Talk:Tunguska event/Archive 1

Good good!
Another commendation. Great article! jengod 19:59, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Wikinfo link
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)

"The Astronauts"
I agree, great article and fascinating theme... Maybe it should also be noted under "fictional explanations" that Stanislaw Lem used the Tunguska event as the beginning of his novel "The Astronauts"; in his story, the origin of the explosion was a Venusian probe launched to explore Earth - it's a great book, albeit out-dated today.

btw, there is a great article in German presenting dozens of different theories about the Tunguska event, you can find it here: http://www.sax.de/~stalker/pad/200005/

Here's one probably too outlandish for WP. But it has some curious witness accounts. Kwantus 19:07, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Tektites?
"microscopic glass spheres": I don't know whether to link to tektites or not. Anybody? Wetman 02:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * 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)

Fictional reference
See David Brin's "Earth".

¿Star Trek?
¿What Star Trek series / episode was it? I'm curious, and I can't seem to google up any reference to it.


 * I don't remember for sure, but I think I heard it mentioned in TNG series (season 1, 2, or, less likely, 3). I also think they referred to it as "Tungushka", which, of course, is not right.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 14:06, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

I love Star Trek and I cannot remember any mention about Tunguska in any of the series or books. ¿What do I know? I checked Memory-Alpha.Org, StarTrek.Com, and Paramount.Com and found no hits for either "tunguska" or "tungushka". I shall delete the reference from the article.





Hint:





One can use Google.Com for searching in a site with the following syntax:

site:memory-alpha.org tunguska





&#364;alabio 04:06, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)


 * As far as I remember, that was just one obscure reference, it was very easy to overlook. It was not a significant part of a plot, just a reference to something that happened in the past.  If I stumble on that episode again, I'll certainly add this information back into the article.  Meanwhile... oh well.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 12:34, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * It was in the TOS Episode That Which Survives, Season 3. I think the character Sulu does a remark about the explosion in Russia in 1908, whereas Kirk claims that if he wanted a lesson in Russian history he'd brought Chekov along. :) -Challenger_STA

¡Ghostbusters!
I checked out the reference to Ghostbusters and confirmed the reference with an Audio/MP3. 

--

&#364;alabio 03:50, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

There is still another explanation for the Tunguska Event !
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)

A Divine and Sentient Celestial Body
This is original research and should not be part of this article. If there is no reference to a published book/article I will remove that section. Awolf002 22:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It references.


 * 1/ The Bible, many inspired authors - 14 References
 * 2/ Cosmos, Carl Sagan. - 2 References
 * 3/ Sibir, a Siberian Newspaper - 1 Reference
 * 4/ Eye Witness Testimonies gathered by Russian Scientists. - Multiple references
 * 5/ Internet sites by people whose original research is included in Wikipedia and whose references are very similar except for the bible. - multiple references

There is at present no generally accepted theory on the Tunguska Event and therefore all theories should still be considered original research.


 * You are mis-interpreting the category "original research". Having references to support ones pet theory is what any researcher would have. However, WP strives to include "notable" knowledge, in this case explanations of this event. The definition of "notable" IMHO is based on WP being a secondary source, never a primary. And so it is looking for peer reviewed theories or theories that are widely discussed in the media. Therefore, even if the UFO theory is not scientifically peer-reviewed, it surely is widely publicised and therefore notable.
 * In this spirit, please provide published articles or similar "media documents" that show your explanation is widely known and discussed. Awolf002 22:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. I rewrote it to be less mystical and more encyclopedic, but 1) I did a bad job, and 2) I'm not sure whether this theory is widely believed enough to warrant inclusion. --Orborde 05:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 1/ There is no widely believed research.
 * 2/ Do you consider it mystical because it references the bible?

Tesla
Our article on the Wardenclyffe Tower leaves the impression that the tower was never functional, and in fact that most of the site had already been abandoned by 1908. Also, even when complete, would it have had an actual ability to "aim" it at the North Pole? Someone familiar with the details should inject an appropriate amount of skepticism into the "conspiracy theory" account given here. &mdash; B.Bryant 23:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There are one or two highly energetic Tesla zealots active on the Wikipedia, and the cranky bias of the current article is the result of their past efforts. I agree that the article should show more skepticism, so please make the edit if you can (look in the article history for pointers.) -- CYD

wardencliff
Although I would agree this should be mentioned, after all it is a common "theory", the portion currently included in the article is gibberish:

However, the workings behind Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower are not well understood

Sure they are, it's called a "radio tower".

