# Voynich manuscript & Tunguska event



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

People's thoughts on these historical mysteries?? 

Voynich manuscript - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tunguska event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## countrygirl90 (Oct 11, 2012)

I read about this incident on site other than Wikipedia before .Its quite intriguing to me .I don't understand why did scientist or geologists never bothered to do some deep research on this before .Well I'm waiting for the result of further research on this event to come out soon and see the mystery unrevealed that caused this astonishing event.


----------



## Birdy (Dec 22, 2012)

A while ago I was quite interested in the Voynich manuscript and read all I could on it, I can't remember my conclusion then. I really do not know much about history and all to make a real claim, but my immediate suspicions are it is somehow related to alchemy or some sort of occult science, my other immediate intuitions are that it would be from Southern France, such as by the Pyrenees or Languedoc, and that it would be related to the Cathars, though its only wishful thinking that it is some mysteries document containing long lost secret spiritual ideas or something like that. It strikes my imagination, but I really have no idea about it. I can easily let my imagination obsess over it. The lure of a book that even given a hundred years I could not read. Luckily with all the pictures it can at least have a visual, sensory sort of emotional like artistic response to it. I do doubt it is some sort of mystical book, but I suppose it would be awesome if it was.


----------



## Hurricane Matthew (Nov 9, 2012)

The Tunguska event isn't mysterious at all and is actually very well understood. It was a meteor that exploded as it crashed through the atmosphere at a rather steep angle, steeper than at the Chelyabinsk event earlier this year. Lots of studies support this and it has all the characteristics of a meteor explosion where the rock vaporized before it hit the ground, which is why there is no crater. The heat and the air blast knocked down all the trees.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

Matthew Nisshoku said:


> The Tunguska event isn't mysterious at all and is actually very well understood. It was a meteor that exploded as it crashed through the atmosphere at a rather steep angle, steeper than at the Chelyabinsk event earlier this year. Lots of studies support this and it has all the characteristics of a meteor explosion where the rock vaporized before it hit the ground, which is why there is no crater. The heat and the air blast knocked down all the trees.


Indeed. I'm aware that's the leading theory but all I'm saying is it is not a fact. Given the lack of fragments and witnesses this one's always had an air of mystery to it, even with all the latest theories, including the 'air det' one.


----------



## SirDave (Sep 1, 2012)

We can be sure it was a standard meteorological phenomena that occurs in random locations around earth periodically. Had it been composed of iron there would've been some buried or surface remnants found but iron objects are small ones, boulder sized. 

Because of its size - maybe 300-feet or so - and the lack of surviving remnants it was either a rocky aggregate body or more likely a body made up of ice and dust glued together out in the Oort Cloud; in other words a cometary fragment; a piece that had broken off of a larger body after an encounter with Jupiter most likely. 

With that kind of composition it would've been exploded by the heat-generated-friction as impacted the atmosphere as it entered, turning the ice to steam in a nuclear bomb sized explosion. With that type composition it would have to explode in the atmosphere and not reach the ground.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

Lol you know I'm the OP right? I know this theory. I just don't think it's safe to call it fact. The consensus isn't all that significant and even vary on details among themselves. Hence why I consider it mysterious.
And, to say it happens periodically is again theoretical as we have no other evidence of it happening elsewhere - it is just considered to be the case due to the rarity of the phenomena; it would make less sense were it a one-off.


----------



## SirDave (Sep 1, 2012)

As for there being no witnesses; there were plenty of them considering how isolated the site was. The Russian scientific community took decades to mount a scientific "expedition" to the area impacted on the ground:

" - InvestigationsThere was little scientific curiosity about the impact at the time, possibly due to the isolation of the Tunguska region. If there were any early expeditions to the site, the records were likely to have been lost during the subsequent chaotic years—World War I, the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Russian Civil War.


