Talk:Tunguska event/Archive 2

Eyewitness reports
"I was just sitting there carving nesting dolls and drinking Vodka when i saw this flash in the sky and it was like BOOM. Then I died." ... what on earth is this doing in the article? Is ghost writing permitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.153.189 (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory crap
Why is there all this half-baked conspiracy theory crap in the article? You state in the article that it is not accepted, and the evidence does not support it. So why is it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.50.251 (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What evidence? You mean hearsay err I mean 'History'? (86.32.198.95 (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC))

Any scientific article has space for un-proven theories, as long as it is emphasised that those particular theories are un-proven. Including such content is not such a bad thing, because sometimes one or two of these theories might be onto something good ! No smoke without fire type of thing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.145.131 (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, wikipedia articles have rules about not giving WP:UNDUE weight and the use of reliable sources. This is unpublished material that has not been exposed to proper scrutiny, that is clearly WP:FRINGE. This is from a blog run by NASA climate scientists - it's quite clear that the global warming thesis of Shaidurov is fringe. This abstract of a paper from an International Conference on Tunguska mentions, and dismisses Shaidurov's theories with some very basic facts. A fringe theory that has attracted very little attention (this conference was the only citation to be found on google scholar of Shaidurov's presentation paper) should not go in. In particular, the issue of global warming has caused some problems on wikipedia with fringe theorists trying to insert material in various places. It's better for this article that we don't import those problems here, as the theory appears to have no merit, and no one ever took it seriously.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia editors so far seem to disagree with you which is why that content is still included in the article - eg. the end of the world, etc - not that I agree with with that particular one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.145.131 (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming
Nowhere in this article was there anything about this event possibly causing global warming, or part thereof, so I added what I found from my research. I added it in the format as close to wikipedia's recommendations as possible with the correct reference which included an external link. I even changed the original wording slightly from my source to avoid possible copyright infringement although I dont think I need to under fair use and the small amount I used. I do not have an account and was not logged in, which is ok and is not a requirement. My content was immediately removed. It went something like the following, however the following will be a direct quote from the external source with some additional intro information : "A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface." - http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

Wikipedia editors definitely SEEM to be biased toward any other cause of global warming that excludes human produced CO2. Could it be because of a world wide socio-political agenda involving enriching the 3rd world with things line "carbon credits" to the detriment of the West - much like illegal immigration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.145.131 (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise why has the 'end of the world' section not been removed ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.145.131 (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Date confusion
From the article: "Also this event happened on June 30, 1908 and Peary didn't leave New York for the North Pole until July 6, 1908."

Above: "In other words, Peary set sail from New York City six days after the Tunguska event,"

The event happened June 30, 1908 in the Julian calender; July 12, 1908 in the Gregorian calendar. Assuming Pearys departure is given in the Gregorian calendar, he thus left New York prior to the explosion.

--85.166.26.133 14:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for June 30 being the Julian date of this event? I've seen a few sources (|one eyewittness translation, plus some |nth-hand heresay) saying that June 30 is the Gregorian conversion (June 17 locally).  If that's the case, we should remove the Gregorian/Julian warning on the page, and perhaps make it explicit to avoid future confusion.  Infotrope 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did some research on this and found that the nominal date of June 30 is in fact Gregorian, not Julian. Infotrope (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a meteorite...of sorts
Basically in 1908 someone got hold of the Black Materia and used it to summon Meteor, possibly with some purpose, possibly without really knowing what they were doing. Fortunately for us, someone else had the White Materia and was able to call Holy. Holy eliminated Meteor in what is now known as the Tunguska Event. M0ffx 20:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 69.207.164.24


 * Now now. Some explanations are just much less likely than others.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepSkyFrontier (talk • contribs) 01:56, 15 May 2008 (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)


 * Do you have a reference to that increase of carbon-14 ? Jclerman 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference to increased Carbon-14 can be found in KUNDT, W. Current Science. 81. 399-407 (2001), its taken as evidence by Kundt as being the result of a massive volcanic gass emission at depth possibly analagous to the intrusion of Kimberlite into the Craton. ClimberDave 16:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He doesn't mention it in . Could you post or email me a copy of the article or of the relevant paragraph? I can't understand how volcanic gas would introduce radiocarbon. Jclerman 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I've just re-read the article it doesn't mention it directly however does talk about enrichment of the soil but instead results from Tree resin analysis. I've forward a copy of the article to your email address with a copy of the Verneshot hypothesis which talks about the event also, which probably provides a more straight forward model of volcanic gas extrusion, particularly in the micro-vernshot model. It seems to me that the hypothesis of kimberlite intrusion is worthy of note on the article page however it has since been removed in favour of apparent direct evidence of bolide impact. However i'm studying impact geology and Tunguska doesn't fit the model, and i'm unsure what the direct evidence is. ClimberDave 13:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I'll be looking forward to your email (it hasn't arrived yet). I checked the hypothesis of Cowan et al. (antimatter). I can't believe it's already 40 yrs ago! The article has references to Cowan's and to my analysis. Jclerman 19:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try forarding the email again ClimberDave 08:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't radiocarbon. Jclerman (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

St Petersburg
From the Article: According to the Guinness Book of World Records (1966 edition), if the collision had occurred 4 hours 47 minutes later, it would have wiped out St. Petersburg.

Why? I don't understand why time make any difference - please offer some small explanation in the article.
 * This is a matter of latitude: St. Petersburg is at the same latitude as the impact, so if the collision had occurred 4 h 47 m later (or the course of the asteroid been slightly deflected), the impact would have been over the city. Michaelbusch 22:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My contribution (below) is not date-stamped, but it looks like I wrote it before Michaelbusch's addition above (a long time ago, I do not remember the date). If you did add the comment after I wrote the following, you need to re-read it, as you are wrong.Asteroceras 13:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The mention of St Petersburg is entirely meaningless and should be removed. If the impacting body was moved 4 hours 47 minutes forward in time on its orbital path, it would have passed "in front" of the Earth in the Earth's orbit, that is, it would have passed through the volume of space that the Earth had yet to reach. In order to have hit St Petersburg, the orbit itself would have had to be different, not the temporal point within its orbit, though a time difference of a few minutes could still have resulted in a populated area being hit, as the Earth is a three-dimensional target. Unless the Earth's gravity significantly affected the orbit due to the 5-hour near miss, the body could still have collided with the Earth on a future orbit.[User: Asteroceras, cookies not working at the moment]

Asteroceras is correct, the asteroid arriving nearly 5 hours later would find the Earth in a different point in space entirely. As the error is that of the GBoR, it would seem to me that the best solution is to leave in the quote, but add a mention that Guinness were incorrect in this statement for the reasons above.Parkingtigers (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the question/statement should be rephrased as "under various hypothetical possibilities of encounter by the two bodies, St Peterburg would have been hit 4 hours 47 minutes after the actual event, the Pacific Ocean x hours before (with a comment on the probable size of the tsunami arising) etc."

Has there been any alternative universe fiction in which "the body" #did# hit St Peterburg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.100 (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wardenclyffe Tower
Here is an interesting site outlining the connection between Nikola Tesla and the Tunguska event:

http://prometheus.al.ru/english/phisik/onichelson/tunguska.htm

This article was written by a Harvard professor in 1995.


 * This is the same article that's already cited in the section, simply from a different website. Someguy1221 14:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted the "Wardenclyffe Tower story".

The idea that in the 19th century Nikola Telsa was able to generate and wireless transfer the energy of 1000 nuclear bombs (and accidentally did without him or anyone else knowing) seems, well, to put it kindly, not very elaborate. And no sources other than some websites. Christoph Scholz 10:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

imo Tesla and the Wardenclyffe Tower shold be linked here. Give it at least as much space as for the UFO- and the End-of-the-World-Theory. There's no substantial proof for those neither.Luky (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Wardenclyffe Tower hypothesis should be included in this article. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Tesla - again
One of the main tenets of Wikipedia is that is encyclopedic about information, not subjective about information. The Tesla theory, while maybe not the correct explanation, is one of the more popular theories about the event. A simple Google search for "Tesla and Tunguska" reveals that this is not some small group of nut jobs positing the idea - it is a significantly large number of nut jobs! ;) For an encyclopedic article to completely ignore the theory reeks of some people pushing their view rather than simply reporting what is out there. UFO's are a much wackier and far less well known theory than Tesla. It is a disservice to this article and to Wikipedia not to mention him here.  James 04:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if someone does reinstate it, please use this reference (or a better one if you someone can find one) to explicate how dumb it is. Someguy1221 04:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. People will come to this article looking for info on the Tesla angle. Censoring it is not the way to go - especially on Wikipedia. Present the theory but also present why it is probably not plausible. James 03:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed too. Tesla + Tunguska angle is clearly notable, regardless of how ridiculous it is. Alex Pankratov 05:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, you bastards censored the Tesla theory even as my kid was doing a school project - shameful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.255.101 (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC) <!--Autosigned by SineBot


