Dont listen for birdie,its a creatard.

Some random internet guy  Wrote:

birdie  Wrote:

Yeah, okay - heat. From the blast. At that moment of the explosion. Volcanoes do that - burn people up!

That doesn't say anything about what you mentioned - people having radiation sickness afterward or anything like that. That is what I have never heard of. Link?

You are being extremely hard headed and facetious here, birdie. We are not simpletons, so please do not treat us as such.

Yes, of course volcanoes burn people, but if you notice, the eye witness describes the feeling of heat before the pressure wave.

Care to explain that with your volcano theory?

Seriously, you are talking about two DIFFERENT things:

1. The eyewitness experience of the initial BLAST.

2. People dying of radiation sickness years later.

First of all, I have never been in an volcanic explosion, so how in the world do I know what part you feel first? The heat? Or the pressure? What difference does that make? The people felt a HOT explosion. I would expect that to be a normal part of being near a volcanic event. Perhaps you can sk some of the survivors of Mt. St. Helens - I know there were some.

Second of all, I have never ever heard of anyone having radiation sickness in the Tungunska event. It is not mentioned in your video, nor even in the general wiki entry. I am not likely to accept a link to a UFO website as a reliable source for a claim heard NOWEHERE else.

It seems to me that you are being intentionally obtuse and willing to entertain any crazy or ridiculous idea as an explanation. However, when I post link after link of reliable, documented scientific evidence by respected scientists showing that it was most likely a volcanic explosion you chide me for "pushing too hard."

This leads me to conclude you are not interested in the actual evidence, but are just interested in fantasizing about weird theories. While that may be amusing, I am more interested in what is real, thanks.

Arch Phoenix  Wrote:

Dont listen for birdie,its a creatard.

Thank goodness for that. I'd much rather be a believer in GOD than be an alien-tard. It makes you look incredibly stupid.

birdie  Wrote:

Some random internet guy  Wrote:

You are being extremely hard headed and facetious here, birdie. We are not simpletons, so please do not treat us as such.

Yes, of course volcanoes burn people, but if you notice, the eye witness describes the feeling of heat before the pressure wave.

Care to explain that with your volcano theory?

Seriously, you are talking about two DIFFERENT things:

1. The eyewitness experience of the initial BLAST.

2. People dying of radiation sickness years later.

First of all, I have never been in an volcanic explosion, so how in the world do I know what part you feel first? The heat? Or the pressure? What difference does that make? The people felt a HOT explosion. I would expect that to be a normal part of being near a volcanic event. Perhaps you can sk some of the survivors of Mt. St. Helens - I know there were some.

Second of all, I have never ever heard of anyone having radiation sickness in the Tungunska event. It is not mentioned in your video, nor even in the general wiki entry. I am not likely to accept a link to a UFO website as a reliable source for a claim heard NOWEHERE else.

It seems to me that you are being intentionally obtuse and willing to entertain any crazy or ridiculous idea as an explanation. However, when I post link after link of reliable, documented scientific evidence by respected scientists showing that it was most likely a volcanic explosion you chide me for "pushing too hard."

This leads me to conclude you are not interested in the actual evidence, but are just interested in fantasizing about weird theories. While that may be amusing, I am more interested in what is real, thanks.

And all the scientists looking at the crater didnt figure out it was a volcanoe? You do know a volcanoe crater is the exact opposite of an impact crater?

What about the light falling from ABOVE.
Seriously,it doesnt fit one bit,and there is NO vulcanic activity.
And where was the f*cking lava?The smoke? Nowhere.
so stop your crappy theory which isnt based on reality cause you have to explain it in your narrow creationist view.

there are meteors, the earth isnt flat, and on the billions of earthlike planets out there is live.

birdie  Wrote:

You know, I think the better question - instead of aksing me why I am "wedded" to the volcano idea - is to ask the scientific community and those of you who join them why you are so wedded to the "meteor" idea.

The video you posted in your OP spends a good deal of time with two scientists explaining their "daring" idea that the whole thing was a volcanic explosion. What is so "daring" about this? My idea of science is YOU FOLLOW THE OBVIOUS EVIDENCE and the simplest explanation is usually correct.