It is unknown if the facility could produce energy and transmit it longitudinally to produce the Tunguska event, an equivalent to a thermonuclear explosion

You see, this is simply technobable. Would anyone mind greatly if I removed this paragraph?

Maury 30 June 2005 12:01 (UTC)

The article states that Tesla allegedly performed his experiment at Wardenclyffe "during Robert Peary's second North Pole expedition...advising him to be on the alert for unusual auroral phenomena encountered as he attempted to reach the North Pole." However, Robert E. Peary's second North Pole expedition was conducted in 1905-1906 [chronicled in Peary's 1907 book Nearest the Pole]. Quoting from the Wikipedia article on Peary [which quotes as its source an article from the New International Encyclopedia], his third and final expedition "set off from New York City...on July 6, 1908." In other words, Peary set sail from New York City six days after the Tunguska event, thus destroying the claimed motive of Tesla's experiment: to attempt communication with Peary as he approached the North Pole.

Nuke 'em!
From the article: "A stony meteoroid of about 10 meters in diameter can produce an explosion of around 20 kilotons, similar to the Little Boy bomb that flattened Hiroshima, and data released by the U.S. Air Force's Defense Support Program has shown that such explosions occur at a rate of more than once a year."

Is this saying that several Hiroshima-sized explosions take place per year in essentially random locations? Are they akin to the nuclear bomb just in released energy or in caused damage? This is not going to help me sleep at night... --Kizor 07:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * These explosions take place in the upper atmosphere. -- CYD
 * There is a theory (unproven, like most) that a vast release of atomic energy could rupture the space-time continium: the Hiroshiman or Nagasaki blast travelled back through time, staying in the same area without attention to the rotation of the earth, causing it to be positioned over Tunguska. It is the same theory used in the man-beast of Cornwall, circa 1700.

Then again, there are lots of theories: One being aliens used this event as part of an elabourate MacGuffin to further world politics.--80.42.159.14 19:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Attempts to apply carbon-14 dating have shown that the soil was enriched in radioactive carbon-14.
??????? Jclerman 03:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment/Question: How about a really, really big fuel-air bomb, where the fuel was a "diamond" from a burned out White Dwarf? Atomize enough white hot carbon in the air and it would go boom. Would also explain the Carbon 14. Gye 10/01/2006 18:01, October 1,

Comment
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)

Comment
Wow, this is really fascinating. I would really like to see more information (or a link) on some of the theories with little to no support. I'm particularily curious about the black hole idea, and what (if any) scientific data would exist around that.

Great article!

Less Fiction More Fact Please
People's imagination seem to go wild. UFOs? Nuclear Bombs? Please... There is really not the slightest hint why the Tunguska event was NOT a meteorite. I like to see that Wikipedia remains a credible source of reference material, and I don't think UFOs or towers or any other conspiratorial claptrap is aiding in that goal. So please, stick with facts, not fiction.Albester 12:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree about the likely origins of this explosion but still think these other things should be mentioned. Why? First, it makes it easier for people to find this article and the evidence for the non-pseudoscientific explanations. Second, these alternative explanations, the credible as well as the incredible, are part of the world that an encyclopedia should document. Third, some of us actually want to read about the pseudoscience, not because we belive in it but because we're interesting in the ways pseudoscience has failed to adequately explain major natural phenomena. I don't think inclusion of these ideas endorese them. Interlingua 01:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "There is really not the slightest hint why the Tunguska event was NOT a meteorite."


 * Hint 1/ No Crater
 * Hint 2/ No Debris
 * Hint 3/ Tunguska Body seen years after it's supposed demise. (See Occam's Razor above.)

This Article has lots of nonsense it in
This nonsense about UFOs, Black Holes, The Wardenclyffe Tower, Electromagnetism and Antimatter ought to be removed from the article. Its worse that speculation because it doesn't even fit the facts of the case and would never be accepted into a peer reviewed scientific publication.


