re: #40 Scottish Dragon

Yeah I was playing just a little bit on that. :)

On a more serious note: I had seen the report on the Tall El-Hamman “Bolide Theory” reprinted elsewhere on the webz, and while it is certainly a fascinating hypothesis, “hypothesis” is all it really is at the moment: see HERE for a bit-more-skeptical analysis.

Of course, to me, the main problem is that the excavations at Tall El-Hammam and the analysis of the purported “airburst” destruction has been conducted by a team from some unaccredited low-end fundamentalist bible college out of Albuquerque; and that said institution is basically locked into to the usual fundivangelical “inerrancy” and “literalism” stuff. To me that’s going to shade their judgements a bit (and their absolutist pronouncements about the “Tall El-Hammam Bolide” strike me as being mucho unscientific) - and reading the critique I linked above, I noticed that their main reaction to the criticisms of their theory was an angry/whiny screed about being raked for their “faith”: which doesn’t lead me to give them all that much credibility.
TBF, the bolide theory might very well turn out to be valid: it’s just that this case is (IMO) very much a “needs more work” one.