 * You use Wikipedia for school papers, etc., at you own risk, as the information here is not reliable and subject to change - wrong or right - at any time. ~

Natural gas explosion
Per my revising of the new "unexplained phenomena" section, I feel I should pre-emptively provide my reasoning here should anyone question it. The New Scientist article cited is very plainly a bad source of information, and I have removed what information could only be referenced to it. This article (a mere one page blurb) makes numerous claims without citation, without explaining who discovered/asserted it, or how the discovery or conclusion was made. This includes the broad assertion that no meteoric material was ever recovered (again, without citation or explanation), which contradicts numerous souces already in the article. As such, it would seem to be just the whims of one man, published in ignorance of a large body of research on the event. Further, Kundt never claims the "skyglows" preceded the explosion. He mentions "light nights" or "white nights" preceded the explosion (he actually makes this claim without any citation), and explicitly excludes the well documented skyglow from this phenomenon. Further, granting his work its own section titled "Unexplained Phenomena" might gives the sense that his assertions are common or widely accepted critisisms of the impact theory, which we have no evidence of; indeed, Google scholar lists only four citations to his paper (yet further, we have many sources supporting the mainstream theory that discuss much of what Kundt claims was inconsistent, with no indication they find it inconsistent). As such, it shouldn't be granted any more weight than the other speculative hypotheses, so I have moved it there. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have restored this section in its original position but without the speculation about natural gas. I think these things need to be mentioned somewhere, but they are not necessarily connected to the idea of a natural gas explosion. That is simply the theory of one or two people to explain these phenomena. Perhaps the natural gas idea should be mentioned separately in the next section. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed it completely this time. Fact is, what we have are two absolutely awful sources. The New Scientist article is, as explained, crap. And given that, also as explained, Kundt is in incredible contradiction with the mainstream scientific community, we have to take anything in his paper with considerable pause. Considering that Kundt's paper has been cited very few times, and that the contradictory information within is either completely uncited or entirely his own opinion, this paper is nothing more than fringe content. Unless it can be demonstrated that any of Kundt's claims have been reliably published by someone other than himself, or that his claims have received any note from the mainstream community, they have no place alongside demonstrably significant theories. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree here. We are also describing exotical explanations like antimatter or UFO crashes which are far less believable than Kundt's hypothesis. It should also be noted that the impactor model cannot describe the series of explosions many witness accounts mention. An impact would create one or, at maximum, two blasts (the first from the impactor's Mach cone, the second from the explosion), separated by max. two or three minutes (at Vanavara), both arriving after the entry and the flash of the explosion (the latter lasting max. 1--2 minutes with a brilliant peak of a few seconds if the nuclear blast model is used). This is in clear contradiction with those witness reports that describe a series of bangs as well as flashes appearing after the beginning of the noise. Furthermore, an ejection of several cubic kilometers of gas does not seem too exotic since volcanic eruptions may eject even larger amounts of solid material that needs a fair amount of gas as a driver.


 * Therefore I cannot understand why the natural gas section has been removed although it is the only alternative model today that does not involve exotic cosmic or esoteric phenomena. One might even call the rejection of referenced explanation as some sort of negative original research.--SiriusB (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Believability is irrelevant. You might want to read verifiability and undue weight. A scientific analysis of Kundt's theory actually has no bearing on whether it gets into the article; the important fact is that the only sources that have been provided for this are Kundt's paper, which was published in a rather obscure journal, is filled with uncited information, and contradicts most other papers on the matter; a paper from New Science that suffers similar problems in a more glaring manner; and the paper you just added that was published as far as I can tell only on private websites and an extremely obscure journal. Until there are reliable sources to demonstrate that either the scientific community has noticed this theory, or that it's a notable theory, it doesn't get a mention. And since these three sources are unreliable, as explained, they cannot be used to include any of these "unexplained phenomena" or whatever the section title is this time. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * With exactly these arguments you can kill about 95% of all Wikipedia articles, including all articles about exotic or disputed phenomena like ball lightning, UFOs, near-death experience, and of course all sections in this article about UFOs, antimatter etc. Wikipedia is not a science magazine and should also mention exotic hypotheses. Kundt's theory is widely discussed in German media and is currently on the second place of possible explanations. It is even more accepted than Alfred Wegener's continental drift hypothesis when he had published it. In Wikipedia had come 90 years earlier you would have killed sections about continental drift as well, won't you? You might further explain whether you think that Chin. J. Astron. Astrophys. is an "obscure journal" (it is treated as a reviewed journal on NASA ADS). And for what exactly do you need reliable sources? For the fact that this scenario is currently being discussed? Or for the "fact" that Kundt's theory is perfectly true? Nobody said that is is true, but only that it is topic of acute debates. Furthermore, there are other scientists with similar theories (e.g. Jason Phipps-Morgan; I'm now waiting for his recent work to appear and be searchable via NASA ADS or something like that to retrieve a valid bibliographic entry). And that is what Wikipedia should tell the people. Killing the geophysical section but keeping all that UFO crap just tells the reader that Wikipedians tend to believe in UFOs and antimatter impacts rather than in geological activity. If this is the picture of Wikipedia that you want the reader to see, then you are welcome (but without me)...--SiriusB (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have re-inserted a revised version of the section, now with a reference to the Verneshot article by Morgan et al. (2004), and a statement that this scenario is currently not accepted by the scientific majority. Please, before you delete it again, please consider to move it into the "Speculative Hypotheses" section (I still believe that it belongs in the main body, however).--SiriusB (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You still seem to be missing it, and completely misunderstanding everything I've said. None of what I've said can be used to mass delete our articles on speculative and unfounded hypotheses. I'll try to put it simply: Significance is a measure of relative acceptance of a point of view (which can constitute a theory or version of an event). Notability is a measure of notice that something has received. The ultimate judges of each are reliable sources. The reason we need reliable sources is not to ensure that everything is true (if you've been reading what I've been saying, you should realize that I've never suggested that something must be true to be on Wikipedia), but instead to essentially prevent people from using Wikipedia as a repository for everything that's ever been written (What Wikipedia is not). So to demonstrate that something should be on the 'pedia, you need to present a reliable source. Significance is an additional consideration for how something can be mentioned alongside other sourcable (verifiable) content. For example, the UFO hypothesis has no acceptance in the scientific community, and thus is insignificant and can't be presented as being otherwise (which is why it's confined to speculative hypotheses). On the other hand, this is probably the most notable alternative explanation outside the Asteroid-Coment and Airburst-GroundImpact debates (which is why it's still in the article at all). And since Kundt's paper is riddled with uncited facts that don't appear elsewhere, because he contradicts numerous reliable sources, and because he originated most of the theory, it can't be considered reliable. For that reason, everything he says that is novel can be considered insignificant and can't be presented as having any acceptance (that includes not mentioning it in the main body). On the other hand, following your suggestion that he has received attention in the media, I found some proof of this and indeed you might be right on that (not that the attention I found is from Germany). A news source is reliable for stating that a claim has been made (if not for actually stating a scientific fact), so I've used these to convert the section into something that can actually be backed up by reliable sources in a neutral manner. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to be a bit annoyed about your recent censorship actions against Prof. Kundt. I thought that we came to the agreement that at least Chin. J. Astron. Astrophys. should be mentioned here. Now, you made the article not cite any papers of Kundt although we came to the agreement that the natural gas eruption theory should be mentioned here. On my opinion, your deletion actions appear a bit like a personal crusade against Mr. Kundt. But if you want a "clean" Wikipedia, free of any non-standard theories and hypotheses, than I will consider to leave this article as it is, and to refuse any further collaboration or improvements. Working on the German article seems to be much more reasonable. I have limited time, and I am not willing to waste it if any of my edits are killed at once. I will delete this englisch article from my personal list of wikipedia articles worth reading.--SiriusB (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have heard that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings as explained as propane bombs, too. Gnostics (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Time of the event
According to "The Mystery of the Tunguska Fireball" (2005, by Surendra Verma, published by Icon Books, Cambridge, UK) the event took place at 7:14 a.m. local time, not 7:40 as stated in this article. Obviously "7:40" could have arisen from a mis-hearing of "7:14" OR vice versa. Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.75.165 (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The time was changed (and made to be inconsistent with other sections of the article) in october by an anonymous user without reference. Ideally, we should get a reliable source to cite the minute. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tunguska explosion or explosions?
A witness by the name of Stepan Ivanovich, said: Suddenly, above the mountain, where the forest had already fallen, something started to shine intensely, and, I tell you, it was as if a second sun had appeared; the Russians would have said “something suddenly flashed unexpectedly”; it hurt my eyes, and I even closed them. It resembled that which the Russians call lightning. And immediately there were, loud thunder. That was the second thunderclap. ( see http://www.vurdalak.com/tunguska/witness/chuchana_si.htm )

