Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (18915)	7/22/2001 12:11:44 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Ah, always true to form Sub-Average Joe - first with the unprovoked insults. Here is another cause (see Item 10): cseti.org It could have been a UFO crash too. But it probably wasn't. I didn't say that meteorite/comet was the only theory, just the most likely. The blast pattern has been duplicated with aerial burst. You said before a giant volcano. I said that was unlikely. Natural gas is better than some sort of volcanic event. I guess we'll have to call that "progress" for you.

To: average joe who wrote (18915)	7/23/2001 5:23:24 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The Times article is a hypothesis, but it does seem materially wrong in some claims. For example: However, it left no cosmic debris or crater, forcing even experts to admit that its cause was one of the great mysteries of modern science. The lack of a crater is no surprise with a high airborne explosion - of whatever cause. No debris? Firstly, it's long been presumed that the comet/meteor was primarily volatile, not solid NiFe. Hence it would vaporise on explosion (not impact). Secondly, according to the survey expeditions, they did find residues - more than expected if there had not been an extra-planetary body, at > 99.9% probability of significance. abob.libs.uga.edu The figure of 100K tonnes quoted in the article is somewhat misleading - the body is estimated at 10% of that. Has anyone specifically investigated the site looking for the traces that would surely have been left by such a huge gas leakage? (for example, the appropriate underlying rock formations, porous channels, recurrences of gas leakage since, carbon traces in the rocks, &c). Agreed, natural gas explosion could be another cause, but this should be quite easy to prove/disprove.