Re: Meteoric and Cometary impacts in historical times - Hard Evidence
From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 10/22/04
- Next message: Eric Stevens: "Re: Spirit Pond, Maine"
- Previous message: Eric Stevens: "Re: Meteoric and Cometary impacts in historical times - Hard Evidence"
- In reply to: Martyn Harrison: "Re: Meteoric and Cometary impacts in historical times - Hard Evidence"
- Next in thread: Martin Reboul: "Re: Meteoric and Cometary impacts in historical times - Hard Evidence"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:50:12 +1300
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:29:43 GMT, Martyn Harrison
<nospam@spammers.of.the.world.unite> wrote:
>Apparently on date Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:24:57 -0400, wbarwell
><wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> said:
>
>>Joe Jefferson wrote:
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>
>>>> similar to the one which created Lake Chiemsee. The apparent absence
>>>> of reports cannot be attributed to there being nothing to report.
>>>
>>> 6,000 years of recorded history we should expect there have been about
>>> 20 such impacts with no more than 6 or 7 hitting on land. For most of
>>> human history the majority of the Earth's surface was very sparsely
>>> populated. And even if somebody was in the right place to see something,
>>> chances are they didn't know how to write. The bottom line is that it
>>> wouldn't surprise me at all if Tunguska was the first event of this size
>>> ever to be noticed by people able to record what they had seen.
>>
>>Back in the 80's there was some species of event off of South Africa.
>>Apparently it was big enough to show up on satellite.
>
>This was only important if it was a covert nuclear test. If dismissed as "just
>another minor impact from outer space" I doubt it would merit many column
>inches.
It occurred out at sea and from memory was somewhat bigger than the
Hiroshima bomb.
>
>>And in the late 80's a weather satellite apparently observed a sizeable
>>meterorite hit in the Pacific ocean.
>>With 75 of the earth being water, I suspect many hits will be at sea.
>
>They will be. And even when they're on land, they're highly unlikely to hit
>anything important. That's not to say we can't have another K-T impactor next
>year, it's the sort of thing that can happen on extreme ends of the normal
>curve. But it would be a freak event.
>
>As we add cities and populate regions more and more densely, this threat will
>increase but equally well, volcanoes and that happen and are of far more
>significance, e.g. Portugal, Pompeii, Krakatoa and so on. Quite a few
>historical events *are* attributable to natural causes and I doubt the
>"hidebound nay sayers" deny that Vesuvius has killed its share of the ancient
>Romans, despite having their heads in the sand. So the alternative is they know
>what's probably real and what probably isn't.
Eric Stevens
- Next message: Eric Stevens: "Re: Spirit Pond, Maine"
- Previous message: Eric Stevens: "Re: Meteoric and Cometary impacts in historical times - Hard Evidence"
- In reply to: Martyn Harrison: "Re: Meteoric and Cometary impacts in historical times - Hard Evidence"
- Next in thread: Martin Reboul: "Re: Meteoric and Cometary impacts in historical times - Hard Evidence"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|