Talk:Tunguska event/Archive 1

message: Reddi, I gave a complete explanation when I reverted the anon's addition of the wikinfo links. You should have done the same when you reverted me back. Yath 03:16, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikinfo link

message: "microscopic glass spheres": I don't know whether to link to tektites or not. Anybody? Wetman 02:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are not tectites. They are small (much less than a millimeter in diameter) magnetite spherules -  the remains of cosmic matter disintegrated in atmosphere, commonly found in Earth soil all over the world. However, relative density of distribution of these spherules is much higher at the place of impact. -- kmike 05:52, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Magnetite being the equivalent of glass in this case, apparently then! --Wetman 03:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tektites?

message: For an incredibly profound and interesting Tunguska Event explanation which makes all the others appear mundane read the entry in the following blog:
http://ablebodiedman.blogspot.com/
Regards
ffoeg
:I'm not sure that's really encyclopedic. Can we get more substantial data please? --Orborde 05:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is still another explanation for the Tunguska Event ! 

message: I think the article should mention that an industry exists to sell agricultural products from the Tunguska zone. The industry claims the Tunguska soil has extra-rich nutrients therefore the produce (food additives ?) offers extraordinary benefits. To my knowledge, the industry hopes to grow by adding distributors who will then solicit for additional new distributors, a sort of Multi-Level-Marketing approach.  
In fact that industry does exist.  The main product is called Tunguska Blast.  Go to www.tblastdrink.com for more information.
:I disagree! This is the article about the event and its aftermath. Not about products related to it. If this product is notable it should have its own page, instead. I will remove the external link to avoid "link spam". Awolf002 14:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Very good article, it truly is fascinating.
Interested parties may want to check out:
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/nature/natural-disasters/tunguska/
My only problem would have to be with this passage:
"Expeditions led by Gennady Plekhanov found no elevated levels of radiation, which might have been expected if the detonation were nuclear in nature."
Doesn't the Tunguska explosion predate the detonation of the first atomic device by some 30 years ??
Anyway, keep up the good work !!
::Yes, the Tunguska explosion predated nukes by decades, but you'll notice there are some individuals who prefer the illogical and nonsensical over the obvious. Albester 14:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first terrestrial "nuke" explosion was a natural event in geologic times. Jclerman 14:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that happened in Africa. No connection to Tunguska. :) --Planetary 00:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiation 

message: Beefart says: Please correct me if I am wrong but all discussion of the impact seems to centre on the proposition that it was caused by a single object. The Shoemaker-Levy 9 impactor was at first one body but by the time it plunged into Jupiter it did so as a string of fragments torn from the original mass. What if the Tunguska body suffered the same fate but on a lesser scale? The eye witness accounts seem to indicate several separate events. SL9 struck Jupiter at 60km/sec. A body approaching Earth at even half this speed would have glowed for only about 4 seconds as it passed through the atmosphere.  Some accounts record that the show went on for 10 minutes. It is not possible for one discrete meteoroid to spend ten minutes in the Earth's atmosphere. Perhaps a string of cometary fragments came in in short succession. Captainbeefart 14:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What if there was more than one meteorite?

message: There may be more info. on Jeff Rense's Homepage about this matter. When you find the info., go to the "red" links on his site. Some data says that a alien ship had exploded in the area, left a lot of radioactivity all over the place. Martial Law 07:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeff Rense Archives

message: Great reference. Don't be surprised that I've deleted the anonymous edit that spammed it. The fact is that I got special powers, like the guy in the DVD:
George Malley (Travolta) is knocked to the ground by a mysterious, blinding light and suddenly develops amazing mental abilities! With his newfound knowledge, George astounds everyone in town. But when his incredible powers cause even his oldest friends to turn away, George comes to realize that his wondrous experience has changed him and the lives of everyone around him forever. 
 
Jclerman 20:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phenomenon DVD

message: I have heard of a hypothesis that thought the Tunguska event was caused by not an impact, but a near miss: a meteor that entered the atmosphere, but had enough velocity to pass through and not impact the planet.  I don't have the time to research it and write it up, but the article deserves the addition.
As a side note: a modification of the Jackson-Ryan hypothesis postulates that there was no exit event because the nanoscopic black hole that caused the event is still in the planet, orbiting through the crust or mantle.  This idea is applied in the book Singularity by Bill Desmedt.--Ryan! 05:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near miss? 