How did Stepan Ivanovich see an area of flattened forest before he saw the flash of an explosion? It seems he was describing a second explosion. He states that there were many flashes and thunderings in differant locations. And other statements would tend to agree. Many statements mention the sounds of multiple exlosions. ((User Nosut)) 2:00, 19/1/2008. (UTC)


 * Talk pages are reserved for discussing the article. For questions about the topic of an article, feel free to ask on the reference desks. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Explosion or explosions?
Thanks Someguy1221. The answers i received from the reference desk were that small fragments could have fallen as fireballs over a period of time. The above is not my opinion. If we take Stepan Ivanovich's claim at face value, after the trees were already fallen another explosion took place and then a third, which was the strongest (this is mentioned by other witnesses). Stepan Ivanovich should be mentioned on the main page as a witness who could have been describing explosions. If he's a poor witness (as was also questioned at the reference desk), then he shouldn't be mentioned on the main page. ((User Nosut)) 12:47, 24/1/08. (UTC)


 * His testimony (or half of it, anyway) is already on the main page. We can't really say "could have been describing explosions" as analysis has to be left to reliable sources; we can't analyze witness statements ourselves without committing original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Similar event
I think that this should be added to the main page as a similar event http://www.iris.edu/news/IRISnewsletter/fallnews/senate.html. ((User Nosut)) 11:47, 12/2/08. (UTC)


 * The website that content is hosted on is maintained by the same organization that performed the research and wrote the material. As such, it's not a reliable source, unfortunately. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is probably an incorrect interpretation of technical/scientific publications peer-reviewed. The objected link is OK IMHO. Jclerman (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you can call it peer review when there was no peer review. Four institutions worked together to produce this report at the request of a fifth, but there is no mention of their work having ever been reviewed by other academic experts. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

similar event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Mountain_UFO_incident ((User: Nosut))11:56, 22/2/08. (UTC)


 * The overarching feature of the similar events section is that all were meteor-related explosions. The incident above was not alleged to be such an event by the skeptical sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Someguy, are you sure the overarching feature is that all the events were caused by meteoriods, comets, etc. It seems to me that all the events may well be caused by meteriods, comets, etc, but the overarching feature is that there remains an element of doubt. That’s why I have included the Berwyn event. With all the speculation removed the Berwyn event has all the hall marks of other events including earthquakes, skyquakes and aerial phenomena.

((User: Nosut))1:20, 26/2/08. (UTC)


 * Let's replace "element of doubt" with "popular doubt." Then I suppose their are two common features. I'm opinionless on this now. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Main page suggestion
As the centenary is coming up could this article be developed for the main page? (And can "someone" resolve the relevant entry on the "On this day" page - it is mentioned in the pics but not in the list?) Jackiespeel (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to review the article and point out specific deficiencies, I'm happy to help fix them. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Natural gas exhaust explosion
I've read a version that it was a natural gas exhaust explosion.--Certh (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you imagine such an explosion with energy of 10 megatons? It's impossible to have such amount of a gas. It should be roundly 1010 cubic meters of methane, whole pretty large gas field! --RedAndr (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that is entirely not possible.Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Kundt's paper it was about megatons 10 of methane. The term "megaton" is used there correctly as a mass unit. However, Kundt suggests that the expansion of the gas alone had created the mechanical blast which, according to my very basic estimate, cannot be. 10 Mt methane displace about 14 km³ of air when expanding at standard pressure end temperature (density about 0.7 kg/m³, lighter than air). The mechanical work of displacement is W=p*V = 1.4·1015 J = 1/3 megaton TNT equivalent (MT) if done violently. A nuclear blast of 2/3 MT would create a similar blast since it releases about 50% of its energy as air blast. Thus, the Kundt eruption would have only 1/15 or even 1/30 of the required blast yield of 10 to 20 MT. If, however, part of the methane-air mixture is suitable for explosive combustion, this might create sufficient air blast since the specific energy of methane is, like most hydrocarbons, over 40 MJ/kg, ten times higher than that of TNT. Thus, if only 10% of the methan burns explosively, the blast would be sufficient to create the observed destruction. However, there is still the issue of the "second sun" appearance that cannot be explained easily by a gas explosion. Maybe we'll have to weight until something like Tunguska happens again...--SiriusB (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's impossible to have such amount of a gas. That's WP:OR. Where does the 10MT number come from? I thought it was the quoted output of an asteroid/comet explosion, which is necessarily high-altitude for the known evidence.  If a low-altitude fuel explosion took place, then the 10MT number is irrelevant, as well as extremely misleading.  We need to quote from a source which compares the required energy of a ~7KM meteoritic explosion, with the energy required for an identical fuel-air explosion near ground level.   Here's some more OR: victims at the center of gas explosions often report little injury.  With fuel-air, the energy starts at zero and grows geometrically as the spherical flame front expands, which should produce a low-damage region at the place where the gas was ignited.128.95.172.173 (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that's just simple physics, not OR. The event was caused by an asteroid, not "gas." HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Deep Impact
Once the data from the new comet explorations are gathered I am sure that the findings will link this event to a comet.   Rdailey1 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientific American
June 2008 issue of Scientific American has a feature story on it, p. 80 JAF1970 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Article is on their website, too. JAF1970 (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to Tesla?
Some also suspect that the Tunguska incident was a result of an electrical "beam," if you will, experiment that was set off by Nikola Tesla on the same day, June 30, 1908. Tesla apparently underestimated his machine and, the power output being much greater then he expected, he missed his target and may have cause the event known as Tunguska. He is said to have been aiming for the tundra where an arctic traveler was supposed to observe this and who Tesla planned to use as a reference point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.29.24 (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but we need a good reliable source to have such a section. Remember, Tesla himself never claimed responsibility, and it boils down to a fringe theory that really needs be marginally notable to make it onto this page. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See the Discussion on Wardenclyffe Tower as well. I think, the Links should be included.Luky (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No...the link that was used is an article that was never published by anything by random websites, and is not anything approximating a reliable source. Demonstrating that one random person published this theory on the internet does not come close to demonstrating the significance of this theory. The very purpose of the policy I just cited is to prohibit us from including in an article every random idea that has ever been uttered on the internet. Only those ideas that are demonstrably significant or notable have a shot at it, and that requires reliable sourcing. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the above Tesla section, "the Tesla theory, while maybe not the correct explanation, is one of the more popular theories about the event. A simple Google search for "Tesla and Tunguska" reveals that this is not some small group of nut jobs positing the idea - it is a significantly large number of nut jobs! ;) For an encyclopedic article to completely ignore the theory reeks of some people pushing their view rather than simply reporting what is out there. UFO's are a much wackier and far less well known theory than Tesla. It is a disservice to this article and to Wikipedia not to mention him here". With that in mind, and taking into consideration comments about how to present Tesla (especially those thoughts of Someguy1221), I have written up a new Tesla Connection section under the speculative theory section. I think it nicely -- and briefly -- presents the theory without giving it undue weight. I've also given three sources for the theory (including the only TV show I could find exact details about - even though I know it has been mentioned on many other programs). I've even dug up the links to the NY Times archives that have the actual reprints of Tesla's letters that some people believe give credence to the theory. I don't believe the Tesla Connection is the correct theory on what happened here. But given its popularity and the fact that some less known and even wilder speculative theories are presented I can't see any logical reason to keep this one out either. I hope you guys agree that the text is at the very least a good starting place and that this endless removing of Tesla from the article can finally come to an end! James (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A letter written to New Scientist, from some guy in Kent, doesn't provide any support for this section. The other source given, as far as I can tell, is a speculative essay by - there's not even any proof given that it was published. The rest of the sources don't support any claim of the theory's notability - they're just Tesla being Tesla, anything more is shoehorning to support a theory. So, the only sources actually asserting the connection between Tesla and Tunguska are a letter writer from Kent and some guy on the internet. If this isn't any more than a theory held by a small handful of people, I don't think it should be in the article.  AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, note: the other "speculative hypotheses" seem to be (generally) sourced to actual scientists. (In a few cases, they're sourced to popular sci-fi writers.) They're speculating, of course, but at least they have some basis. By comparison, no scientist any time soon will be speculating that Tesla could produce enough energy for a 15 megaton blast from any of his inventions cos, well, he just plain couldn't. So unless it's generally accepted that this article should go beyond rational speculation and start including every internet crank's irrational conspiracy theory, then I think there's not enough sourcing to support including any such section on Tesla. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, I'll do part of the math for you: 10-15 megatons equals approximately 5 Joules. That equals 5 Coulomb-Volts. By comparison, the world's largest capacitor bank today is at Rheinmetall AG, and only holds 50 megajoules. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad  (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No scientist any time soon will be speculating this was the end of the world or aliens either! But both are being speculated on in this article. Again this feels like people pushing their agenda rather than just reporting what is out there. Whether we agree with the speculation or not (and I don't!) should not matter. James (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it shouldn't. However, the absurdity of the idea does let us guess off the top of our heads (although a search of the literature would confirm this anyway) that from a scientific perspective it is an insiginficant theory. Now, there are other insignificant theories presented on the page because the rash of speculation over the event is itself quite significant to its cultural history. But there still needs to be some standard of inclusion, and presently it's that the idea has received some kind of reliable coverage, even if it's completely negative. In all the attempts to include Tesla on this page, not a single example of such coverage has ever been presented. But including every theory ever conceived on this event is beyond the purpose of Wikipedia, as is including the theories an editor subjectively likes, regardless of whether it's received any coverage. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Nichelson was a graduate student at Harvard and studied the history of science. His hypothesis is notable and verifiable. I question why someone would delete this information just because he doesn't like it. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * If you bothered to read a thing that I wrote, you'll notice that the reason this theory has been removed repeatedly is that in numerous attempts at including this theory and discussions thereabout, no one has ever demonstrated that this theory is either notable or significant (you might want to actually read those), and not because someone doesn't like it. Oliver Nichelson's self-publications are not reliable sources (read that one too) and neither is the book you cited (the publisher for that book will actually print just about anything). Someguy1221 (talk) 08:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You may think that the Oliver Nichelson's hypothesis is a fringe theory, and you may believe that his hypothesis is neither notable or reliable, but in my view, those are your opinions. "The publisher for that book will actually print just about anything." If you have consensus on that opinion, then you may delete this content (and leave the UFO theory in place, for which there are no citations.) Michael H 34 (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Before deleting the Oliver Nichelson hypothesis, you should first establish by consensus that Adventures Unlimited Press is not a notable source. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