 * I say leave them. They are theories as to what might have happened, and should remain in the article.  CardinalFangZERO 05:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just add Paul Bunyan, God bowling and witches brewing their brew incorrectly while we are at it? At least those aren't falsifiable. --(anon)


 * A Reply: Granted the UFOs seems like creative fantasy, but the Antimatter hypothesis was an meaningful intellectual exercise in the 1960's as scientists speculated about what would happen if antimatter interacted with Earth's atmosphere. This is not so say anyone had any proof; but that was not the sole point of the theorizing.  Furthermore, all these alternative possibilities have become part of history, mythology, and stories linked to the Event.  To remove them would create an incomplete tale of its cultural relevance. --(another anon)


 * Historic explanations are interesting and relevant. This article isn't just about the explosion. It's also about human reactions to it. Sometimes Wikipedia goes too far in reporting such things, but this article is doing a good job in that regard. --Yath 16:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Event predicted?
An intriguing point about the Tunguska event is that just the previous year (1907) a scientist predicted that a comet was about to hit the earth, causing a cataclysm. (The only reason I know this is from looking at an old book version of the humorous magazine "Punch", which used the prediction in a cartoon about the Suffragettes.) It might be worthwhile for someone to look this prediction up and see if it came anywhere near matching Tunguska.

Jon_Rob

UFO
"The hypotheses listed below are all rejected by modern science and by skeptics who generally see them as being gross violations of Occam's Razor." But doesn't the UFO have signifigantly more proof than all of the other theories? Occam's Razor applies only if there is equal proof. I know of no meteor that would make two sharp turns in opposite directions. And explain why there are no debris.

UFO has much more evidence than the others. Sprited Spheniscidae 03:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC) -- There is a good deal of theoretical and physical evidence that meteors do indeed airburst. It is somewhere between very difficult and impossible to separate Earthly rocks (meteorwrongs) from extraterristrial meteorites after they've been on the ground for a while. One of the main reasons that meteorite hunters go to the polar regions is that they lack terrestrial rocks, so any fragments found on the ice sheets, are likely to be extraterrestrial in origin. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with "sharp turns."

Although I've been shot down before, I will say this again. I know of no serious scientists who doubt that Tunguska was a meteor. It is widely cited in the astronomical community and has been a subject of much research. The word theorize has been so abused by conspiracy "theorists" in this situation that it is no longer funny. Even a speculative hypothesis must fit the facts of the situation and obey the laws of physics, it cannot already have been falsified.

The Tunguska body did not obey the laws of ballistic physics. It did however, demonstrate behavior normally associated with the movements of a sentient being. Many serious scientists doubt that Tunguska was a meteor for this very good reason. (20:24, October 16, 2006) 65.95.52.241


 * Do you have any sources for such statements? Jclerman 03:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a source. go to the "II. ON THE DIRECTION OF THE TCB FLIGHT" paragraph.


 * Here is another source

or


 * Try this Google Search to find a ton of stuff regarding the unresolved paradoxes of the Tunguska Trajectory.

-- Nickel tends to be one of the big red flags with meteorites, even stony ones. The fact that there are microscopic glass spheres with nickel content that have been found at the site moves a stony meteorite to the front of the line. As to why there aren't meteorite rock fragments at the site can be answered with a bit of a thought experiment. If you tried to punch your fist into a barrel full of beans, you end up with a rather sore fist that didn't get very far into the beans. If you slowly push your fist into the beans, you'll get your fist rather far into the barrel. A meteorite going fast enough would hit the lower atmosphere, and the atmosphere would yield to the meteorite much like a car windshield would yield to a fly. The meteorite would come to a sudden stop, and conservation of energy dictates that it's energy of motion would turn into heat, enough heat to vaporize itself, and you would get a rain of microscopic glass spheres as the silica and nickle cooled and condensed out of the cloud of gass that was the meteorite. That is why there isn't debris, other than the glass spheres, and why a meteorite is the best explaination. And where exactly is the proof about the "two sharp turns in opposite directions"? I haven't seen it. If it exists, let us know about it to be publicly scrutinized.Phil 22:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wonder Woman
An issue of Wonder Woman in the late 1980's revealed that a ship crash involving alien "Gremlins" was the cause. The Lord of Time did not know this when he dectected a similar event in the Grand Canyon.

See the Tunguska at Marvel.

Crying out
"We started crying for out father, mother, brother, but no one answered." Shouldn't that read: crying for OUR father? If not it should be SICed.

Radiation
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)
 * The first terrestrial "nuke" explosion was a natural event in geologic times. Jclerman 14:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But that happened in Africa. No connection to Tunguska. :) --Planetary 00:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Plekanov could still have measured local radiation levels, even without knowledge of nuclear weapons. What the quote says is that evidence collected at the time suggests [with our more advanced scientific hindsight] there was no nuclear event, not that those people collected that evidence specifically to determine if such an event had happened. [User: Asteroceras, cookies not working at the moment]

Incident Date vs. Siberian Life Article Date
Since the incident occurred on June 30, 1908, how is it that the Siberian Life newspaper article is dated June 27, 1908?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar Russia did not switch calenders til 1918, so they were  13 days behind.

