To: blam
"Our impressions support the idea that it was destroyed not by an earthquake but by a tsunami."
The two tend to go hand in hand, so I don't know how they're making the distinction, unless the skeleton is only buried in sand, and even then, earthquake cannot be completely ruled out.
To: RegulatorCountry
"Our impressions support the idea that it was destroyed not by an earthquake but by a tsunami."
The distinction would be that a quake would be a local effect, distorting the earth, shaking and toppling the lighthouse, whereas a tsunami would knock it over with a wall of water which originated elsewhere, possibly from far enough away that the lighthouse never felt the quake.
6 posted on
12/29/2005 12:33:09 PM PST by
Fatuncle
(Were I not ignorant, I would not be here to learn things from you.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson