It seems like, in the past few years, they've actually found fragments of some sort of
meteorite that was involved.

But one book, "The Fire Came By", claims that the ratio of radiant to mechanical
energy released, as determined by the remaining blast evidence, can be produced
only by nuclear explosions.

That book also claims that the object apparently changed course during its
descent (although the witnesses are few and possibly unreliable), and that
animals and vegetation in the area showed signs of radiation exposure.

We're lucky nothing like that happened over an urban area during the Cold War,
or the war would have gone Hot - instantly.

 

the witnesses are few and possibly unreliable

Few? "The General Catalog of Tunguska eyewitness reports has 920 entries. It is based on materials that were published in newspapers, journals, and monographs, as well as on archival materials and firsthand information collected by members of the Independent Tunguska Exploration Group (ITEG), the Committee on Meteorites (KMET), and the All-Union Astronomical and Geodetical Society (AAGS) in their Siberian expeditions. When the catalog was being prepared for publication, 212 eyewitness reports were removed from it – reports that could not have had anything to do with the TSB. In all likelihood, the eyewitnesses saw other large bolides that flew over central Siberia in different years. But there remained 708 reports directly related to the Tunguska phenomenon." (Rubtsov, V. The Tunguska Mystery, Springer, 2012, p. 214.)

 

The History channel did a great episode on this event and they covered the many possibilities: Alien Spacecraft, Nuke, Meteor and I believe there was another one.

Just look for that episode, you might even find it on YouTube.

 

I remember hear about this and how Tesla was doing some sort of experiment at the time, and a theory was this is what caused it.

But the world may never know.

T

 

Yep that was the exact day he tested his "death-ray".

 

I'm not sure how to explain it exactly so I will just post a link. Scientists sound pretty sure they've figured it out.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tunguska-impact-riddle-solved-at-la-2009-06

 

I'm gonna have to hear a lot more explanation of how a "comet", which is
basically what has been referred to as "a dirty snowball", can explode in the
atmosphere with 15 megatons of energy and produce radiant energy
comparable to a nuclear detonation, before I'll buy that explanation.

Moreover I don't understand their logic. They're saying, "comets produce
luminous clouds, and the Tunguska object produced a luminous cloud, so
therefore it was a comet" - ? Aristotle would tear them a new ******* for
that sort of shabby reasoning.

But, then, it's "Scientific" "American"... which is neither. They need to stick
to something they're good at, like howling about Global Warming.

 

it may have been a test by Nikolia Tesla.

 

It is an interesting event. Basically I have heard two theories about it. One theory says it was a natural object from space, that perhaps was a hydrogen rich "snowball", and that friction with the atmosphere caused it to heat up and explode. The second theory says it probably was a UFO alein spacecraft that malfunctioned and exploded. With those two basic theories or guesses out of the way, something else came from Soviet interviews of the indigenous people living around the Tunguska area at the time. The Soviet's learned from the locals a number of interesting things. Several people were actually outside, sitting by their hut doors and they watched the object come in and explode. Several people were killed outright because of being too close to the explosion, and others sustained flash burns from high heat radiation. The Soviets likened the flash burns to the very similar burns suffered by Japanese citizens at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. One of the indigenous residents of the Tunguska area said he saw the object come in, and also saw that it turned on a new course before exploding. The explosion at Tunguska obviously was a massive air burst because trees directly below the explosion point were standing but stripped of their branches, and trees away from the explosion point were knocked down in a symetrical manner radiating away. The explosion was loud enough that it was heard in St. Petersburg / Leningrad and in London, England.

 

Well, it came up on a show I watched today and it said there was only one casualty. Not several.

 

I think the consensus was that is was a respectable-sized meteor that broke apart just before impact.

 

This respectable consensus has nothing to do with the real picture of the event. It breaks apart when examined closely.

 

The thing is...if this natural event happened in the US, we'd still have people in FEMA trailers crying the US owes them a living...we'll be taking care of the Katrina parasites 100 years from now as well.

 

The craziest thing about Tunguska was how long it was until people investigated it. Ten of fifteen years, which is pretty surprising if it was as big and noticeable as it was supposed to be. If someone had gotten out there sooner to check it out maybe we would have better info and have a real definitive answer by now.

 

Well, it was over 100 years ago. And Russia at the time wasn't exactly developed and had recently been at war with Japan, then there was WWI...