The first recorded expedition arrived at the scene more than a decade after the event. In 1921, the Russian mineralogist Leonid Kulik, visiting the Podkamennaya Tunguska River basin as part of a survey for the Soviet Academy of Sciences, deduced from local accounts that the explosion had been caused by a giant meteorite impact. He persuaded the Soviet government to fund an expedition to the Tunguska region, based on the prospect of meteoric iron that could be salvaged to aid Soviet industry. Kulik's party eventually undertook an expedition in 1927 - "


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

SirDave said:


> As for there being no witnesses; there were plenty of them considering how isolated the site was. The Russian scientific community took decades to mount a scientific "expedition" to the area impacted on the ground:
> 
> " - InvestigationsThere was little scientific curiosity about the impact at the time, possibly due to the isolation of the Tunguska region. If there were any early expeditions to the site, the records were likely to have been lost during the subsequent chaotic years—World War I, the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Russian Civil War.
> 
> ...


ok, expeditions after the fact hardly count as witnesses, if that's what you were getting at?

That said, however, i do recall there being 'witness accounts' of some of the surviving tribesfolk who described loud noises, explosion, fire etc... but nobody who directly observed the event. So I apologise and take back there were no witnesses. But it was hardly a Hindenburg-level spectacle.

As for the rest, I could and have Googled this before but the purpose here is to discuss and not just copy & paste - I feel like I'm getting a history lesson. Or are you trying to count these as witnesses?


----------



## SirDave (Sep 1, 2012)

@_Barcelonic_, I apologize for not mentioning you, but since only a few posts had responded I thought I was ok with just jumping in so to speak.

These events are ordinary and periodical. There are scales - one is the Torino Scale - used to calculate how often a specific sized object will fall somewhere on earth, most of which will not reach earth unless they are iron bodies. There is a major scientific field of study on the study of what happens in space including how it impacts the earth; Astronomy. 

There are virtually no astronomers who believe this was anything other than a regular event. Sixty five years ago we didn't understand the composition of comets; before then they were thought to be gravel laced with some ice. In 1950 astronomer Fred Whipple turned that theory around, postulating they were mostly ice with some rock and a large amount of dust. 

Another astronomer, Jan Oort, identified their source, the outer solar system where dust and leftover elemental remnants (hydrogen/oxygen compounded into water) from the explosion of the star that gave birth to our solar system still abide, colliding and coalescing into larger aggregates, what we call comets. 

From time to time, as our solar system is passed or passes near to another star some of these are sent on long periodic sunward orbits; or out into into interstellar space. 

In 1993 Gene Shoemaker and David Levi discovered the comet that would come to bear their name (Shoemaker-Levi-9). They were able to plot its orbit and conclude it would collide with Jupiter in 1994. It did with spectacular effect. It broke into 21-fragments which pelted the atmosphere of Jupiter for hours and left black clouds that were visible from earth for months. As all comets are, it was made of dirt and water. 

It was a much larger object than impacted over Tunguska; miles in size. Fortunately the largest objects are more likely to be swept up by Jupiter because of its vast size; about 1/12 the diameter of the sun. But the rest of them heading sunward cross over earth's both coming in, and going back out. 

In the video below the voice says where "it impacted Jupiter's surface," but that was its location. Jupiter's atmosphere is too deep for it to have reached the surface.






See: Torino Scale


----------



## SirDave (Sep 1, 2012)

Barcelonic said:


> ok, expeditions after the fact hardly count as witnesses, if that's what you were getting at?
> 
> That said, however, i do recall there being 'witness accounts' of some of the surviving tribesfolk who described loud noises, explosion, fire etc... but nobody who directly observed the event. So I apologise and take back there were no witnesses. But it was hardly a Hindenburg-level spectacle.
> 
> As for the rest, I could and have Googled this before but the purpose here is to discuss and not just copy & paste - I feel like I'm getting a history lesson. Or are you trying to count these as witnesses?


No, were numerous written accounts, written by the witnesses, apparently printed in local newspapers 

HERE'S A LINK (scroll down to "description") in which 5-witness accounts appeared in newspapers in Siberia. Remember, this is an isolated region, and in 1908.

Don't forget OCCAM'S RAZOR


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

SirDave said:


> There are virtually no astronomers who believe this was anything other than a regular event.


Perhaps Dave, because astronomy is their field. 
Similarly, I bet there are few psychics who believe Edgar Cayce was a con artist.



