Article: <5gid29$qp1@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: TUNGUSKA
Date: 17 Mar 1997 03:16:25 GMT
In article <5ga0vi$83q@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> The explosion may : have been localized, but the burn was
>> NOT. How could witnesses have stated they thought they
>> were looking at a type of Aurora if it was localized?
>> (End ZetaTalk[TM])
>
> The "Aurora" you mention was not associated with the
> meteor and the impact itself. It was observed over the
> entire region in the nights after the impact. The witnesses
> saw no aurora at the time of impact.
> jscotti@LPL.Arizona.EDU (Jim Scotti)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
This is correct, as the explosion was as a result of burning methane, and the burn was LIT
by the wick traveling back along the wisp of methane that had been blow up and southwest
by the prevailing westerlies over Siberia. What witnesses saw was the burn off of methane
that had disbursed into the air and was not sandwiched between burning masses so that its
heat had NOWHERE to go, the basis of exploding, rather than burning, gas bombs. The
process was:
(End ZetaTalk[TM])