Talk:Tunguska event

Template:Assessed

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 (eyewittness translation, plus some 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 [1]. 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 <bob> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.255.101 (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Someguy, it is unfortunate if this organization is not reliable. It would appear that The United States Committee on governmental affairs thinks it is.

((User:Nosut)) 11:00, 5 April 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)

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. [2][3][4] [5][6] [7]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 Oliver Nichelsen - 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 5×10¹⁶ Joules. That equals 5×10¹⁶ Coulomb-Volts. By comparison, the world's largest capacitor bank today is at Rheinmetall AG, and only holds 50 megajoules.[8] 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: [9] 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)

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)

"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)

"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

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).

"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)

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 <s>...</s> 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)

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)