 June 1908, at 7:17 am local time, a blinding light was accompanied by an explosion of tremendous force at Tunguska, in Central Siberia. The light was so intense that it was visible 700 kilometers away (435 miles). It had the appearance of a column of fire with a bluish tinge, and left a trail of a bluish streak along its entire path.
The blast was so powerful that baromicrographs, sensitive to atmospheric pressure, recorded the event as far away as Western Europe, North America, and other distant countries. The shock wave traveled around the world twice as seismographs, used for recording earthquakes, registered the event around the globe. The blast was so powerful that people heard it 1,000 kilometers away (620 miles). The series of air waves displayed four maxima within twenty minutes. Four thunder claps and crashes were described by the local people, the Tungus.
The blast devastated an area of about 2,000 square kilometers (770 square miles) of dense Siberian virgin forest (Yenissi Taiga). Trees were torn up by the roots and in places were piled up in thick layers pointing away from the center (see Plate 21). The devastation covered a radius of 30 to 40 kilometers (20 to 25 miles), and the fire from the blast scarred trees for 18 kilometers (11 miles) from the center. Somehow, the central area was devastated with the exception of a ring of upright trees near the center. Ever since that day, what actually took place has been a matter of deep controversy without any completely satisfactory explanation.
The effects of the event on the people and wildlife confirm its awesome power. A local trader 60 kilometers (37 miles) away from the event describes his experience:
"I was sitting on my porch facing north when suddenly, to the northwest, there appeared a great flash of light. There was so much heat that I was no longer able to remain where I was. My shirt almost burned off my back. I saw a huge fireball that covered an enormous part of the sky. I only had a moment to note the size of it. Afterward it became dark and at the same time I felt an explosion that threw me several feet from the porch. I lost consciousness for a few moments and when I came to I heard a noise that shook the whole house and nearly moved it off its foundation. The glass and the framing of the house shattered and in the middle of the area where the hut stands a strip of ground split apart."
It is important to note that this description reveals an explosion that rendered the man unconscious. Then when he comes to, he experiences a second explosion. Obviously, this was not an impacting body, because no such time delay would occur if it split into pieces.
Another account says that everyone was in a tent still asleep when "the people were suddenly flung into the air." Hundreds of reindeer, owned by the Tungus, disappeared and others were found as burnt remains. Some people had storehouses, goods and other objects completely destroyed.
As could be predicted from the new model of the Earth, much about Tunguska is comparable to a nuclear explosion. One scientist states, "the cloud afterward was exactly like an atomic mushroom cloud." Meteors only case minor magnetic disturbances, but the Tunguska event caused a major disturbance, like what occurs after atmospheric nuclear explosions. A local magnetic storm began about six minutes after the explosion and lasted more than four hours. These observations resemble those that follow nuclear explosions. Had it been a bolide the magnetic disturbance would have begun as it entered the atmosphere. Nuclear explosions generate nitric oxide, nitrates and disturb climate, and so did the Tunguska event.
Pressure and suction waves were experienced by observers. A pressure wave broke windows inward followed by a suction wave that sucked clods of dirt out of the ground and hurled an iron stove door across a room. Ionizing radiation after a blast would cause a vacuum, producing a suction, but a meteor would not.
The blast was so strong that it was recorded on a seismograph 5,215 kilometers (3,240 miles) away, at Jena. Like a nuclear explosion, the center of the site was 1.5 to 2 times higher in radioactivity than 30 to 40 kilometers away (20 to 25 miles). Mutations at the site were evident, trees doubled and tripled in height, and increased in life expectancy by 2 to 2.5 times. Radioactive elements were found in greater quantities at the center of the site. Natives tell us that the blast had "brought with it a disease for the reindeer, specifically scabs, that had never appeared before the fire came." Likewise, "gray patches" and blisters appeared on cattle after the 1945 New Mexico nuclear test.
Tektites or spherules of iron, magnetite, nickel and silicates were also found. Similar objects are discovered after nuclear explosions. Meteoritic dust was found far from the epicenter, which some claim is due to its explosion in flight. However, this does not explain the succession of crashes heard. The estimated heat energy indicates a nuclear, not a chemical reaction. The Tunguska event has even been compared to a 6,000 megaton nuclear war. An author comments on the energy released: "All of the estimates are independent of one another and show one fact: the radiant energy of the Tunguska explosion comprised several tens of percent of the total energy. But this correlation between the parameters is characteristic only of nuclear explosions." No one in the world had nuclear devices in 1908, particularly in Siberia.