In my view, this source is also notable and reliable:  Michael H 34 (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * You still appear to have no understanding of notability or reliability, but yes, that last source is actually reliable. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That Tesla/Tunguska story is fairly old and widespread, and dates back to a chapter in a book (magazine? Fate magazine?) on psychic channeling from the 60s/70s, from during the New Age religious era.  It's been growing in popularity ever since.  It's not a theory, it's a fringe speculation.  The actual passage is probably online somewhere, but IIRC the "channeled entity" did not mention Tesla by name.  Might be difficult to find it with Google.  Separate comment: the explosion in the Tungus forest was not reported for decades.  Exactly how was Tesla supposed to discover that his experiment was destructive? 128.95.172.173 (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained phenomena
I think these claims are too vague. This section should go under the "Speculative hypotheses" title. Aldo L (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Main page suggestion
I presume that Gregorian Calendar is the default usage for all such events. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Christian calendar is default usage for Christians and people who do not know any better in the West. 65.189.146.128 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

News article on this event from Scientific American
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-tunguska-mystery-100-years-later

fyi. 65.189.146.128 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

inconsistent with natural radioactive decay ?
1. What's the meaning of "inconsistent with natural radioactive decay"

2. From which source comes this statement?: "The isotopic signatures of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen at the layer of the bogs corresponding to 1908 were found to be inconsistent with natural radioactive decay" Please post or email me the article or any other reliable source

Jclerman (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If I recall, one of the references states the isotopic ratios could not have resulted from radioactive decay starting from natural, atmospheric ratios. At least one other reference in that section discusses the abnormal ratios; send me an email and I can relay you the PDFs (Wikipedia email doesn't permit attachments). Someguy1221 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. I got the PDFs. They look very interesting. I'll read them carefully and comment upon in the next days. Jclerman (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The paper is difficult to read because it needs prior translation from Russkyglish to correct scientific English. The variations in stable isotope compositions of peat, from a baseline of the in situ peat, seem to be explained by admixture of extraterrestrial material around the time of the event. These variations are not related or dependent from radioactive decay. They are stable isotopes of C and H in peat. They depend on the isotope fractionation particular to the plants that originated the peat, the peat formation process, and the isotope composition of the atmosphere in which the original plants grew PLUS the matter deposited by the event.
 * The radioactive isotopes mentioned (39Ar and 14C) are from results in other article and are not related to the variations in isotope compositions of C and H from their baselines.
 * I can't understand how Elsevier publishes papers without being first edidted for language and for science (E.g., the critique of Cowan et al is obsolete because their precision was superceded 30 yrs ago, confusing terminology as isotopic shifts and/or effects rather than variations in isotope composition of sampled matter, and a cryptic "radiometric plant sensitivity".
 * Jclerman (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wherein ?
Please clarify this statement: Later expeditions did identify such spheres in the trees, however. Does it mean inside the trees? Which part(s)?

Jclerman (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've clarified it. The spheres were found in the resin of the trees. 151.152.101.44 (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Misterul Tunguska, elucidat de un roman
Misterul Tunguska, elucidat de un roman

Geofizicianul roman Stefan SGANDAR, cu ale carui studii cititorii „Magazinului” au mai avut prilejul sa se intalneasca, ne propune de aceasta data o explicatie extrem de interesanta si de realista a asa-numitului fenomen Tunguska, petrecut acum 100 de ani - mai exact in ziua de 30 iunie 1908, ora 07:17 - pe Platoul Siberian Central. Imensul glob de foc care a explodat atunci in atmosfera terestra a generat efecte mai mult sau mai putin bizare, sesizabile rapid pe o distanta de circa 800 de kilometri. Totusi, nici o interpretare ulterioara nu a elucidat cazul.

Comete, gauri negre, extraterestri...

Practic, intreaga planeta a receptat, intr-un fel sau altul, insolitul impact. De la mari distante, s-a putut vedea intrand in atmosfera uriasa flacara alb-albastruie si s-a auzit un sunet asurzitor. Traiectoria a avut o forma de curba larga, iar la cadere s-a format un nor negru si a izbucnit o limba de foc ce s-a bifurcat, stralucind orbitor. Ulterior, s-a format o tromba de ciclon care a facut sa cada o ploaie neagra. Undele seismice s-au propagat la multe sute de kilometri in sol, iar in aer au inconjurat Pamantul de doua ori. La altitudini mari, in Europa au aparut nori argintii masivi, care radiau o luminiscenta ciudata. Forta exploziei a fost echivalata cu aproximativ 30 milioane de tone TNT!

Explicatiile cautate de cercetatori, dar si de amatori, au mers pe cai dintre cele mai diferite. Prima presupunere - caderea unui meteorit - a insemnat si prima infirmare, caci la locul impactului nu existau nici urme de crater, nici fragmente ale presupusului corp ceresc. Au urmat alte versiuni: o explozie nucleara, o cometa gazoasa dezintegrata in atmosfera terestra, o gaura neagra si chiar dezintegrarea unei nave extraterestre sau impactul dintre planeta noastra si o farama de antimaterie. Argumentele si contraargumentele pentru fiecare ipoteza au facut ca, vreme de un veac, fenomenul Tunguska sa ramana invaluit in mister.

„Soarele” cazut pe Pamant

Cercetatorii Stefan Sgandar si Claudiu Sgandar incearca sa lamureasca toate problemele, pornind de la ideea ca explozia a fost provocata de un glob plasmatic expulzat in urma unei eruptii solare. Un prim argument: traiectoria ciudata a globului incandescent, caracteristica fulgerelor globulare. In plus, un amanunt extraordinar: „evolutia” fenomenului a fost calculata sa se fi desfasurat la cel putin 3-400 de kilometri altitudine. Asadar, dincolo de atmosfera, ceea ce inseamna ca acel „corp” nu a luat foc ca urmare a frecarii cu aerul. Ulterior, coliziunea cu atmosfera a determinat un „salt” pana la 2-300 km (cu descrierea ciudatei parabole observate de la sol), apoi reducerea vitezei si caderea „corpului” pe Pamant. Se explica astfel si despicarea arborilor de sus in jos, in doua parti egale: fenomenul s-a petrecut ca in cazul aruncarii unei pietre intr-un lac, stiut fiind faptul ca, atunci cand aceasta atinge apa, unda sare in mod absolut egal, la dreapta si la stanga traiectoriei urmate de piatra.

Sunetul foarte puternic auzit de martori a fost produs, potrivit d-lui Sgandar, de contactul dintre uriasul plasmoid (cu viteza supersonica) si atmosfera, totodata reducandu-se substantial viteza pana la mai putin de 1 km/s. De asemenea, plasmoidul nu avea cum sa dea nastere unui crater, in schimb se putea separa in doua in timpul impactului, determinand bifurcatia limbii de foc observate.

Limpezirea apelor

La cateva decenii dupa explozie, in probele de sol de la locul impactului s-au gasit niste bile microscopice, a caror existenta geofizicianul roman o atribuie caldurii mari degajate de plasmoid in momentul exploziei. Aceasta a topit minereurile de fier slabe, dupa care, prin racirea brusca, s-au format retele de cristalizare in jurul unor centre microscopice, ceea ce a dus la aparitia amintitelor bile metalice. Puterea extraordinara a exploziei a determinat si undele de aer inregistrate pe toata planeta si, pe de alta parte, condensarea brusca in clima rece a taigalei, urmata de un vartej ca o tromba de ciclon, care a ridicat in aer o cantitate apreciabila de sol mlastinos, ceea ce a generat ulterior o ploaie neagra. Cat despre luminiscenta vie a cerului, observata pana in Anglia, ce a durat mai multe nopti, ea ar fi fost rezultatul condensarii vaporilor de apa in mici cristale de gheata la altitudinea de 80 de kilometri, in conditiile speciale create de trecerea prin atmosfera terestra a imensului plasmoid.