message: According to the book 'America: A Guide to Democracy Inaction", author Jon Stewart states that while many believe that a meteor caused the Tunguska event, it is in fact clear evidence that "God has cursed the shit out of Russia." Certainly not the sort of theory one would expect to see regarding the event, but an amusing one, nonetheless. Wandering Star 03:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jon Stewart

message: The ultimates is a work of fiction.  Therefore I don't think that it is relevant that, "The Ultimates universe, several other key events differ considerably from actual history, so it is conceivable that the nature of the Tunguska event is simply another difference from our universe."  It sounds like some Ultimates fan is trying to explain and justify why there are differences between the actual event and the Ultimates event. --Djfeldman 12:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultimates Universe 

message: Author Robert Doherty has written a series of books called Area 51.
I don't have the specific book title from the series that includes this information, but the theory postulated in his completely fictional work is that Nikola Tesla built his  death ray, particle beam weapon and that the Tunguska explosion was him destroying a hostile alien vessel.
-- Jason (I used to have a user account, but forget the password) 168.215.158.105 23:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Book reference + another Tesla reference 

message: This article is very interesting indeed. I can almost imagine the sky glowing with a cylinder-shaped light crashing into the ground. (M&N)Cenarius 23:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The event 

message: Read this a few times: "Testimony of S. Semenov, as recorded by Leonid Kulik's expedition in 1930. 
At breakfast time I was sitting by the house at Vanavara trading post (65 kilometres or 40 miles north of the explosion), facing North. [...] I suddenly saw that directly to the North, over Onkoul's Tunguska road"
If he was north of the explosion, how could se observe the explosion north of himself? He would logically observe it to the south... 
Bobber0001 20:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the logic? 

message: I have seen this matter on the Documentary Channels, on the 'net itself that stated that a UFO could have exploded over the affected area, and that even radioactive derbis, mutated plants have been found by a science detail. Martial Law 04:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this attribution will fall outside of the reliable sources policy, IMO. The new section has no good attribution and uses very weak language. You should remove it until you found a good source to cite. Awolf002 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UFO Hypothesis

message: The hypothesis of antimatter had been abandoned, because if i got it well, 
it was proved that if the whole energy of the event was due to matter 
antimatter anihilation, there would have been a huge amount of radiation (including neutrons),
that is not compatible with the observed facts.
However, it was recently proved that in principle an extremey small amount 
of anti matter (1 µg) could be enough to form a plasma where nuclear fission would occur. 
see in french
http://cui.unige.ch/isi/sscr/phys/LaRecherche.html
and in english
http://cui.unige.ch/isi/sscr/phys/Perkins-Ort-Tabak.pdf
( but I think one can find a lot of literature on the web on this subject. )
one might doubt that such a tiny quantity can beproduced and stock by 
actual technological capabilities, but this is not the matter here.
What if this phenomenon had happened naturally in tunguska ? 
a tiny antimatter object would have produced a nearly radiationless 
H bomb (not with deuterium) a phenomenon very similar to the one observed in tungunska...
any comment on this ?
sweet dreams to you all... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.206.209.101 (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antimatter initiated h bomb option... 

message: Tonight The History Channel ran a show called "Time Machine" and actually gave a lot of credit to some crazy Russian and his crazy theory.  Here is goes, this is what he believes happened.  A UFO traveling from Mars came to Earth looking for water because their planet is all dried up, you know.  They saw this large lake in Russia so they decided to land next to it for water.  Well, as the UFO tried to land it had a malfunction and blew up.  This made the spaceship's nuclear reactors blow up creating a huge nuclear explosion that caused the Tunguska event.  The History Channel actually listed that as a theory of what occurred.  That is absolutely the most bullshit reason I've ever heard in my life.  I was absolutely mind-boggled that The History Channel would air such nonsense.  I can't be the only one who thinks this.  A large meteorite blew up in mid air, no if ands or buts about it.  That's what happened.  Case solved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.200.103 (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have lost all credit in the History Channel  

message: There is current news coverage of a crater-like feature discovered in a nearby lake, I'll leave you to Google that for now unless I have more time to come back to this 68.54.17.184 15:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Documents a Current Event" tag

message: The last section of this article says: 
 "Location of event site disputed
Another hypothesis asserts that a meteor fell in a different area of Siberia.....
The trees photographed by Kulik were probably felled[citation needed] by the Evenki, the local inhabitants, in order to create pasture for reindeer, to construct their characteristic conical log huts, and to collect firewood.
In addition, other evidence[citation needed] suggests the craters found were a natural formation caused by melting frost, and a large rock originally identified as a meteorite was later recognized to be a common morainic stone. Kulik and his associates, however, strongly asserted[citation needed] that they had found the exact spot at which the event had occurred so as not to damage their reputations as competent scientists and researchers...."
This entire section is totally unsubstantiated in both the scentific literature and the popular press.  Whoever wrote it is simply speculating and/or adding another layer of BS to the question.   
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.96.65.14 (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed OR this section needs to be deleted

