|
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
Does comet ISON have a 333 year orbit?
|
|
Poster Handle
|
74444 |
|
Post Content
|
Interesting. Okay -- so according to that, a comet *would* have had to impact to manifest the described tsunami. But there should be a *lot* more physical evidence, particularly for something as recent as 1000 years ago, and with the power described. There should be a layer or iridium. There should be a mini (if not big) ice age. There should be a means of detecting a crater a'la the Yucatan. These demonstrably haven't been discovered. I'm not familiar with the ammonia method. for detecting comets outlined in the article, so I'd like to see more sources detailing that as a reliable means of detecting impacts.
Quoting: 74444 The meteor that hit Russia in 1908 - did that cause an ice age? If that had hit the Ocean, do you not think it would have caused a massive tsunami? No, not even close. Tuguska explosion was in the air, was likely a comet, and was only a few kilotons. For an explosion to cause as massive a tidal wave as theorized would need to be *factors* larger. And there is decided lack of evidence any such expplosion took place. If I were going to buy the Tsunami explanation, I would look at much more terrestrial culprits -- a big ol' fashioned Earthquake in a sparsely populated part of the Earth on the Atlantic, I could certainly buy, and would certainly release that kind of energy. The physical evidence of 1014 would be the floods that were recorded in that year causing widespread devastation. A thousand years from now, if there were no historical records kept today, the impact in 1908 would not be known about - and this was a land event. What chance of much physical evidence from an ocean event of the same magnitude?
Quoting: 74444 An ocean event of the same magnitude as Tuguska wouldn't cause such a massive tidal wave to be so destructive to both Europe and the East Coast of the U.S, and Central America. We have atomic bombs that could mimic a Tunguska. You'd need something with quite a lot more bang -- and it would leave *some* kind of physical evidence. After all, the KT event sure did, and that was 65 *million* years ago.
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for reporting:
|