What if there was more than one meteorite?
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)

Jeff Rense Archives
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) :)

Phenomenon DVD
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)

Near miss?
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)

Jon Stewart
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)

Ultimates Universe
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)

Another Book reference + another Tesla reference
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)

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

Where is the logic?
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)

UFO Hypothesis
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)
 * 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)

Antimatter initiated h bomb option...
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).

I have lost all credit in the History Channel
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).

"Documents a Current Event" tag
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)

Citation needed OR this section needs to be deleted
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).

Occam's Razor?
Great article with lots of really good info!

Not one of the hypotheses is truly convincing (encylopedic) and so would like to see as many alternative ones as possible.

The following statement seems to simplify the predicament that many scientists are facing who claim the Tunguska object was destroyed and yet can find no evidence of debris, let alone a crater.

If you cannot find evidence of debris then it probably was not destroyed.

Supposedly serious scientists are conjuring up some interesting pet theories to make up for the lack of evidence while abandoning the far simpler solution.

It was not destroyed.

Here is the statement:

''The proponents of the UFO hypothesis have never been able to provide any significant evidence for their claims except for this video taken by a farmer in the British Columbia mountains of Canada which, indicates the UFO was not destroyed but continues to rove about in the vicinity of the earth. The image in the video exactly matches actual eye-witness testimony describing the Tunguska cosmic body published by the Russian newspaper Sibiron July 2, 1908. This resolves the dilemma faced by the proponents of other hypothesis who claim the Tunguska cosmic body was destroyed and yet can find no debris as evidence.''

It seems simple.

How can you have a murder if you cannot find a dead body?

and

If evidence exists which shows the supposed victim is still alive and well then the case is further simplified.

Wouldn't it be interesting if since 1908 and throughout the 20th century there was an increase in reports of a shiny bright cylinder roving about in the vicinity of the earth.

A simple google search should prove it.

Try this simple search: Simple Google Image Cylinder ufo search

Feel this now falls comfortably within the bounds of Occam's Razor and so should be responsibly edited by a qualified and unbiased Wikipedia Editor.


 * great theory--it exploded, but was not destroyed :) I added a section on the UFO hypothesis.  Not the most reliable source in the world, but you wouldn't expect that with a UFO hypothesis.  In my opinion --one of the earliest visits by Zeta Reticulans. Start twighlight zone theme: dee dee dee dee, dee dee dee dee. . .  Puddytang 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Curps, why did you remove the section about the Wardynclyffe Tower? I agree that it's silly nonsense, but no more so than the bits about UFOs or black holes. --Yath 22:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, Tesla is a person, not a fictitious UFO or an undetected small black hole. Silly nonsense, that's what it is, yes.


 * There was no comment for several days, so I put it back. --Yath 07:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Nonsense? It's well known Tesla experimented with massive amounts of electricity sent into the Earth.  Whether or not this could cause something along the magnitude of Tunguska is anyone's guess, but it's hardly "silly nonsense," especially when the other theories involve physical/cosmological impossibilities and UFOs. 153.104.16.114 20:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Tesla claimed that his method could cause great destruction, but this was later at CO. Springs and he needed three widely spaced towers to focus the discharge someplace other than the original tower--yes clearly utter nonsense :) Puddytang 18:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article linking global warming to Tunguska
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)

Photo of Lower Tunguska
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)
 * 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)

Removing incorrect (not speculative) science
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)

UFO theory added again
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) Found it. The deletion was the result of vandalism by : Cman770. Puddytang 18:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

End of world theory
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)


 * 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)

Ball lightning?
Newscientist web sight claims that ball lightning has been generated in the lab and that it expelled beams of charged particles called jets (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19325863.500?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19325863.500). K. A. Kokorin, Kezhma stated he saw .......a flying red sphere, and to its sides and behind it there were visible rainbow streamers. T. N. Naumenko, Kezhma said on a cloudless day. ........ there fell on me the beams of a bright sun, and I had to raise my eyes a little upwards in the direction of the crash of thunder I’d heard, in precisely that direction from which the sunbeams were shining on me..... While another witness might account for this... Stepan Ivanovich Chuchana, Shanyagir Clan, Strelka-Chunya Trading Post The morning was sunny, there were no thunderclouds; our sun shone brightly, as always, and here there appeared a second sun!