Caused a bit of a delay in investigating the odd glow in the north.

 

Read a book once that hypothesised it was a quantum black hole that exploded.

 

that Tesla was one brilliant man, just think of what he could have done today working with the technology that we have now...

 

Pressure and friction, coupled with great speed can break things apart very readily in our atmosphere. Recall the Space Shuttle?

Look at the moon. Use a pair of binoculars if you have them. You will see the moon's surface is incredibly marred by hundreds, perhaps thousands of craters, plains (seas), hills, rills, meandering 'streams', ejecta sprays and streams and so forth. And so far as we can tell, not a single one of them resulting from an alien vehicle visiting from space and blowing up...

Weather as we know it doesn't exist on the moon. So some of the craters you are looking at may be millions, perhaps billions of years old...or may have occured just yesterday. Without weather, they will likely be there for all time.

The earth is larger than the moon, and has weather. Without weather, the earth would make the moon look like child's play. For being larger than the moon, with greater surface area and gravitational pull, the earth has likely entertained many, many more impacts from comets, asteroidal bits and pieces and other suchlike.

And for some objects, our atmosphere can have effects much like a solid body as well. Recall what happens when someone falls or jumps into water from a great height? or at great speed? They say it is just as if they were hitting concrete. Yes, the atmosphere is less dense than water...but hit it at high enough speed, and you'll equalize the effects.

And so far, given the likely incredibly huge number of impact craters that would be visible on this planet, but for weather, farming, urbanization and so forth...not a single one of those has been proven to be from the impact of an alien space faring vehicle exploding either in our atmosphere, or on land, or sea...

Unless of course, you count Roswell. And Tunguska. And being generous and giving Tunguska the same kind of scientific credibility as Roswell here...well.

 

I think that the problem of the Tunguska explosion is rather complicated and still far from its solution. For more information about this problem I would recommend the following books: “The Tunguska Mystery,” by Vladimir Rubtsov (Springer N.Y., 2009, ISSN 9780387765730; 2012, ISSN 9781461429258), “The Tungus Event or The Great Siberian Meteorite,” by John Engledew (Algora Publishing, ISSN 9780875867809) and, with some reservations, “The Mystery of the Tunguska Fireball,” by Surendra Verma (Totem Books, ISSN 9781840467284). After reading these books I doubt that simple meteoritic or cometary models of this event can work. A nuclear explosion? Well, as a hypothesis it could be accepted – but hardly proved.
Best, Gabor
http://www.facebook.com/gabor.arsant

 

A nuclear explosion? Well, as a hypothesis it could be accepted – but hardly proved.
Best, Gabor

Why not? I did not read the books you mention, but recently, I read an article by Dr. Rubtsov (he is also a member of the Russian Academy of Astronautics) and I think his position is different: he believes that the nuclear hypothesis is well substantiated. This article (“The Tunguska Event: Maybe It Wasn't What We Thought”) was published in the EdgeScience journal (http://www.scientificexploration.org/edgescience/edgescience_05.pdf).

 

Incoming ice hunk that violently disintegrates (explodes) a few miles above ground. Maybe a hunk of a comet. Probably nothing solid or there would have been lots of pieces to collect. Definitely nothing nuclear or the remaining radioisotopes would be easily detected.

If it had happened in Canada there would have been an army of scientists there pronto. Since it happened in Siberia, just one small science group and not very quick.

 

If it had happened in Canada there would have been an army of scientists there pronto. Since it happened in Siberia, just one small science group and not very quick.

Heh. As awesome as my country is I don't think we'd have sent an army of scientists to the NorthWest Territories 100 years ago to investigate the strange glow in the northern sky.

 

I don't think the general public will ever truly know. Although I do think it is interesting that Russia released a formerly 'top secret' document earlier this year that claims they have a crater supposedly caused from a meteorite. This crater is filled with diamonds which the report said naturally occurs when an object with that much heat comes into contact with the type of rock naturally occurring in that area. According to the news snip the amount of diamonds is worth in the Trillions.
In all honesty I have no idea if this document is reffering to the Tunguska event or something else entirely.

 

Different impact event. That one is from 35 million years ago and far bigger.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-diamonds-Source-Siberian-asteroid-crater-supply-world-markets-3-000-years.html

 

A piece of a Comet struck the Earth.

 

A piece of a Comet struck the Earth.