After uncovering some of the other evidence, the discussion continues.
Many eyewitness accounts do not give one the impression that Tunguska was hit by a meteor or comet. The event produced a very bright light in the form of what was described as a pipe or cylinder. Such pipe shapes are not typical of meteorites nor meteors. Yet, "the fire-pillar was seen by many people." The event left no smoky trail like most fireballs, but rather scintillating bands that looked like a rainbow or an aurora.
The phenomenon was so bright that those nearby had to cover their eyes, and it was visible at Vitim, 608 kilometers (377 miles), and Bodaibo, 764 kilometers (474 miles), away. These far away sightings are not typical of a meteor in flight. One scientist collecting eyewitness accounts comments: "The explosion was observed from many points in the form of a vertical fountain." Such a description sounds more like the release of energy from the Earth than an impact, because no comet or meteor would fall vertically, and would, in fact, be closer to horizontal, and would not be described as a fountain.
There was a notable geomagnetic disturbance that was more like what accompanied the huge volcanic explosion of Krakatoa. Some described a subterranean crash and roar followed five to seven minutes later by a second louder than the first, and finally, a third crash. However, only one luminous phenomena was observed, and if the objection split into three, the pieces would not be delayed by such long intervals, nor described as subterranean. In a quote that still remains timely, a Russian scientist comments: "the nature of the phenomenon that could produce such a special explosion is still obscure."
Again, after revealing more of the evidence the discussion continues.
Other evidence confirms the presence of ionizing radiation. Nitric oxide was produced in the atmosphere, and climate was affected by its presence. There were reports of a black rain, typical of carbon and hydrocarbon precipitation. Carbon and hydrocarbons are known to be produced by ionizing radiation, such as in a nuclear explosion. No metal, with the possible exception of local native iron, was ever found in the region. This observation, the waves and folds in the region's earth, and other facts are unlike any known meteor impact. Burned and unburned parts of the area, as well as the burned and unburned parts of the same tree indicate a "radiant burn" unlike any meteor or comet fireball.
Furthermore, any radiation should not have been measurable after two decades under normal circumstances. The radiation would have been released into the atmosphere with very little reaching the Earth, and it would have dissipated easily and quickly had it been a comet or meteor. Meanwhile, two decades after the event the region was still 1.5 to 2 times higher in radioactivity than the surrounding environs.
What was found in the area was described as "brilliant native iron," but a meteor or comet (the two most proposed theories) are neither brilliant nor native.
Another indication of this is that the event was only noted when it was near the ground. Meteors or comets would have been noticed at the time they first entered the atmosphere. Descriptions were unlike these objects, being referred to as a "fountain", "pipe", "pillar" or "tube." Eyewitness accounts and scientific articles say it was a single object. Yet, there were three subterranean crashes, and four plain maximums in air pressure. Meteors are observed at night, but the Tunguska event took place in the early morning, indicating that if it was a meteor or comet, a much greater speed than is typical or even possible for such objects. Calculations indicate a very low density as well: "It also implies that the Tunguska object was quite unusual in having a very low equivalent density."
The discussion continues after other facts are addressed.
Due to the estimates of its speed and density, a comet or comet fragment has been proposed. However, the density does not match that of either a comet nucleus or tail. No comets with the appropriate orbit are known either. Furthermore, comet matter is too fragile to survive long enough to reach so close to ground level, and the other data on comets do not fit many of the facts about the Tunguska event. The skyglows were not characteristic of a comet, nor even a single object, since one object could not distribute so evenly.
The proposed theories of a small black hole, antimatter, and such have all been discarded. The fact that these theories even surfaced is testimony to the fact that this event was unlike a meteor or comet impact. Yet, the theory that it is an impact continually reappears in the literature, reflecting the training of scientists who recover what they have been taught. There is a focus in science that everything can be explained by mass, matter and gravity (Newtonian or Classical physics).
Want to know more about this subject? Click here.
Click here for more advertisers
Richard Michael Pasichnyk
All rights reserved. All copyright laws apply.