"Location of event site disputed" paragraph probably a hoax
Besides the fact that claims in that paragraphs are all unreferenced, in a forum of a popular Italian website, an anonymous poster claims to have started this hoax. The IP address of the poster (87.5.237.166) is in fact from Italy. --Eltener 11:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the proof of this event ?
 * This is the paragraph, look at it !
 * Is a hoax this paragraph or the Tunguska site by Kulik ?


 * Location of event site disputed


 * Another hypothesis asserts that a meteor fell in a different area of Siberia.


 * Russian mineralogist Leonid Kulik identified the place of impact in a forest near the Podkamennaja River (coordinates 60° 53' 40" N latitude and 101° 53' 40" E longitude.) Between 1921 and 1938 Kulik organized 5 expeditions to the area, but neither a crater nor other evidence of the impact was found.


 * The area on satellite map
 * Click on 60.91667°N, 101.95°W and go to Google maps, satellite. Then make your magnification 20mi/in. You can see that about 40 miles southeast is a perfect circle, about 70 miles in diameter (representing the comet ejecta?). This is still not 60.88333°N, 101.88333°W, it's about 60.23333°N, 103.16667°W (click). Is this some other artifact? It's the right size, and in the same vicinity as the claimed center. -- Gekritzl 19:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The photos of the blasted forest and felled trees, made by Kulik in 1927 and 1928, are not convincing: they appear to be in a perfect state of preservation 20 years after the event, while the only trees still alive are young saplings that can hardly be more than a few years old. 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 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 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.3.186.202 (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Kimberlite Emplacement or Micro-Verneshot Event
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).

Apparently it's been removed now? Any particular reason? The subsection was referenced correctly to published scientific articles ClimberDave

For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michaelbusch#Micro-kimberlite_.26_Verneshot_event_for_Tunguska

Discussion(?)ClimberDave 09:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusion
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)

Actual Evidence of Impact
It seems like the most likely mode of formation for the Tunguska event was an airburst bolide, however is there actually any direct evidence other than the circular arrangement of fallen trees? The current understanding as far as I can make out from the article is that no evidence of an impactor has ever been found, i.e. no tektites, chondrite material etc. A positive Ir anomaly would also be inconclusive due to the presence of the Siberian traps.

Given the recent debates within geological literature concerning alternative interpretations for "impact craters" such as Silverpit crater and Upheaval Dome I suggest that any credible alternative mechanisms be considered for addition to the article, such as volcanic gas release from the underlying craton. The coincidence between the site of the event and the traps is evidence (all be it circumstanstial) in favour of a volcanogenic origin, produce by ignition of released volcanic gas which could arguebly produce the same or similar blast pattern observed from the event and not require the presence of bolide debris. Interesingly the 1999 paper by L. Hyranina (The bouquet of the meteorite craters in the epicentre of Tunguska impact 1908 year)suggested the presence of a Permo-Triassic crater within the flood basalt province below the Tunguska event, termed the Great Tunguska Crater, while the coincidence between this site been struck at the 1908 event by a second impactor is just that a coincidence it would statistically unlikely given the randomness of impact events.