"Concluzia ce se desprinde din toate cele expuse - isi incheie argumentatia d-l Stefan Sgandar - duce fara indoiala la ideea ca presupusul glob plasmatic de origine solara, ce a dat nastere exploziei din Siberia, poate explica in intregime toate fenomenele petrecute in urma coliziunii, fenomene explicate doar partial si contradictoriu de celelalte ipoteze." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngabi 1999 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please post in English. This is the english Wikipedia. You may wish to contribute to another language Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

location on the map not correct
I think Tunguska was much northern a place, the red dot is at least 5 mm to the south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutecuteguy (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Latitude and longitude of the hypocenter have been added near the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.15.99.17 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"massive"
The first sentence called the event a "massive explosion". Normally I would consider it a petty pedantic quibble to object to using the word "massive" when not referring to mass, but since in this case whether the explosion was of a massive or non-massive object is at the heart of the debate, I felt it was wrong to call it a "massive explosion". I changed "massive" to "powerful". OK? Iglew (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. - RoyBoy 02:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What about using "mighty"?--Infestor (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
I don't think there is a large enough consensus among scientists to claim that this was most likely caused by the means the article suggests. There are other reasonable competing theories that are still viable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiefinspectorClousea (talk • contribs) 01:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please present references and detail the problem as you see it. Note WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE mean that the main accepted theory should have prominence. Verbal   chat  09:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the reasonableness of another explanation is a fringe notion. However I am unable to weigh the opinions of the individual scientists who differ in opinion, while not fringe, I can not articulate weight to opinions rendered by individuals I do not know. Perhaps the weight is undue and I will defer to your experience and withdraw my objection, although I do think it could be a reasonable debate. --ChiefinspectorClousea (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Different UFO-theory
Might interest sombody.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522217,00.html?test=latestnews

--Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Etched quartz is ancient technology. Literally. Interestingly enough, there is ZERO evidence of those slabs existing, no photographs, no reputable sources reporting on SEEING them.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"A UFO crashed into a meteorite?" Its a bit Stupid - but i like it!
Honestly, what sort of idea is this? Why would an advanced craft of neaded to leave it to the last minuite before it had to crash into the meteorite? Its a bit stupid. But! Let it be said. We can evaluate it for its worth! Heck! I have a theory that Tunguska was caused by an earth flare event! ((User: Nosut))20:45 16/6/09. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut (talk • contribs)

Valley of Death aka UFO Radiation Zone
I have removed all text under the heading of 'Valley of Death' because of two main reasons. The first reason is that the 'Valley of Death' text is almost copied verbatim from 3 almost identical unsubstantiated articles by the same author, Valerie Uvarov. By carefully avoiding Uvarov's more outlandish assertions, the text from 'Valley of Death' almost appeared to be objective and cited from multiple sources. If one reads Mr. Uvarov's articles, one can clearly see that the buried cauldrons he is referring to in the articles are crashed UFO's. Further, the Valley of Death is referring to UFO radiation and giant guardians of the buried UFO's who slay lost cattle and supposedly killed a guide from the 1st Soviet expedition to Tunguska. According to Uvarov, the Kremlin censored the reports to hide evidence of the UFO's. Mr. Uvarov claims that the Tunguska event is a repeated UFO phenomenon that takes place every few hundred years. Needless to say, the entire scientific community disagrees with Mr. Uvarov's claims and his sources aren't cited. The articles are more or less poorly written and illustrated religious pamphlets.

The following sources are cited for the 'Valley of Death' section: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska09a.htm http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/strange-days/2aaddb5182720ece30d95fcd653b6222 http://www.astrologycom.com/yakutia1.html

The second reason that I deleted the 'Valley of Death' is that Mr. Valery Uvarov is self proclaimed Russian Ufologist with dubious (fictitious) credentials. In fact, Valerie Uvarov credentials have been exposed as a fraud in the UFO believing community: http://boris-shurinov.info/profan/uvarov/uf-uv.htm Besides writing UFO articles so ridiculous that many members in the ufo believing community believe Uvarov to be a 'debunker', Mr. Uvarov makes money selling 'snake oil' called "The Wands Of Horus". http://www.neilos.org/WandsOfHorus_Beware_of_Imitations.html There is more citation in his 'wands of horus' ads, than the 'Valley of Death' Tunguska event UFO articles. Veganthrope (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)veganthrope

One question please: In the interview with Valery Uvarov from the June-July 2003 issue of Nexus magazine, on page 60, a supposed set of ancient records is referenced called the "Echutin Apposs Alanhor", also known as the "Alanhor". Are these texts fictional as well? I have searched diligently and have found no evidence of any other reference to them outside reprints of that singular interview. Thank you in advance for any information. --Grimm0713 (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

False citation
"Over the next few days, night skies in Asia and Europe were aglow such that those in London could read a newspaper in their light [10];"

I was interested in this idea, so I looked up the cited article by Nigel Watson in History Today. It's a quick one page article and it says nothing about the sky in Asia and Europe being aglow. No mention is made of reading newspapers by the light given off, especially in London. Why post a fake citation? This is just aggravating, nothing more.

128.135.107.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC).


 * This is a free link to the article: http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=382990&rel_no=1
 * From the article "The impact of the event was so great that it caused an atmospheric shockwave that circled the Earth twice. For the following two nights of July 1908 the night skies of Europe and Asia were unusually bright. The glare in the sky was compared to the atmospheric effects that followed the volcanic eruption at Krakatoa in 1883."
 * It isn't a particularly good source, a reference to an article in a newspaper of the time would be more credible, but the sentence in question does seem to be consistent with the article. --Davefoc (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I found a letter to the London Times dated July 2, 1908 ([]) from Katharine Stephen that described a "strange light in the sky". From the letter: "Sir,-I should interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o'clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light could of a pinkish colour could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was a cloudless night...."
 * This seems like pretty good evidence that Watson didn't just make up the idea of glowing skies and if it was visible in London, it would have been visible in Europe and presumably Asia.--Davefoc (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Airburst" link
I question the usefulness of a link from here to the "Air_burst" page. That page is devoted to the detonation of explosives. I'm guessing the average reader understands that "air burst" refers to a detonation in air, but might click on such a link out of curiosity as to how such an airburst would take place for something that's made out of rocks instead of explosives--information that the page in question does not provide.

In point of fact, how does a rock explode simply because it heats up? That's like the only reason I even came to this page. Obviously people who've studied this think it sounds reasonable, but why? Is there a good place to find out somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A simple way to understand the concept is by performing a reverse of the event. Put a rock into a fire and let it get REALLY hot. Put on safety goggles, remove the rock with tongs. Pour water onto it and watch the rock fracture. Now, imagine a super COLD rock coming in from space. It's superheating the air by ramming into the air at dozens of miles per second. That is also exerting incredible pressure on that rock AND heating it. Now, the rock hits the much denser air in the stratosphere. It's that cracked rock by water on steroids, as you have the pressure, the heat and now a sudden impact with dense air acting like a mountain. BOOM! Hypersimplified, but reasonably accurate.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Mirror matter ?
According to an episode of the Discovery Channel program "Investigation X", a featured theory is that mirror matter kinetically interacted with normal matter resulting in the explosion... should that be added to the list of fringe theories? 65.94.252.195 (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The mirror matter hypothesis was removed as the only source suggesting it as the source of explosion was one person's self-published book. The other fringe theories have either been published in respected journals, been refuted by respected journals, or have been shown to be notable. If the mirror matter hypothesis can be shown to be as such, then it would certainly have a place, but I'm not sure if the Discovery Channel episode does that. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw the episode, my feeling is it was added for commercial reasons. Mirror matter would need independant publication to be notable in my opinion. - RoyBoy 07:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Mysterious Removal
Hi there,

Could you let me know why my small additions to this Wikipedia article (Vladimir Rubtsov’s “The Tunguska Mystery” book and his Tunguska website’s URL) are persistently removed? The list of References to the “Tunguska Event” article does contain other Tunguska books (including those not mentioned in its text) and also the list of External links contains other Tunguska websites; therefore this information cannot be considered as SPAM. (By the way, there are in this article several crude factual errors… definitely needing correction. But now I doubt if this is worth trying.)