You have LOADS of evidence for a volcanic event, utterly NONE for a meteor event, and yet you want to hold on to the idea that it was a meteor. The video even concludes by saying that they hope that "eventually, given enough time" they will find the "cosmic dust as proof that they hope for..."

What insanity is that?? That they "hope for"?? WHY? That's NOT science.

I can "hope for" the sky to be green all day long, but that will NOT change the observation that it is blue.

And even worse is that there are some REAL loonies out there that want to speculate that it was aliens or some other such nonsense. How absurd.

Unlike yourself, I am wedded to no one theory; I am open minded.

Tell me, how does your volcanic theory account for the deaths and sickness reported in the vicinity with symptoms similar to radiation poisoning?

The comet/meteor/asteroid theory doesn't explain nor account for this.

Some random internet guy  Wrote:

birdie  Wrote:

Yeah, okay - heat. From the blast. At that moment of the explosion. Volcanoes do that - burn people up!

That doesn't say anything about what you mentioned - people having radiation sickness afterward or anything like that. That is what I have never heard of. Link?

You are being extremely hard headed and facetious here, birdie. We are not simpletons, so please do not treat us as such.

Yes, of course volcanoes burn people, but if you notice, the eye witness describes the feeling of heat before the pressure wave.

Care to explain that with your volcano theory?

Seriously, you are talking about two DIFFERENT things:

1. The eyewitness experience of the initial BLAST.

2. People dying of radiation sickness years later.

First of all, I have never been in an volcanic explosion, so how in the world do I know what part you feel first? The heat? Or the pressure? What difference does that make? The people felt a HOT explosion. I would expect that to be a normal part of being near a volcanic event. Perhaps you can sk some of the survivors of Mt. St. Helens - I know there were some.

Second of all, I have never ever heard of anyone having radiation sickness in the Tungunska event. It is not mentioned in your video, nor even in the general wiki entry. I am not likely to accept a link to a UFO website as a reliable source for a claim heard NOWEHERE else.

It seems to me that you are being intentionally obtuse and willing to entertain any crazy or ridiculous idea as an explanation. However, when I post link after link of reliable, documented scientific evidence by respected scientists showing that it was most likely a volcanic explosion you chide me for "pushing too hard."

This leads me to conclude you are not interested in the actual evidence, but are just interested in fantasizing about weird theories. While that may be amusing, I am more interested in what is real, thanks.

Due to your stubborn adherence to your truth, I think I shall cease communication with you, because you already know it all.

Good day madam and thank your for your input, which, as I have stated, gave me another perspective to think about!

Some random internet guy  Wrote:

birdie  Wrote:

You know, I think the better question - instead of aksing me why I am "wedded" to the volcano idea - is to ask the scientific community and those of you who join them why you are so wedded to the "meteor" idea.

The video you posted in your OP spends a good deal of time with two scientists explaining their "daring" idea that the whole thing was a volcanic explosion. What is so "daring" about this? My idea of science is YOU FOLLOW THE OBVIOUS EVIDENCE and the simplest explanation is usually correct.

You have LOADS of evidence for a volcanic event, utterly NONE for a meteor event, and yet you want to hold on to the idea that it was a meteor. The video even concludes by saying that they hope that "eventually, given enough time" they will find the "cosmic dust as proof that they hope for..."

What insanity is that?? That they "hope for"?? WHY? That's NOT science.

I can "hope for" the sky to be green all day long, but that will NOT change the observation that it is blue.

And even worse is that there are some REAL loonies out there that want to speculate that it was aliens or some other such nonsense. How absurd.

Unlike yourself, I am wedded to no one theory; I am open minded.

Tell me, how does your volcanic theory account for the deaths and sickness reported in the vicinity with symptoms similar to radiation poisoning?

The comet/meteor/asteroid theory doesn't explain nor account for this.

You are one of the nicest posters I have ever read... maybe you are just behaving yourself on this thread.... but I could read you all day long!!!!...