I'm not implying that the impact hypothesis is incorrect or should be removed but it is merely unproven and unsupported at present, and alternative hypothesis should be given equal merit (if of course they are reference to peer reviewed articles). Currently the volcanic gas emission theory has been removed (Re:Kimberlite intrusion) despite references to published acticles (which from my understanding doesn't classify it under POV or OR, stated reasons for removal). I'm just trying to open the floor to discussion on the topic as I don't wish to upset people by reversing the editing on the article prior to hearing numerous other opinions. ClimberDave 14:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Meteoric material has been found imbedded in trees in the area, on sides facing towards the hypocentre.
 * An iridium anomaly would be relevent, as the Siberian Trappes are not specifically associated with enhanced iridium, and even if they were, the concentration in the area of impact would be measurably higher if the impactor was iridium rich.
 * Hypothesising "volcanic gas" release requires some "evidence" rather than the circumstance that hundreds of millions of years earlier a large volcanic event occurred there, and also would have to counteract the multiple eyewitness reports of a bolide.
 * Calling the impact hypothesis "unproven" is the same as saying that the crash of United 93 on 9/11 is unproven, despite physical evidence and eyewitnesses.Asteroceras 13:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Until recently the conderitic material in the trees was unmentioned within the article or this talk page, it was merely referred to as definitive evidence by some posters and not referenced and is in fact still absent from the article.
 * the Siberian traps do show an iridium enrichment and it is a common feature of other terrestrial activity such as mantle plume related eruption (Re: Iridium content of Reunion island eruptions) and hence casts doubt on the bolide origin for the impact and hence iridium concentrations in the soil could have an alternative origin.
 * it does require some evidence hence the referenced article by Klundt who uses the same eye wittness reports cited to support an impact to support the volcanic gas release, and is further supported by reports of a perculiar hue to the sky in the hours and days prior to the actual event. I do find the circumstantial evidence that the bolide impact site coincided with the Tunguska depression interesting, shame there are no statistics dealing with the likelyhood of two theoretically climate changing events occuring at the same locality but totally unrelated in mode.
 * it is currently unproven as the article stands, as the information regarding chonderitic material is absent, prior to this even been mentioned there was absolutely no evidence which supported a bolide impact over a gas release and explosion ClimberDave 23:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Information regarding the imbedded chonderitic material has still not been added to the article by the respective parties that have cited it on the talk page. Whats the point in discussing it if it isn't going to be added? ClimberDave 20:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Though it's been a while, maybe you're still watching here, this paper (a very nice source, I have found) explicitly describes the recovery of meteoric particles from the blast site. According to it, the chemical structure of some of the particles makes certain their astronomically recent cosmic origin, but is moot on precisely what type of cosmic body it came from.  Further, he actually mentions that the best samples were recovered from the soil itself, and that the recovery of meteoric material from wood proved too difficult for conclusive results.  Yet further he has produced a (incomplete) mapping of meteoric dust concentration over the area that agrees with theoretical distribution of meteoric particles from an airbust given the prevailing winds reported on that day.  Someguy1221 06:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, I should make clear I'm all in favor of having the bolide impact stuff in there, its just that I placed a section in "Alternative Hypothesis" which was referenced to scientific articles (most of which are still in the reference list) and it was removed by an impact supporter with the reply when tracked down stating "I removed it because its bollocks". Yet there were no supporting articles for the impact hypothesis present in the text. I'm just trying to have papers like the one you have provided added as references in the text. ClimberDave 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC) ========================= I just want to add that till now there is no any Tunguska spacebody substance recovered. Such early claims as in http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/tungmet.html later were found to be over-optimistic. Check here, for example: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Geokh......627N And traps are enriched in iridium.

Sincerely, Andrei Ol'khovatov www.geocities.com/olkhov

=========

so as it stands there's equal evidence for the other referenced causes been cited in the article ClimberDave (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh? Although I can only read the abstract of that paper, it sounds like they're only arguing that the impacting body was a snowball instead of a rock. And challenging the meteorite hypothesis in no way acts as support of the "alternative theories." John says A, Bob says B. When Steven says John is wrong, he's not necessarily saying Bob is right...I think that made sense, yeah. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Categorization
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 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)
 * The above reasoning also applies to including this in the Paranormal Wikiproject. Michaelbusch 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Should have been discussed a week ago, instead of reverting by both of you every other day. The link to the article you provide above is handy, but I can't find it within the article or on the reading list hence my query above about actually evidence. Nor does the article make mention of the evidence presented there. So until its added in the article to me still reads like a mystery. Given that it has apparently taken almost 80 years to present this definative proof and the event has been consider unsolved for this length of time, it seems to me that it is registered in popular thought as a mystry (re:Further reading section titles). It may be solved now but its a mystery solved, and has been classed for along time along with tales such as the Marcy Celeste, etc. Justifying its classification as a mystery.

If UFO crash is to be incorperated into the article from any stand point then it seems kinda justified as a cat. However I'd never read about it till coming here and quite frankly the reference seems more like a joke than anything serious, i'll believe the Verneshot hypothesis over that. I agree that the other articles in UFO are different however a quick look at cat:impact events gave me a very similar impression, but given that the Tunguska case is almost unique, it is less of a problem.

Im in favour of leaving Mystery as a cat but not UFO crash ClimberDave 07:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Large Asteroid or small meteoroid?
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)

Im more in to my geology, so when were never really sure the term Bolide is used. ClimberDave 09:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

tunguska event
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)

Article could emphasize this mystery: Why does the largest impact leave no crater ?
"largest impact"

"no crater was found."