Best, Tungus1908 (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite simple. The recently published book was not used as a reference for writing the article and the website linked with the book listing in the "References" section was a blatantly promotional sales pitch. The further addition of a link to the same website at the top of the external links section literally shouted "SPAM". Your username and edit history suggest that you may have a conflict of interest with the book and website. Continued addition of promotional spam will result in a block. You are more than welcome to correct factual errors that you mention - just be certain that your additions are based on reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. I have found in this article some ten errors of varying significance. Now three of them are corrected. Tungus1908 (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't add ... tags to the article for material you are changing. Just make your change - other editors can see via article history comparison what you have removed. I've removed those "strikeouts". Vsmith (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Rubtsov's monograph should certainly be consulted as it provides by far the most detailed account available in English of USSR/Russian Tunguska reaearch. Rubtsov makes it clear that important USSR scientist were open to the nuclear explosion hypothesis. And by the way: the fact that this hypothesis was first suggested in a piece of fiction has no bearing on its validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.33.37 (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

EXPLOSION or EXPLOSIONS
The notion that the Tunguska event was produced by a meteorite is supported by the fact that there was a singular event. Wikipedia promotes this point of view by expressing there was a single “explosion”. Many witnesses and articles claim there were multiple explosions, however. I was told back in January 2008 that this can’t be said, as it would be original research. I no longer accept this. These articles have been accepted by Wikipedia (they are on the main page). These articles clearly state that there were “explosions”, one even states that they took place over the course of many minutes. I do not agree that we need more research and peer review in order to contradict these simple statements. ((User: Nosut))21.11, 20.12.2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut (talk • contribs)


 * Could you provide the sources for these simple statements? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple example: Krasnoyaretz newspaper, July 13, 1908.(See the main page of Tunguska event, Wikipedia). ((User:Nosut)) 18.30, 21.12.2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut (talk • contribs)


 * The article never claims that a single meteorite impact must be perceived as a single loud noise. And the suggestion that repetitive loud noises must have been caused by repetetive meteorite impacts is still original research (it's not even suggested by the source that provided that witness statement). Someguy1221 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Firstly, I never claimed there was repetitive meteorite impacts, I only said that the statement implied there was more than one explosion. I have taken your point on board, though. I can’t see why a single meteorite shouldn’t make plenty of loud events. However, i still don’t think this is what some of the statements are saying. I repeat what i said back in 2008: Stepan Ivanovich, said: Suddenly, above the mountain, where the forest had already fallen, something started to shine intensely, and, I tell you, it was as if a second sun had appeared; the Russians would have said “something suddenly flashed unexpectedly”; it hurt my eyes, and I even closed them. Clearly this statement tells of an event that took place over a previous leveled mountain forest. I can’t see how its original research to point this statement out. Please explain...

((User Nosut)) 19.51, 23.12.2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut (talk • contribs)


 * It's original research to highlight passages from witness statements that we ourselves find strange. Thousands of experts have studied the Tunguska Event, and it is a small portion of their work that was used to construct this article. It's possible they dismissed or ignored that witness statement for a reason, but we'll never know. Since the neutral point of view is the point of view taken by reliable sources, its not for editors to point out interesting pieces of primary information, but merely to report when a reliable source has actually done so. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The object coming in would create a sonic boom. Fragments would also initially create sonic booms. Add in reflected sounds of those booms from the mountains and you have multiple booms. Ever been in the mountains during a thunderstorm?Wzrd1 (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory Information?
It says early in the article that the blast most likely was the equivalent of 10–15 megatons of TNT. However, later, it says that this impact would be a 5.0 on the Richter scale. When looking on the richter scale article, it rates an explosion with a yield of 16.2 Megatons of TNT at a 6.7 on the richter scale. If i had to guess, i would say that it's because the explosion was not directly on the ground, but i'm not sure. 24.10.220.113 (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's all in the definition of the comparison they are doing. The richter scale article is not suggesting that a 16.2 megaton explosion would produce a 6.7 magnitude earthquake, but rather that a 6.7 magnitude earthquake releases 16.2 megatons-TNT of energy. That is to say, the richter scale article is using megatons-TNT purely as a measure of energy, and not as a comparison to explosions. But what you say is also a good way of looking at it. The explosion was far off the ground, and thus not nearly all of the energy went into the ground. So the resulting seismic readings would indicate that far less than 10-15 megatons would have been dissipated by the ground. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Similar events
Thanks for the answer on explosion or explosions, Someguy. However, I would like to return to clear what was said in 2008. I said two events were similar: http://www.iris.edu/news/IRISnewsletter/fallnews/senate.html. I was told: “The website that content is hosted on is maintained by the same organization that performed the research and wrote the material. As such, it's not a reliable source, unfortunately.”

However, I have now found other places documenting the event: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102814 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjawarn_station http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUSM.U22A..01H

((User Nosut, 18.58 2.1.2010)) (UTC)

Berwyn mountains event
I’ve not seen anything more about the first similar event I mentioned, so I will continue on with the second. I said this was a similar event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Mountain_UFO_incident but Someguy, you wrote: "The overarching feature of the similar events section is that all were meteor-related explosions. The incident above was not alleged to be such an event by the skeptical sources."

This is not correct. A team lead by Dr Madison and including two Canberra aircraft searched the mountains for a meteorite but never found anything. Please reply...

((User Nosut, 22:45 28.1.2010)) (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut (talk • contribs)


 * At best it's borderline. A few guys looking for meteorites is not the same thing as scientific consensus (or boneheaded obviousness) that a particular event was a meteorite impact. For a great many events, there is one scientist or another who takes a fringy view that it was something other than what everyone else agrees it was. Case in point, this very page. And if micro-Black-hole impacts were a regular event, we probably wouldn't list Tunguska alongside the acutal black hole impacts. Same deal with methane gas explosions, etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Someguy, It's true. I’d like to thank you for making sure this article doesn’t fall into chaos.

I can’t see its boneheaded obvious that the Tunguska object was a meteorite, though, but then, regarding one witness statement you previously wrote... “It's possible they dismissed or ignored that witness statement for a reason, but we'll never know.”

Someguy, you may feel rest assured these statements are ignored for good reason, but I feel it’s because they don’t fit with the current meteorite solution. The account given by K.A Korin for example: K.A Korin said he was in the bath house when he heard the noise, and he went out into the yard where he saw the object in the South west. The object must have been travelling towards him as he said it then disappeared to the opposite horizon in the North east. The point being: If the object was flying towards him, and he first heard it in the bath house, then it was travelling less than the speed of sound. Now, I do understand you said Wiki can’t highlight such passages that we find strange, but when you said it was boneheaded obvious Tunguska was a meteorite, I had a duty to point this out. When the Tunguska solution fits these witnesses’ statements, then it will become obvious.

((User Nosut, 13.15, 31.01.2010)) (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut (talk • contribs)


 * Actually, I wasn't referring to Tunguska when I used the phrase (boneheaded obviousness). I felt that term rather applied to some other items on the list of similar events, while Tunguska would fall under the former description. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Of highest probability for explanation would be that the nuclear detonation detector system triggered in that area. An alert was sent, news blackouts set in place, as things nuclear were then and still are highly classified and the very existence of that network was still classified at the time and the event investigated. No sign of impact, but seismic event recorded implies a meteor erupted as a fireball, exploding well above the ground and the resultant shockwave triggered the seismic network and sonic network. As those were highly classified at the time, nothing at all would be said about the event, the investigation or anything related to it.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

German ZDF documentary
German ZDF documentay with english subtitles. P. S. Burton (talk)  17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Would a similar event have gone unnoticed prior to 1960?
The article contains this sentence: Impacts of similar size over remote ocean areas would have gone unnoticed[11] before the advent of global satellite monitoring in the 1960s and 1970s.

The citation is to an article that suggests the wave created by a 200 meter meteor impact in the ocean might be fairly small to the point it might go unnoticed, however there are problems with the use of this citation to support the statement in the article:
 * 1) There are a number of reasons why a Tonguska type event might have been noticed prior to the advent of earth monitoring satellites other than the existence of a large wave including the loss of ships, atmospheric glowing, astronomical observation, observation by people near the explosion either on boats or land, etc.
 * 2) The size of a wave caused by a meteor might not be the same as the size of the wave caused by the Tunguska event. A link to computer modeling of an exploding comet that might have caused the Tunguska event and its impact on the open ocean would be more credible than an article about the waves from a meteor that didn't explode.  No matter what a large column of air was compressed into the ground and diverted sideways by this event.  If it had happened over water at least some of that air would have displaced ocean water and created a wave.  Perhaps that wave would have been relatively small but I didn't see anything in the link to convince me that this was the case.