message: Read http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html . The theory is that the destruction of millions of trees initiated the global warming effect. Should be added to the article?
There is also an article at http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/tunguska.shtml linking the Tunguska Event with global warming.
:Some have claimed that the Earth was unusually cool for a few years after tunguska. Puddytang 18:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting article linking global warming to Tunguska 

message: The existing modern photo of dusk over a body of water in the history section appears to reference the Lower Tunguska river (it's used in the Lower Tunguksa article). While the event happened near the Stony Tunguska (Podkamennaya) River, is the Lower Tunguska close enough to the Stony Tunguska to warrant this photo's inclusion in this article? Can anyone verify? Chikinsawsage 02:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nice photo but seemingly unrelated. As nobody protested, I'm removing it.--87.162.64.70 16:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Lower Tunguska 

message: From the bizarre Tesla theory: 
"The large amount of energy required to cause such an event could easily be achieved by the process of electrical resonance in which power could be built up over a period of days. Electrical resonance was a process well known at that time. This power build up over a period of time corresponds to the "bright nights" reported over Europe days prior to the explosion."
This is not speculative at all, it is an incorrect understanding of science. Electrical resonance in this context refers to resonance frequencies of electromagnetic antenna. No electricity is stored. I am removing this paragraph, because it is simply and obviously wrong. I'll leave alone the rest of the Tesla theory, as the section is a listing of unsupported speculative hypotheses, and the paragraph about electrical resonance is not unsupported or speculative, it is a misinterpretation of actual science.
Also, I recommend that the speculation section is split off into its own article rather than included along with actual information from scientific research.
::Also incorrect calender.  The false dawn over europe occured just after the explosion.  Puddytang 18:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing incorrect (not speculative) science 

message: I thought it was strange that the UFO theory was not included, so I added some stuff from a stupid book I have.  Then I found the old UFO section and added it back in too (I'm glad the dogs survived!).  So now we have a too-long UFO section.  I couldn't figure out who removed this section or why.  It is probably the most widely held "crazy" theory about the event and definitely should be included here --that's why wiki is better than brittanica! Puddytang 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFO theory added again 

message: I also added back an amusing quote from the end of world theory, but I put it in the lead to the "Crazy theories" section.  I think there is aplace for this quote in the article somewhere.  Wikipedia can be both informative and fun!  Puddytang 19:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned that there is no discussion of the evidence for and against the end of the world hypothesis in this section. This should probably be filled out some.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.201.248 (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of world theory 

message: Recently carried out an essay topic for my 4th year geology course, debating the validity of the Verneshot Hypothesis. Interestingly the articles I worked on mentioned the Tunguska event and proposed a Kimberlite or Micro-Verneshot origin. First time adding to an article so if there are any mistakes or any editing advice I'll be happy to take them on board. Hope you all enjoy another Hypothesis on something that has fascinated me since I was a child. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Climberdave (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kimberlite Emplacement or Micro-Verneshot Event 

message: There seems to be some confusion about the direction the Tunguska object was travelling in. Balls of Lightning may account for this. According to the Newscientist web sight, ball lightning has been produced in the lab and they say it ( i quote) emitted little jets that seemed to jerk them forward or sideways. 
The testimony of T.N. Naumenko includes the discription of an object that flew eraticly. 
Quote.... there went flying erratically into the taiga an even more white-hot (paler than the sun, but almost the same as the sunbeams) somewhat elongated mass in the form of a cloud, with a diameter far bigger than the moon....without any regularly defined edges. 
(I have already highlighted the Newscientist web sight on this talk page under the title of Ball lightning?)
(User: Nosut, 14:15 25 March 2007)
:No original research, please. Michaelbusch 15:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: User:Nima Baghaei has been repeatedly adding back the categories :Category:Mysteries and :Category:UFO crashes to this page, over my objections.  In the interests of ensuring Wikipedia:Consensus, I will explain my reasoning here (I have the support of a few other editors in this regard).  
The easier of the two is :Category:Mysteries: the Tunguska event is not a mystery.  The blast pattern matches that of hypersonic impact, taken as a datapoint on the impact energy-frequency curve it fits very well with known rates from fireballs on the low end and the cratering record on the high end, and we can pull little bits of the impactor out of soil and tree trunks (e.g.  and later work), with compositions that match meteorite material.  Impact is the only reasonable conclusion.
With regards to :Category:UFO crashes: Nima objects on the grounds that the article discusses the speculations of UFO enthusiasts, which are only discussed from a historical and sociological standpoint.  If that were the only purpose of the category, it would be reasonable.  But the other articles in the category aren't at all like that, so the categorization is inappropriate.  If Nima wants to believe that the UFO crash proposition is anything other than a delusion, I will not argue, but that view should not be included here, per WP:FRINGE and the ArbCom Decision on Pseudoscience. Michaelbusch 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above reasoning also applies to including this in the Paranormal Wikiproject. Michaelbusch 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: As this has recently changed in the text, I thought I'd pose the question here.  Assuming the object that struck Tunguska was ~20 meters across, was it an asteroid or a meteoroid?  Or should we use some combined language?  I don't know.  Quoting from meteoroid:
The current official definition of a meteoroid from the International Astronomical Union is "A solid object moving in interplanetary space, of a size considerably smaller than an asteroid and considerably larger than an atom or molecule." The Royal Astronomical Society has proposed a new definition where a meteroid is between 100 µm and 10 m across.
It makes no difference to me, but I thought I'd go ahead and pose the question as someone might care.  Someguy1221 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large Asteroid or small meteoroid? 