Michael H 34 05:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * 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)

If the official explanation that the Tunguska event was caused by the impact of a bolide, then the mystery of no crater is insufficiently emphasized.

Who was doing nuclear tests at the time of this event?

Michael H 34 00:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * 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)

I agree that this is the consensus explanation. However, this is not clear in the article. The article should be clear that the conclusion about this event is that no impact occurred because presumably the bolide disintegrated, presumably just prior to what would have been an impact.

Michael H 34 16:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * So it turns out this isn't even a new hypothesis. .  Someguy1221 05:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

10 to 20 megatons
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Selected eyewitness reports
I have reverted the removal of entire "Selected eyewitness reports" section by Edward Morgan Blake. The content is non-trivial and relevant. The section is already tagged as containing unsourced material, so purging the content is simply an overkill. The better way of resolving the situation is to contact the author of this section and ask to provide the sources. Alex Pankratov 19:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, they are sourced, merely the sources are non-specific. Someguy1221 00:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The very same section was again removed without any notice, discussion or even specifying the reason. I reverted the removal again and left a message on editor's Talk page asking to clarify the situation here. Alex Pankratov 18:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. The article has been tagged as unreferenced for two months. This was more than sufficient notice to allow the editor who added the material, or indeed anyone familiar with the subjects and the sources to cite the quotes and justify their inclusion. I agree that the content is non-trivial and relevant, but like everything here it needs to be verifiable. For all I (or anyone) knows, it could be fabricated out of whole cloth - I am not saying that it has been, I'm just saying that, as written, there is no proof that it wasn't. Again, two months is more than enough... at some point unverified material needs to be removed, otherwise we'd have masses of articles with possibly false information and dozens of tags. I am simply following longstanding policy in regards to article content, policy important enough to be mentioned just be just below the edit box ("Encyclopedic content must be verifiable"). Whoever added it got it from somewhere, and once they say from where, then it can be added. --Edward Morgan Blake 02:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * While I agree that more easily confirmable sourcing is required, please note that the eyewitness reports are actually sourced. Above each report is the source of the report.  The problem is that said sources are not perfectly specific as to where they might be located, with the additional issue that the sources were published in print, and done so 77 to 99 years ago.  But there is certainly enough information provided about the source to allow verification to anyone with access to 100 year old Russian newspapers.  Please also note that there is no requirement for sources to be easily verifiable, as such sources are often non-existent for events that took place long before the age of the internet.  I'll head down to the library when I can next week, and see if I can't dig up any more recent publications of the reports.  Someguy1221 02:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll too see what I can find. I am fluent in Russian, so I might be able to dig something up in Russian sector of Internet. Alex Pankratov 02:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have done the safe thing and re-removed them for now. It will be a simple matter to re-insert the quotes as sources are located.  --Edward Morgan Blake 02:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am reverting the removal. The material is relevant, chances that it is fabricated or completely unsupported are very low. Alex Pankratov 03:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st quote: http://www.znanie-sila.ru/online/issue_2216.html - Znanie-Sila is a magazine, which is an equivalent of Scientific American. The Russian version of the first quote (by S.Semenov) is located next to the first photograph. The quote is given in a context of the book "Tunguska Meteorite, Cosmic phenomenon of the summer of 1908" by Nikolaj Vasiliev (the guy on the photo). ISBN 5-93165-106-3 ~54.00.00/06053. The article also says that the same book contains over 700 eyewitness accounts, so there's a good chance other quotes are the book as well.
 * 2nd quote: it's from the book called "Eyewitness accounts of Tunguska (Crash)", published in 1981, no ISBN number. Authors - N.V.Vasiliev, A.F.Kovalevsky, S.A.Razin, L.E.Epiktetova. The quote is from Section 5 of the book, section title is "Accounts collected by I.M.Suslov in 1926". Full copy of the book is available here - http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0, the section in question is here - http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/6.
 * 3rd quote: same book, section 1 titled "newspaper reports" or "newspaper clippings", item #2. Section is here - http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/2
 * 4th quote: same book, same section, item #3
 * 5th quote: same book, same section, item #5
 * Alternative source for 1st quote is the same book, section 6, item #4. Section source is here - http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/7
 * Please can someone fold this into the article ? I am not *that* familiar with syntax, and I am also short on time at the moment. Alex Pankratov 04:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Edward Morgan Blake, please stop removing the content. This hardly serves any purpose whatsoever. Alex Pankratov 03:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I see I don't need to visit the library next week (thank God, I hate libraries). I'll add the refs.  Someguy1221 04:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you know the publisher of the book? I am three generations removed from my Russian ancestors, and fully from all knowledge of the language.  Someguy1221 04:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I can gather it is not a published book, but rather a work that is filed with (State) Institute of Scientific and Technological Information (ВИНИТИ in Russian). I am not sure what the English name for this is, but it is very common practice with academic publications. In Russian it's called "deponent", i.e. the work is filed with an academic archive and a copy of it is available to anyone upon request. The "deponent" number for the above book is Б350-81 (first letter is a cyrillic B-ee). Thanks for the edit by the way. Alex Pankratov 18:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And thank you for actually finding it. :-D  Someguy1221 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that's a start... See, that wasn't so hard, was it? It took me following policy and removing unsourced info to get people to source it even though it had been tagged as such for two full months. Go figure. --Edward Morgan Blake 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You could have just asked politely ;-) Someguy1221 18:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What policy? The quotes were already sourced to various, verifiable newspapers and individuals in the first place. If you're quoting Shakespeare, you don't attribute a stand-alone line to a scholar's usage of that quote in a literature journal &mdash; you source it to Shakespeare's original work. Do we need to source every source now? No, because that's absurd. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 02:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Visible in sat photo...
I removed:  An overhead satellite view, from nearly a century later, centered at 60.91667°N, 101.95°W (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)