As an aside, overall a very nice article and the discussion section was interesting, thank you --Davefoc (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Early in the 20th century, a meteorite struck in the Empty Quarter in Saudi. Much later, a team investigated the flight path of the fireball witnessed in several Arabian cities and an impact site was located and recorded. No reports of the impact were recorded at all, but the empty quarter is empty for a reason, it's utterly uninhabitable and rarely traversed, as it's incredibly hostile to life as we know it. A research team went out within the past decade and with considerable difficulty, located three impact sites, noting that they were partially buried. Said expedition suffered a significant loss of equipment, due to the environment. Even with GPS, they had difficulty finding the site, due to shifting dunes removing landmarks and causing some confusion. So, yes, it's possible for even an impact to go unnoticed and unrecorded in sparsely or uninhabited areas.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the impact site that Wzrd1 might be referring to is the Wabar craters. According to the Wikipedia article the event may have been noticed (as Wzrd1 mentions) in 1863 or 1891 so this would seem to support the idea that satellite monitoring wasn't necessary to detect large meteors. My point with regard to this issue was that the claim in the article wasn't supported by the citation and I thought that it might have just been wrong. The information about the Wabar Craters doesn't seem to conflict with that point but I did appreciate that Wzrd1 referenced it since I thought the story was interesting.

As a practical matter the sentence quoted above has been removed from the article so this discussion seems to be moot and unless somebody reinserted the text or disagrees I think this issue is closed.--Davefoc (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Photo of the Southern Swamp (the epicenter of the Tunguska explosion).
Caption restored since the photo of the Southern Swamp is copyrighted and therefore must be referenced, at least. Removal of this reference may be considered as infringement of copyright.

May 11, 2010. Once again, the caption for this photo must be as follows: "The Southern Swamp – the epicenter of the Tunguska explosion. View from a helicopter. Photo by Vladimir Rubtsov, taken at June 30, 2008. Source: Rubtsov (2009), p. 2." Other versions may be considered as infringement of copyright.

Meteorite or meteor
The article includes this statement:
 * "The Tunguska event is the strongest, but not the only, significant meteorite airburst in recent history. A selection of similar events follows."

The use of the word, meteorite, in this context might be inappropriate. The first definition of, meteorite, on dictionary.com is "a mass of stone or metal that has reached the earth from outer space; a fallen meteoroid.". If the object is bursting in air than it hasn't hit the ground and would seem not to be a meteorite. The sentence should probably just use the word, meteor. The first definition of meteor on dictionary.com is "a meteoroid that has entered the earth's atmosphere".

In general, the uses of the words, meteor, meteoroid, and meteorite, are somewhat inconsistent in the article. --Davefoc (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

ETA: I just realized that there is some ambiguity in the definition of meteorite that uses the phrase "has reached the earth from outer space". Reasonably, earth's atmosphere, might count as part of the earth, so perhaps a meteorite, might be considered to be a meteoroid that has reached the earth's atmosphere. However, the science dictionary definition on dictionary.com is: "A meteor that reaches the Earth's surface because it has not been burned up by friction with the atmosphere". Overall, I think standard usage and some formalized definitions support the idea that an object from space has to have hit the ground before it is a meteorite. --Davefoc (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As powerful as one nuke but less powerful than the largest nuke?

 * Estimates of the energy of the blast range from 5 megatons of TNT (21 PJ) to as high as 30 megatons of TNT (130 PJ), with 10–15 megatons of TNT (42–63 PJ) the most likely—roughly equal to the United States' Castle Bravo thermonuclear bomb tested on March 1, 1954, about 1,000 times as powerful as the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan and about one-third the power of the Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated.

How can it be as powerful as the Castle Bravo bomb but only one-third the power of the largest nuke ever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iain.dalton (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty Simple of course. Castle Bravo was not the largest nuke ever. Baska436 (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Another black hole hypothesis...
I've kept an interesting article which was published in the Peruvian newspaper "El Comercio"'s sunday supplement on november 20th, 1983, titled "Las bolas luminosas de Santa Bárbara" (which could translate more or less as "the lightballs of Santa Barbara"). The author, Luis Manuel Canepa G., retells a story told to him by his father, who worked on a sugar plantation 140 Km south of Lima. According to it, around 8pm on June 29th, 1908, he and his brother were entering the house when suddenly the plantation was brightly lit, and he saw emerging from the Pacific Ocean three or four lightballs which quickly gained height one beyond the other and vanished from view, leaving for a while a strange glow over the sea. The author then comments about how later he heard about the Tunguska event on June 30th and thought it was an extraordinary coincidence, and thought that there might be a connection. Then, some weeks prior to the article's date, he found out about Jackson and Ryan's theory about the black hole passing through the Earth and emerging on the other side on the Atlantic Ocean. He postulates they may have erroneously calculated the exit point on the Atlantic because they thought it was a single object, instead of three or four impacting the Earth surface on Tunguska at an angle of about 65 degress and a velocity of some 30 Km/s, crossing some 11000 Km in about 6 minutes and emerging over the Pacific. I thought it might be worth mentioning this in relation to the black hole hypothesis... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.222.51.174 (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless this was printed in a scientific journal, I think it would be undue to give any more weight to the black hole theory to add it here. (Even if it were, we might face OR charges if we made a comparison) The black hole theory has been more or less discredited.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to mention isotopes from space and iridium, both of which a black hole are notable for a remarkable lack of, being found at Tunguska.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Tunguska Event - Asteroid Air Burst, Tectonic Plates, Aliens or Mirror Matter?
One of the worlds greatest mysteries (and one of my favourites) is the Tunguska Event. Many Theories have been passed around and I have heard a few popular ones...

The Air Burst Theory. -This is when an asteroid or meteor explodes upon contact with the atmosphere of a planet. The space rock must be travelling at an angle to the planets surface so it has quite a bit more time until it hits the ground. With complete devastation and no crater to be seen this is quite a popular theory!

Tectonic Plates Theory. -It is believed that the Earths plates were moving at that time and when they moved they would increase the pressure of the lava and gas underneath. The pressure built until that fateful day the plates pulled and released all this pressure causing a huge explosion aka the Tunguska Event. This is still just a theory though.

Alien Spaceship Impact or Alien Attack. -This theory seems well too far fetched but still people believe. The theory of the spaceship crash is...well...a theory that aliens accidently crashed into the Earth. And the alien attack is were a warning shot (or something) was fired at us! These are the weirdest theories i've heard but are very popular for some reason.

Mirror Matter Theory. -This isn't a popular one at all but I think it should be shared. Supposedly there is a new type of matter that is still trying to be proved called Mirror Matter. Its the complete opposite of ordinary matter (and it isn't anti-matter either!). Its hard to understand completely and I don't see something could come from nothing (I also have a different opinion about the Big Bang too). But I have my opinion and you can have yours.

These theories are popular ones and but we still haven't concluded on the cause. My guess is the Air Burst Theory. I have been fascinated by this event and hope that one day this mystery will be solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaox666 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The only one of these that is a testable hypothesis is the airburst concept. The remainder can barely be called conjectures. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Air bursts are a rather well documented phenomena, with satellite observations of the events now being reported. Mirror matter has yet to even be detected, it's a theory that lacks any evidence to support it yet. Space aliens are used by some to explain nearly every event on Earth, some even use it to explain political elections, again, without any evidence. Plate tectonics isn't a valid theory, as there are no plate boundaries in the region, Tunguska is quite a distance from any plate boundary, so no tectonic forces would be applicable to the region. When one considers mineral evidence that was collected from the region, the air burst theory has the most evidence to support it.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

UFO?
Professor Willy Ley pointed out many years ago that at the time of the collision between the Earth and the Tunguska object the Earth and the object were heading straight towards each other.

It was a head on crash and no starship captain would have allowed such a highly dangerous landing or survey. AT Kunene (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The earth can't really be "heading for" the tunguska object because the earth orbits the sun, it's not heading linearly through space.99.73.126.24 (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, but NOTHING travels in a linear fashion in space-time, as the universe forces a curved path. ;)

Seriously though, I THINK that it was an attempt at levity on a topic that displays the profound effects of gravity. And momentum...Wzrd1 (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"No longer be a matter of dispute"
"The composition of the Tunguska body may no longer be a matter of dispute" says the beginning sentence to a section which describes considerable dispute.

I think the sentence is premature--substantial evidence is detailed for at least 2 composition theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.108.185 (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Head on.
Professor Willy Ley pointed out in one of his science articles that the Earth and the Tunguska object were heading towards each other at high speed, a head on crash and no starship commander would risk a landing on a planet heading directly towards his ship at high speed. A simple observation that seems to effectively eliminate any suggestion of extra terrestial intelligence.AT Kunene (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe they had engine failure in the warp nacelles? :-)  I don't think we need to worry about anyone taking the idea of alien vehicles visiting the earth, let alone one that caused this event, seriously.  The loons out there will believe what they want, no matter how much you use science to hit them over the head.  The article won't be hurting. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

New Scientist Article - March 31, 2012
In the March 31, 2012 New Scientist an apparently unrelated article is run, where trees are shown to have the role of creating turbulence in flame propagation sufficient to enable an actual detonation! This was done for testing purposes in the UK, after a huge explosion at a chemical plant that defied understanding needed to be better understood. As I read the article, the first thing I thought about was this event, and how the two may have been connected, given the likelyhood of releasing gasses in summer months in areas like this, if the weather was sufficiently hot enough.