message: Im not a scientist or anyone who lives in this region.
Further I do not know if any of this has been discussed elsewhere.
But, Im watching the history channel and i start thinking about all of the theories.
Here is my hypothosis:
A comet being made up of ice and other particles may also contain
hydrogen and or methane. 
If a proper amount of extremely flammable gas or gases are present it is possible to be trapped until the comet reaches a temperature that may start relaesing these gases and finally exploding with enough force to cause the damage that was reported.
Just a thought.
jr austin, tx
:If that were so, it would have exploded in entry through the atmosphere, long before the explosion. P.S. The History channel bit on the TE was pretty good. :-) ~ UBeR 07:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tunguska event 

message: "largest impact"
"no crater was found."
Michael H 34 05:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The blast pattern (and lack of a crater) was similar to the effects of some above-ground nuclear bomb tests.  This is discussed in the article.  Someguy1221 05:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Not impact, air burst.  The thing never hit the ground except in tiny pieces.  And the nuclear testing did not create the hypothesis of a bolide exploding in mid air, it merely provided evidence of what a gigantic mid-air explosion would do to a forest.  Someguy1221 08:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There is now a proposed crater for the Tunguska event.  See Has a Tunguska Crater Been Found? by David Tytell and dated June 22, 2007. The journal article that made the suggestion is A possible impact crater for the 1908 Tunguska Event by Gasperini et al. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3121.2007.00742.x MichaelSH 02:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This could certainly be worked into the article, but only as an alternative theory, given the wealth of sources claiming it to be an airburst, and the novelty of this new research.  Someguy1221 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it turns out this isn't even a new hypothesis.  .  Someguy1221 05:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article could emphasize this mystery: Why does the largest impact leave no crater ? 

message: I put the (fact) tag next to the 10-20 megaton statement, because a number of sources places the blast at 40 megatons. 10 to 20 appears to be common ly used figure, but it still would be nice to have at least some reference to back this number up. Alex Pankratov 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a reference to this effect.  It states that calculations have fallen in the 10-20 megaton range.  It also mentions an estimate of the blast being 670 megatons, but then refutes this, claiming certain evidence shows the blast to have been no more than one twentieth of this, roughly.  I haven't changed the article text, I'm not sure the best way to handle it, although certainly we don't need to explain every single claim that's ever been made about it.  Someguy1221 00:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Someguy1221. The original reason I added a tag was a mentioning of 40 megaton in this post (it's a Russian news site). It was supposed to be a summary of a new paper on the subject by Italian researcher. Before tagging, I poked around the I-net and I came across 4 more unrelated references to 40 MT number. The original of the paper was not available at that moment. I did manage to find a copy just now and there's no traces of 40 MT. They have it at 15-20 MT. I'm not sure what that news site translators were smoking, but it certainly was a potent stuff. Thanks for the response and the edit. Alex Pankratov 01:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 to 20 megatons 

message: I removed: 
An overhead satellite view, from nearly a century later, centered at  (near ground zero for this event) shows an area of reduced forest density with a clearly visible, irregular clearing of somewhat less than one square kilometer in area.
 Since it has no source, and the 1 square kilometer pointed to is probably not related to the 1908 event. (Seriously, 2150 square km of trees felled and 2149 have been regrown? How do we know there were never trees in that small area in the first place?) Anynobody 08:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visible in sat photo... 

message: I think this is the source for the slovak guy, i got it off the "comet" wikipedia article. im not sure tho, needs to be checked out
^ The Tunguska object - A fragment of Comet Encke. Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia. Retrieved on 2007-02-15. (this is in the reference list of the Comet article if you want to check it out)
--just trying to help--  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.112.223 (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank you for that.  Unfortunately, this paper doesn't mention those fabled "military satellites" :-(  So that part will keep its .  Someguy1221 08:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for Slovak Astronomer's Encke Comet Theory