Thunderbolts. What were they?

[Phillip]

There is a lot of evidence to suggest the ancient term thunderbolts [of the gods] was actually a reference to meteors. Yet, one gets the impression the electric universe people would say otherwise. In fact, some adherents seem to think meteors and impacts are a fiction and everything that looks like an impact imprint is instead evidence of an electrical discharge. The distinct difference between the two camps came across at two SIS meetings. At our last Cambridge conference David Talbot supplied us with a whole host of symbols he said represented plasma and electrical phenomena - even claiming massive electrical discharges between cosmic bodies had occurred in the recent past. On the other hand, at a meeting in Redhill Han Kloosterman provided s similar array of symbols and rock art that he attributed simply to catastrophic events. These would predominantly involve meteors, I am supposing. The mind block at the time came across to me as I was given the task of writing up the HK talk and there was an unwillingness to accept something contrary to the Shish Kebab. Most of what I wrote was never published. Not that I was bothered as the electric universe was dominant at the time and I was not antagonistic towards it.
Talbot's ideas were given birth in the pages of Kronos and I was a subscriber. However, I could never fathom out how humans could have witnessed some of the things being discussed by Talbot and Cardona. You can get a flavour of Talbot's thinking at https://www.maverickscience.com/wp-cont ... rbolts.pdf ... The thinking appears to be that cosmic rocks do not generate plasma waves or cannot induce electrical surges. You might ask - why not?
Nicholas Costa, in his book 'Adam to Apophis' clearly associated the disaster that struck the Assyrian army of Sennacherib with an electrical surge. He didn't think in terms of plasma but he did think in terms of meteor. Many years ago SIS published a letter saying something similar. Costa even had one in the time of Jehoram - a century earlier. The electric universe idea, it turns out, is not a lot different to the position of mainstream - and the models used by Mark Boslough to rubbish the idea of an airburst over Tall el-Hammam, potentially the site of Sodom.
Site destructions in the Levant, at the end of the MBIIB and MBIIC periods are usually associated with the conquest of Joshua in revisionist circles, Hence, they don't wish to have Sodom occurring at about the same time. You won't find a lot of mention of Tall el-Hammam in the travails and endless stream of ideas associated with revisionist chronology. They ignore the implications and the Biblical text where it describes the actual location of Sodom from a position in the Cisjordan. Mainstream are usually rather good at ignoring problematic data and articles. They too did not like the idea that the excavations had brought a Biblical narrative alive - and Sodom was not a myth. On this occasion they were a little more ingenious as their attack was led by Boslough, the go to expert on impacts and airburst events. Unfortunately, his model did not embrace plasma or electrical surges and following a retraction of the original Hammam excavation article, and its demise, by the journal Nature, the team were quickly out for the marks to set the record straight on Boslough's methodology. Unlike the SAFIRE project that fizzled out into a damp squib the Younger Dryas scientists are resistant to the constant stream of mainstream denial. They came up with the following link to completely demolish the reasons why Nature retracted the paper - and it involves plasma waves and electrical surges as part and feature of cosmic rocks exploding in the low atmosphere. See Https://cosmictusk.com/gunther-klectets ... ka-hammer/ ... Klectetschka is a Czech geophysicist and he claims the models used by Boslough and his pals are missing plasma and electrical pulses that inject even more power into the actual airbursts. Hence, Boslough claiming that the powerful proposed energy at Hammam, or Tunguska, was an impossibility and it could not therefore have been a space rock but some other explanation was necessary, has now been proved to be false. Plasma is able to inject not just electricity into the occasion but can increase the blast effect by magnitudes. And Klectetschka went straight to recent research at Tunguska to prove his point. Boslough had relied on old info from Russian scientists years ago and had not kept abreast of recent research where plasma was investigated as part of the process of the airburst event. See also https://cosmictusk.com/tall-el-hammam-j ... -boslough/ ... See also Gladyshova and Popov in 'Paleomagnetic Study of the Tunguska Catastrophe Epicentre' [2016] and Gladyshova 'Fragmentation of the Tunguska Cosmic Body' in Planetary and Space Science [2021].
It would seem that the electrical universe people and the Younger Dryas team responsible for the Hammam interpretation are both right, The insertion of plasma dynamics and electrical surges into the models makes both Hammam and Tunguska a much more powerful explosion than Boslough and pals imagined. This update is now within a new version of the retracted paper - see links below.
https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-docu ... .2025.0006 .. and https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-docu ... .2025.0003 ...
Gunther Klectetschka, 'Misunderstandings about the Tunguska airburst event; clarifying the physical record based on new evidence' [July, 2025].
The retracted paper is at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97778-3 ... and https://cosmictusk.com/tall-hammam-goes-global/ ...