Talk:Tunguska event

Comment

I think the article should mention that an industry exists to sell agricultural products from the Tunguska zone. The industry claims the Tunguska soil has extra-rich nutrients therefore the produce (food additives ?) offers extraordinary benefits. To my knowledge, the industry hopes to grow by adding distributors who will then solicit for additional new distributors, a sort of Multi-Level-Marketing approach. In fact that industry does exist. The main product is called Tunguska Blast. Go to www.tblastdrink.com for more information.

I disagree! This is the article about the event and its aftermath. Not about products related to it. If this product is notable it should have its own page, instead. I will remove the external link to avoid "link spam". Awolf002 14:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment

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

Great article!

Less Fiction More Fact Please

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

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

"The Astronauts"

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

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

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

Tektites?

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

No, they are not tectites. They are small (much less than a millimeter in diameter) magnetite spherules - the remains of cosmic matter disintegrated in atmosphere, commonly found in Earth soil all over the world. However, relative density of distribution of these spherules is much higher at the place of impact. -- kmike 05:52, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Magnetite being the equivalent of glass in this case, apparently then! --Wetman 03:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good good!

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

Wikinfo link

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

The Wardenclyffe Tower

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

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

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

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

Fictional reference

See David Brin's "Earth".

---

¿Star Trek?

---

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

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

---

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

Hint:

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

	site:memory-alpha.org tunguska

	

Ŭalabio 04:06, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

As far as I remember, that was just one obscure reference, it was very easy to overlook. It was not a significant part of a plot, just a reference to something that happened in the past. If I stumble on that episode again, I'll certainly add this information back into the article. Meanwhile... oh well.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 12:34, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

It was in the TOS Episode That Which Survives, Season 3. I think the character Sulu does a remark about the explosion in Russia in 1908, whereas Kirk claims that if he wanted a lesson in Russian history he'd brought Chekov along. :) -Challenger_STA

---

¡Ghostbusters!

I checked out the reference to Ghostbusters and confirmed the reference with an Audio/MP3. [1]

--

Ŭalabio 03:50, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

---

There is still another explanation for the Tunguska Event !

For an incredibly profound and interesting Tunguska Event explanation which makes all the others appear mundane read the entry in the following blog:

http://ablebodiedman.blogspot.com/

Regards

ffoeg

I'm not sure that's really encyclopedic. Can we get more substantial data please? --Orborde 05:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

A Divine and Sentient Celestial Body

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

It references.

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

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

You are mis-interpreting the category "original research". Having references to support ones pet theory is what any researcher would have. However, WP strives to include "notable" knowledge, in this case explanations of this event. The definition of "notable" IMHO is based on WP being a secondary source, never a primary. And so it is looking for peer reviewed theories or theories that are widely discussed in the media. Therefore, even if the UFO theory is not scientifically peer-reviewed, it surely is widely publicised and therefore notable.

In this spirit, please provide published articles or similar "media documents" that show your explanation is widely known and discussed. Awolf002 22:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Tesla

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

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

wardencliff

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

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

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

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

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

Maury 30 June 2005 12:01 (UTC)

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

Nuke 'em!

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

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

These explosions take place in the upper atmosphere. -- CYD

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

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

This Article has lots of nonsense it in

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

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

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

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

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

Event predicted?

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

Jon_Rob

UFO

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

UFO has much more evidence than the others. Sprited Spheniscidae 03:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

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

Wonder Woman

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

See the Tunguska at Marvel.

Crying out

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

Radiation

Very good article, it truly is fascinating. Interested parties may want to check out:

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/nature/natural-disasters/tunguska/

My only problem would have to be with this passage:

"Expeditions led by Gennady Plekhanov found no elevated levels of radiation, which might have been expected if the detonation were nuclear in nature."

Doesn't the Tunguska explosion predate the detonation of the first atomic device by some 30 years ??

Anyway, keep up the good work !!

Yes, the Tunguska explosion predated nukes by decades, but you'll notice there are some individuals who prefer the illogical and nonsensical over the obvious. Albester 14:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Incident Date vs. Siberian Life Article Date

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

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

Interesting article linking global warming to Tunguska

Read http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html . The theory is that the destruction of millions of trees initiated the global warming effect. Should be added to the article?

There is also an article at http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/tunguska.shtml linking the Tunguska Event with global warming.

What if there was more than one meteorite?

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

Jeff Rense Archives

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

Phenomenon DVD

Great reference. Don't be surprised that I've deleted the anonymous edit that spammed it. The fact is that I got special powers, like the guy in the DVD:

George Malley (Travolta) is knocked to the ground by a mysterious, blinding light and suddenly develops amazing mental abilities! With his newfound knowledge, George astounds everyone in town. But when his incredible powers cause even his oldest friends to turn away, George comes to realize that his wondrous experience has changed him and the lives of everyone around him forever.

Jclerman 20:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Near miss?

I have heard of a hypothesis that thought the Tunguska event was caused by not an impact, but a near miss: a meteor that entered the atmosphere, but had enough velocity to pass through and not impact the planet. I don't have the time to research it and write it up, but the article deserves the addition.

As a side note: a modification of the Jackson-Ryan hypothesis postulates that there was no exit event because the nanoscopic black hole that caused the event is still in the planet, orbiting through the crust or mantle. This idea is applied in the book Singularity by Bill Desmedt.--Ryan! 05:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Jon Stewart

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

Ultimates Universe

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