SirDave said:


> No, were numerous written accounts, written by the witnesses, apparently printed in local newspapers
> 
> HERE'S A LINK (scroll down to "description") in which 5-witness accounts appeared in newspapers in Siberia. Remember, this is an isolated region, and in 1908.
> 
> Don't forget OCCAM'S RAZOR


I am not suggesting it was caused by anything other than a massive burst of energy. The blast was described by some as being similar to reports following Hiroshima. 
As i've said, there _were_ witnesses to the event, but they witnessed radiation of light & heat and felt a blast. Nobody saw any physical object coming close to the Earth's surface, and at the time little was known about near-EAarth objects OR nuclear bombs.

So I think we are largely on the same page. But if one were a child learning of this in school (doubtful this would be tought admittedly), then they would not be teaching that theory as a fact. The consensus is simply not significant enough and the evidence does not pile up across different disciplines.

In short, and to offer an example here, applying Occam's Razor to the existence of Troy may have meant we forever would have seen it as myth.

The theory to which you refer is simply not an irrefutable fact; just a leading theory.

What mysteries interest you might I ask?

PS. @everyone... 

If I am indeed wrong about this please chime in... this thread was supposed to be about gathering other's opinions on mysteries, and all other historical mysteries are welcome....


----------



## SirDave (Sep 1, 2012)

@_Barcelonic_... I get it; there are theories that it might have been an exploding alien space ship, a mini black hole, and even an early case of a nucliear explosion. 

Occam's rasor applies to all those, and for me, only explanations that encompass the present known universe need be considered; and space aliens are not a part of that. Black holes - although it's theorized instances of micro's can be produced for micro seconds - are formed from massive star contractions at the ends of their lives, and they project gravity fields that would destroy the earth, but first would destroy the outer solar system well in advance of approaching the earth.

As for this object and "no-one witnessing" such an object coming close to the earth: 
First it was about 300-feet in size, and from the anglie it approached it was too small for anything but the effects of it's collision with the atmosphere to be seen; Second, it was daytime when it apprached and anthing approaching an observer is at a visual disadvantage because something coming straight at you is minimally visible; Third, actually a witness said he saw a cylinder apparition behind it and it was viewed by some observers for a long period of time before it exploded (you need to read the witness accounts I gave you in an earlier post). That would indicate the same kind of physical manifestation that is produced by the sun on a comet, the comet's tail. In this case this cylinder shape above it would be produced by the ablation (wearing away by friction) of the ice-then-water being turned into steam in the time frame before it exploded. 

Only one thing in the witnesses accounts disturbs me and causes me wonder; that it was said to be visible for 10-minutes.

There was a barrage of explosions that happened during the time frame in question, and those can be explained by small rocky bodies within the body's mass exploding in their turn, because they would still have the same speed of the whole object, and some of those would have been projected laterally.

Recently a Russian scientist claims to have found meteoroids in a stream near the site. He thought that some would end up in streams and so would be readily visible. He found 3-pieces, at least one of which was glassy with a "thumb" print of the atmosphere on a face. 

There is a common meteorite that occurs when a rocky-silicate meteor explodes at a high elevation. It's well known that there is a class off meteorites called TEKTITES produced when a meteor explodes high in the atmosphere. It breaks apart and pieces turn to glass from the heat and the objects are all similar in size and shape. They are strewn over large "fields". One of the ways their existences was finally explained was that they get a "thumbprint" from, while still molten, being shaped by the atmosphere.

At least one of these objects found in Russia near Tunguska by the scientist, looks to be a Tektite. Consider the possibility that some pieces of silica-rock exploding out from the object produced some tektites. He actually found these object back in 1988 and only now is going public. There are doubters who think these might be from some other earlier or later event, and that it would be difficult to assign their origin asbbeing from the Tunguska event.

Being an amateur historian, I'm aware of the questions surrounding Troy, and it's mythological origins. So there really was a Troy - not so hard to believe really - but the mythos surrounding it has gone off on many tracks, many not believable, so the comparison is not really applicable. Most myths have a foundation in reality. 