Source for Slovak Astronomer's Encke Comet Theory
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)


 * 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)

New research from Sandia
There's some new research from Sandia National Labs regarding this event. Probably worth someone reviewing and including in the article. I don't see any evidence of this having been done yet. http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/asteroid.html is the press release, but it gives the reference to the scholarly paper. --128.101.35.100 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is that we already have sources for many pre-existing estimates of the size of the impactor. So then, once they actually publish their work, the question will be "has anyone else taken note of their theory?" Until we can answer "yes" to that question, it isn't really deserving of anything more than another value in the list of estimated sizes, if anything. However, I suspect the work may contain a useful review of earlier estimates, and perhaps a section on discrepancies of such can be hashed out.  Someguy1221 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The press release from Sandia indicates that the work has been accepted for publication in a refereed journal (cited in the reference I put in), and it is also in a book of collected articles that is in press. I think acceptance in a refereed journal ought to be sufficient grounds for inclusion in an article, unless there is a policy against that (I confess I am a newbie editor).  Otherwise we have to decide how much scholarly note, and by whom, is sufficient.  Of course there are degrees of refereeing and "some journals are more equal than others", to paraphrase Animal Farm.


 * BTW, I learned of this yesterday (Pacific time) from David Morrison's occasional e-mail newsletter on asteroidal impact hazards, put out from NASA Ames Lab, where he is a senior scientist and a person well-known in the field. (The book is referenced in Morrison's newsletter, but I do not see it in the Sandia press release.) Based on all this I am going to re-instate my earlier edit on the Sandia result, hoping this is acceptable to all.  Wwheaton (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to hash it down almost completely though, it currently gives undue weight to the Sandia estimate. Without secondary sources on their estimate, we can't in good conscience give the impression that their estimate is more reliable than the others. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To fully explain my reasoning here...My objection to including papers that haven't been published yet is merely that we don't actually know what's going to be in the paper, and press releases are generally poor sources of scientific information. That said, the underlying problem is one of how the information is presented, presuming it originates from a reliable source. We have several reliable sources giving different estimates on the size of the rock, and magnitude of the explosion. Since a study is not a reliable source for its own results, if all we have are primary sources for different estimates, neutral point of view prohibits us from making any one estimate appear more reliable than the others (and spending five times as text on one estimate than any other qualifies as such under the third paragraph of WP:UNDUE). If we have secondary sources discussing these estimates (like a review article in a reliable journal), however, then what you've produced is a reliable and independent source on the esitmate itself. This secondary source can be used to lend weight to a particular estimate. Alternatively, we could go back to the other sources provided for estimates, and create a new section that describes all estimates in detail (what they are, how they came about), being careful to not make one sound "better" than the others (unless we have a secondary source that says so).  You've actually now tempted me to go and do that, but I would have to wait a few weeks to regain access to all of my journal subscriptions. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I think that's reasonable. In cumulative fields like the sciences I think there is maybe some ground for favoring a more recent (but refereed) result over older work, but this is not journalism, and I confess I was slightly uneasy about that aspect of my first edit on the subject. Wwheaton (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)