Talk:Lake Cheko

message: Gasperini's 2009 paper theorizing the possible origin of L. Cheko in the T.E. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2009.00906.x/pdf), coming from a respected peer-reviewed journal, is disputed by a Russian News organ, in 2017, Sputnik International, which draws its conclusion from a 2008 reply to Gasperini's team's 2007 probe into the matter, yet before the Gasperini team's main paper of 2009. Additionally, the language of the refutation the Russian publication makes, aside from being reversed in its date, is far from the type of writing that characterizes scientific work.  I do not assert this to lionize Gasperini or his work, but merely feel it necessary to point out that this Wikipedia entry, as well as the one on the Tunguska Event itself (in the last paragraph of its "Lake Cheko" section), try to dismiss the findings of Gasperini's science on the word of a mere popular publication, leaving the reader of the Lake Cheko info to believe that Gasperini has been "disproved" by "Russian Scientists," when no such refutation has been made. (Speculation:  this may or may not be a problem coming from political/cultural bias, although it may also just be the work of a lazy or judgmental writer.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtelkin (talk • contribs) 06:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputation of Cheko connection to Tunguska Event [T.E.]

message: I keep trying to make the article state the actual measurement of 7.0 km, but there are other ideas floating around out there. Variations I've seen (paraphrased), and my responses, are as follows:
* "Google Earth measurement is 10 km, and the 7 must refer to miles." I have used Google Earth on three separate occasions, and each time measured from the center of the lake to the center of the treeless area and came up with 7,045 meters. I don't know how anyone can use the same software and come up with a different measurement. Any ideas?
* "The [Scientific American article] says about 8 km. Why not go with that?" 7.0 km is the actual measurement. 7 is "about" 8, so the Scientific American article isn't wrong, it's just less accurate.
* "An article in 1966 (Krinov) gives coordinates, which provide a distance of 7 km." This article agrees with the actual measurement using a known, verifiable tool (Google Earth). This article is not cited anywhere, but it's irrelevant.
* "An article in 2003 (Kundt) gives coordinates, which provide a distance of 9 km." This article is not cited anywhere, so the assertion is unverifiable.
--Cbdorsett (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Distance to Tunguska epicenter

message: After inspecting both photos they don't appear to be of the same lake.  The top link geotimes.org site with photo seems to be more accurate as it matches descriptions and other photos I've seen.  The bottom link nice photo, livescience.com looks nothing like the shape of the lake or the surrounding steep terrain descending into the lake that you see in the first link, even though the second link does purport to be a photo of Lake Cheko.  Interesting, though, is that they are both credited to the University of Bologna.  159.49.254.2 (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The geotimes.org image isn't actually a photograph at all.  According to the University of Bologna page http://www-th.bo.infn.it/tunguska/terranova.html, it's a "3-D reconstruction (viewpoint from S) of the morphology of the Lake Cheko based on real topographic /bathymetric data.  The water level has been placed 40 m below the actual level to enhance underwater morphological features."  I'm going to change the link text at the bottom to reflect this.  ChristopherGregory (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the two photo links at the bottom of the article