Romans wove their own myth about that, that Rome's founding was by Trojans, and others believe Rome and Carthage were sibilings states arising from the flight from Troy. Recall that part of Rome's mythology is fratricide, and that Rome destroyed Carthage. Noah's Ark and the Flood may have been drawn from factual events, and come orally down from the people at the end of the last glacial age when floods in mountainous regions of Asia Minor would have theatened life there. There is limited capacity for outflow through the Straights of Dardenelle from the Sea of Marmara and the Black Sea.


----------



## SirDave (Sep 1, 2012)

Barcelonic said:


> [...]In short, and to offer an example here, applying Occam's Razor to the existence of Troy may have meant we forever would have seen it as myth.
> 
> The theory to which you refer is simply not an irrefutable fact; just a leading theory.
> 
> ...


Since you asked:
Here are some I think have some open questions regarding fact and fancy:

Did Neanderthal Man interbreed with (modern) Humans?

The Shroud of Turin (Is it authentic?)

The efficacy of Stonehenge as an astronomical observatory (or is it just a ceremonial monument)? 

The validity of any ancient So. and Cent. American structures as astronomical observatories.

The fate of the Roman Twelfth Legion

Leif Erickson in North America - how far did he go

The Death of Vince Foster (why was his body moved to Ft Marcy Park)

Historical fact of King Arthur?

The Sybil’s prophesies for Rome (were they important?)

The Moon Landing’s veracity - why do some believed it was staged?

Are Bankers (and other dark forces) really conspiring to rule the world making humanity slaves?


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

@*SirDave* I won't deny you've give here some compelling testimony of the Tunguska evidence. 

It is just that I simply MUST maintain that the Tunguska event is not considered to be an 'open-and-shut' case, and maintain even more strongly that I do not, have not suggested I do, or even hinted at the idea I think this is alien-related. I agreed there were some wacky ideas out there, but I feel utterly compelled here to make something absolutely clear for everybody:

I do not believe that aliens have ever visited our planet (except perhaps for us, possibly, in the form of amino acids and such lol); I am not saying anything about those who do believe this - but, simply put, I don't.

As for below... thanks for the input... i've coloured the ones i agree are intriguing mysteries in green...



SirDave said:


> Since you asked:
> Here are some I think have some open questions regarding fact and fancy:
> 
> Did Neanderthal Man interbreed with (modern) Humans?
> ...


OK firstly... I don't know about Twelth Legion, Sybil's prophesies or Vince Foster so I've left them without comment...
The Shroud, tbh, is a mystery but one I don't care that about much.
I see the Neanderathal one as more of an unanswered question than an outright mystery, as I feel the answers will likely come out for that, given time and futher advances in genetics.

You can of course see i highlighted a couple in red....

I think the notion the landings were fake, still being perpetuated today, is rather absurd. How many times now are they supposed to have landed on the moon? Nine, is it? Why would they fake it 9 times? I don't mean to write it off rudely or anything; it is just that in the wider political context the space race seems to me to have been an inevitablity. Why was Space Command formed? In short, false intel about the then capacity of the Soviets to launch ICBMs and 'space nukes', which turned out to be an overhyped assessment. Space Command was shut down around '99 i think.

And although bankers and coroprate & oil interests (among others) are most certainly destroying whatever society we call this mess, I would say firmly there is no 'conspiracy' and that this idea is actually counterproductive to those looking to fight them. They need not conspire when they share the same interests and are driven by the same things. 
Notice: I'm not saying it is any less malevolent or pressing, but I think there is a crucial distinction to be made in the actual act of 'conspiring'.


----------



## SirDave (Sep 1, 2012)

We essentially agree about the ones you went into. That's interesting in itself. 
Any and all conspiracies are totally beyond the pale to me. So the cause for discussion relies on the "mystery" involved in these events - and even Stonehenge is an event.

The ones you highlighted in green are the salient ones, IMO, - but the Shroud of Turin keeps evolving and may have some very deep historical significance; though chances are no - and those are the same ones I would've singled out.

Therefore, do you want to comment on one of the four greens?