So, now that the flame propagation issue has been decidedly solved and experimentally replicated - and that the method of propagation turns out to be trees, perhaps it is time to revisit this theory?? Can the previously reached consensus be changed? Zaphraud (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sucks that they found meteorite fragments all over the place (for that theory, that is). Someguy1221 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that's definitely worthy of note. Next question: looking upward, I still see a huge mess of bizarreness. If this was a meteorite-based event, why are people still blathering on about UFOs and Tesla weapons and such?


 * Because they're a little loopy, that's why. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Just curious - it seems that there is still considered to be something missing here. Like big chunks. Regardless of if the comet was the trigger for a huge swamp-gas burst, or contained its own methane and broke up in the upper atmosphere, the March 31,2012 New Scientist article on flame propagation goes a long way to explaining what happened. Using the existing comet/meteor hypothesis, the core of the comet, which burst, would have been the detonating flame, and the turbulence necessary to reach the flame propagation velocity required in all directions for true detonation would have been provided by the methane and chunks that had broken off previously, and were falling all around the core. Right? Isn't a big part of explaining this in any way at all, is how a natural Fuel Air Explosive came to be possible in the first place? A comet composed of methane ice wrapped around stiff chunks with the right size and shape characteristics may also be able to create the pattern that leads to flame acceleration. So the idea isn't dead, you've just shifted the location of the combustible gas to the sky! If the thing came down as just methane ice, the force yield on the explosion would be much lower than if it came down in a manner that formed an FAE with flame acceleration compatible debris already in position. Zaphraud (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FML if this gets weaponized. Oops. Zaphraud (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No need for exotic flame fronts with a large meteor exploding due to atmospheric density and thermal stress. A massive shock wave continues along the path of the meteor, due to conservation of momentum and the shock wave strikes the forest, followed by fragments of meteor.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What country?
The tunguska meteorite landed in the Russian Empire, ruled by Nikolai II later known as St. Nikolai II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.142.79 (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Idiotic Section on Aliens
This is supposed to be a serious article. I helped it be that. Antimatter33 (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuse me but I don't think that this is solely up to you to decide. If you're unhappy with what's written in this or any other article, feel free to discuss it on the associated talk page. However, Wikipedia does not exist to serve as your personal stage to spread your very own ideology. I hope you're able to understand this. --Jeythor (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support the removal of crazy alien theories - utter rubbish, and un-encyclopedic. Pure FRINGE and UNDUE WEIGHT.  Remove! HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The section seems to be properly cited, so WP:WEIGHT suggests it can remain in some form even though it's total horse feathers. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thermonuclear Effects
Thermonuclear Effects

Here is how I imagine the Tunguska Event could have occurred with the available knowledge we have.

The meteor hitting the atmosphere blew up with thermonuclear effects, thus you must assume that natural causes must have resulted in the exact thing that science has only arrived at since the 1950's.

You have a rock in space, a meteor, which has been travelling around the solar system for possibly billions of years. It's a sizeable rock, much like you would find in any sort of rock with one great exception. It would have had a significant percentage of naturally occurring uranium in the rock, accompanied by lithium. After a significant period of time, this rock would have gathered or absorbed the direct energy input of high energy gamma rays. The implication is that the uranium would have become highly enriched and very uniformly dispersed in the rock. But the lithium would also have become an isotope as well.

You have two ingredients therefore, of the basic fuels required in a thermonuclear device. A NATURAL thermonuclear device. The rock was also covered in ice, which probably became heavy water ice in the same instance of time, which spanned a great length.

This rock with so much potential would have passed at regular intervals through a high energy gamma ray stream millions of times during the expansion of the universe, whereas man only existed for hundreds of thousands of years in his evolved state. One day, the orbit of this rock decayed due to its increased mass through what is an entirely natural process.

A rock of this size would have left an indelible mark on the face of the earth had it struck the surface, but instead it exploded spectacularly in the atmosphere. The heat and pressure of re-entry were the exact circumstance required to force the highly enriched uranium into criticality, which then exploded. The rock gave off a bright blue light prior to explosion, which should signify gamma rays emanating brightly from the surface as it re-entered. This explosion is the exact circumstance required to then spray the enriched lithium within the rock and heavy water ice that remained on its surface(probably the trailing edge) with a shower of neutrons in a split-second, transmuting the elements into a fusion reaction between tritium and deuterium.

There is a high energy gamma ray source which points directly at the solar system, the earth in particular, emanating from Cygnus X-3, a binary star composed of a star made entirely of quarks and a companion that supplies endless quantities of hydrogen. It's 37,000 light years from earth, but the streams of gamma rays are the brightest in the galaxy that provide earth with regular illumination. This energy would have been absorbed by the meteor as it passed on its orbit through the solar system, showered with high energy gamma rays.

I suppose you can see how utterly improbable this kind of event might occur, and how remote the possibility that such a thing could happen. But you have thermonuclear effects, thus you must assume that the interaction that caused the effects were exactly those of known thermonuclear devices. As for the gamma ray radiation that might transmute otherwise non-radioactive substances into critical elements required for such a thing to occur, you might want to take in the article describing Cygnus X3, and how the particle stream is quite unique:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00326896.pdf

Many Thanks for reading and entertaining my thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.243.211 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Meteors cannot detonate via a nuclear explosion. Your paper is FRINGE and Original Research, and the Talk Pages are not a Forum - only Reliable Sources should be discussed here. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Your paper is FRINGE and Original Research' First of all, I consider your response to be very rude.  And, actually, no.  If you start with scientific principles and judge by the effects, it cannot be otherwise.  Good luck with wikipedia.org, the website is being killed by the moderators.  Nothing new under the sun as they say.   'Bye-bye! Wikipedia, it was fun while it lasted!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.243.211 (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, first, gamma radiation won't enrich uranium or any other element. Enrichment of isotopes would be through neutron bombardment. That is atomic physics 101. Second, you confuse how critical mass is accomplished and neglect the fact that a supercritical mass is necessary to accomplish a nuclear detonation and said supercritical mass must remain in place long enough to cause a detonation. Normally, such a mass would explosively disassemble itself if it lacked a tamper. Third, you magically put lithium in with the uranium, which normally doesn't happen in nature, indeed, it would cause critical mass to be impossible to achieve! Finally, atmospheric stresses are insufficient to assemble a supercritical mass of some magically refined uranium meteor (you need better than 95% purity, which never happens in nature). Such a meteor is as improbable as digging into an aluminum mine and finding a natural Boeing 747 in place. Too many things have to be in place in very specific ways to accomplish a supercritical mass that could cause a nuclear detonation. Remove one, the thing would fizzle. To be blunt, fringe and OR is being polite. Ignorant ramblings on topics of high energy physics would be more accurate.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Dead Animals
Any information on dead larger animals within the area? Eg Deer or Bears? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Presumably many died, but the first detailed survey of the site was done over 20 years after the explosion, by which point the carcasses would have been long gone. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Lack Of Micrometeorites is An Anomaly
This evidence only supports the exotic matter comet hypothesis of being a round a metre in diameter, which is a useful measurement to have incidentally. There should be thousands of micro meteorites from the airburst event, but there *AREN'T ANY!!* PLEASE! Can anyone see this simple anomaly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.118.104 (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

> You should cite some sources to support your complaint. 69.122.70.156 (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not remove the "aliens" section
When I saw the "undue weight" warning I expected to see some kind of "serious" theory about aliens, but what is there now is a factual account of the interaction of fiction with this event and how the event was popularly perceived. Many people (wrongly) think this was a flying saucer crash site or some such thing. The "aliens" section helps explain *why* that belief is so popular. I came to the article hoping to understand why so many people have so many wild theories about this event.

Clearly, it is because it was ignored at first the researched post-mortem. This made it seem mysterious and created a vacuum in to which wild notions rushed. It was for a time a true UFO (in the sense that it was unidentified) the mystery was solved but the legend lives on, the legend is a part of the history and the article would be incomplete and unhelpful without it.

And legends and folk tales are beautiful things. As long as we understand them for what they are and enjoy them as such.

69.122.70.156 (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Electric universe section
This paragraph has gotten added a couple times and I'd like other editors input on it. Looking at it myself, and pardon my French, it's fringe crap. Looking at the links, it's a self-published theory, and the group of "enthusiasts" of this theory include only a single actual scientist (two if you count the electrical engineer). The theory itself has appeared in a respected journal precisely once, in Skeptic, which refers to the theory as "untenable", "a non-starter" and "disproved by practically everything known..." It simply has no place in an article about a serious topic. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's non-notable fringe crap that has no significant relevance to this topic per ONEWAY. I've deleted it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, completely undue. This sort of inclusion is contrary to WP:ONEWAY as pointed out by Dominus. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the characterization of this paragraph as fringe crap. It is not appropriate in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree; "non-notable fringe crap" is a pretty good summary, alas. bobrayner (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's non-notable fringe rubbish and has no place in any article.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)