(I actually do have some thoughts on The Voinich Manuscript in which there may be a suggestion of very ancient importance. Remember, human societies have been extant for possibly hundreds of thousands of years. But in that case, and remember plant species are very slow to change and occupy continents, though could be confined to a single island, it may be that what he (the author) drew and what he wrote may be but flights of fancy, as in a fictional history)


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

SirDave said:


> (I actually do have some thoughts on The Voinich Manuscript in which there may be a suggestion of very ancient importance. Remember, human societies have been extant for possibly hundreds of thousands of years. But in that case, and remember plant species are very slow to change and occupy continents, though could be confined to a single island, it may be that what he (the author) drew and what he wrote may be but flights of fancy, as in a fictional history)


Yes, indeed it could have been the case. Although were that the case he was likely mad.

Forensic examination of the text reveals though that most of the manuscript was written almost continually - as though someone had locked themselves in a room and written for 18 hours a day or something, non-stop. That, I find most peculiar and one of the most interesting things about this thing. 
For were it of anything except great importance, why would one do such a thing?

A notable, modern fact about this also, is that Yale (is it Yale that has it, i can't remember excatly) no longer allows further examination because it had something in its archives previously which turned out to be a hoax and so i hear they are scared of repeating that history. If true, very shameful


----------



## SirDave (Sep 1, 2012)

@_Barcelonic_, since you highlighted it in green. a little on the mystery surrounding the fact or fancy of King Arthur:Knights, or "men of horse," originated in ancient Rome. Because a horse was costly to acquire and maintain, they became a class of their own between the patrician and the pleb. 

Late in the Empires history, among the already conquered people's of the east there were tribes that were supremely superior horsemen. They were naturals for military service on horseback. 

The knight in service to the empire, was more than a legionnaire or a cavalry soldier. He could operate on lone assignments as a special operator; in a way like modern day Special Ops soldiers. 

The eastern Empire had many petty kings who kept their positions in their states because Rome chose to leave viable political systems intact. The "Empire" was an "overlay." The western empire had no history of "kings;" they, including ancient Briton, were tribal, with chieftains in charge of their societies. 

Rome posted military operations in all the regions of the empire, built cities for them after they retired, called "colonia," both because they had so often married into the local communities and also so they would not return home. Unemployed military veterans could be a problem in civil society if the felt inclined to return to the center of political power, Rome. 

In these colonia they performed the same civic duty as nobles: they contributed to self government by being civic leaders, by serving in governance, and by spending their own wealth on public structures, the usual duty of the nobility. 

They also had the valuable asset of being talented military men.

So when Rome retreated from its empire in the fifth century, their five hundred year presence left a vacuum, both militarily and leadership in the previously Roman ruled provinces. 

So there are these attributes of the early legend of King Arthur that match a narrative of Roman origins: 

Knights as masters of special ops had its beginnings in Rome and its empire.

Kings and kingdoms were not originally part of the power structure of Briton, and Rome did not tamper with local institutions because they wanted them to remain efficacious. 

King-hood was an imported concept of ruling aristocracy not native to Briton. 

Like continental Europe, Briton fell into a "medieval" period of societal disruption wanting for unity: Arthur's was mythically credited with being the first unified kingdom of the island, probably generated by a crisis. 

Artorius is a pure Latin name which became modified by Celtic influence by adding the "h" and losing the masculine vowel ending to become Arthur. 

As an amateur historian I always considered the Arthurian legends to be pure romantic nonsense, but there's a chance that that romantic part is a fair derivative.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

@*SirDave * Interesting 

What do you think of the hollywood movie version? It's highly criticised for its fictionalised details but I liked how the knights in the film came from Sarmatia and were conquered by Rome.

Lol i only ask because i happneed to watch it only a couple of nights ago lol


----------



## SirDave (Sep 1, 2012)

I saw it again just yesterday on TV. I thought it represented what happened quite well, even if the exact circumstances are completely unknow. In the movie it was an attack from across Hadrian's Wall in the north, and that would've been a uniting crisis at the point where Roman benefits were greatest before it's departure, so that was credible, and there was a great battle up there. Still, a whole lot of it was embellishment for the sake of entertainment. 

The Sarmatian impressment was not doubt an actuality, and at the end emperors (like Aurelian) came from that region of the empire.


----------