The Mysterious Tunguska Event - YouTube

I miss Carl Sagan.

 

I do too. Fine author and scientist.

Ironically he helped start the "nuclear winter" frenzy back in the 80s with some preliminary results from a mathematical model. When he went back to check the numbers he discovered it wouldn't have been as bad as he thought. At most it would be a short 'nuclear fall". He tried to correct his mistake but the media weren't listening.

 

Hell, just in the last month we've had leftover fragments of a comet "bursting over tenn. and other states. An eye witness account in Tenn. claims that the burst that later was verified to make it down to an altitude of 18 miles cast a shadow as it passed by. Imagine a large chunk exploding a half mile above ground traveling at 40km/s. THAT'S a LOT of energy. Enough energy to light the atmosphere to the pt where they could read outside in London at around midnight. If something like that happened directly over a major city? Good night Irene!

 

Most theories are easily disproven.

Meteor of some type? Nope. There'd be plenty of fragments.

Nuclear explosion? Nope. We'd still see radioactivity of a very specific type.

What explodes with that much force at that altitude and leaves no trace? A big ball of ice. Hits the atmosphere as a solid hunk. Pressure rapidly rises until the stress causes it to rapidly disintegrate. Now we have small high velocity particles in the atmosphere which instantly give up their kinetic energy by friction as heat. Whole thing takes less than a second. To someone on the ground it would be no different than a nuclear airburst except the temperatures wouldn't be high enough to cause high energy gamma. It would be hot enough to produce thermal x rays which are immediately absorbed by the atmosphere and eventually re-radiated as heat. That's how a fireball would form. So a chunk off a comet fits the evidence precisely.

And we just happened to be crossing the path of a comet at the time, Comet 2005NB56. Not a smoking gun but I doubt a coincidence. Did the hunk completely vaporize or did some of it bounce off the atmosphere like a stone off a pond? That would explain any apparent change in course or any irregularities in the blast patter.

Aliens? Tesla experiment gone wrong? I'm not going there. Tin foil hat time. Occam's razor is usually a good guide.

 

Nuclear explosion? Nope. We'd still see radioactivity of a very specific type.

But, it IS seen. Sorry for a long citation, but it seems relevant:

"4. A complex set of serious ecological consequences has been revealed in the region of the explosion. First, the forest was restored very quickly after the catastrophe; there was accelerated growth of trees, both young and those that survived the incident (Nekrasov & Emelyanov, 1963; Emelyanov et al., 1967). Second, the local pines showed a sharp increase in frequency of mutations (Plekhanov et al., 1968; Dragavtsev et al., 1975). Both of these effects tend to concentrate towards the “corridor” of the Tunguska body flight path. As with many other anomalies in this region, the genetic impact of the phenomenon is also of patchy character. A rare mutation among the natives of the region, which arose in the 1910s in one of the settlements nearest to the epicenter, has also been discovered (Rychkov, 2000).

5. The presence of feeble but noticeable radioactive fallout after the Tunguska explosion has been confirmed by finding peaks of radioactivity dated 1908 in trees that had withered before 1945—the year nuclear tests in the atmosphere started and the artificial radionuclides began to fall from the sky in plenty. Only the increased radioactivity of the samples taken from the trees that continued their growth after this year can be explained as contamination from contemporary nuclear tests (Mekhedov 1967; Zolotov 1969).

6. Within 10 to 15 kilometers from the Tunguska epicenter the level of thermoluminescence (TL) of local minerals considerably exceeds the background level. The zone of increased TL has an axis of symmetry running almost directly from the east to the west. “Formerly we were calling the factor which had stimulated thermoluminescence at Tunguska somewhat too cautiously ‘unknown,’ but now it’s time to tell that we cannot see any rational alternatives to identifying this with hard radiation” (Bidyukov, 2008)." (EdgeScience, 2010, No. 5, p. 7)

 

Plus, in the FWIW department, we now have empirical evidence (from an N=1 event) from a spacecraft in distress breaking up and exploding while entering the earth's atmosphere.

The Columbia Space Shuttle tragedy illustrates that if a spacecraft had been involved in the Tunguska event, there is a high probability that some sort of fragmentary evidence would be spread across a wide area. Columbia debris was discovered across multiple states along its re-entry path. Based on the Columbia disaster, it seems extremely unlikely that a complex engineered object would disintegrate into multiple fragments at that altitude (per eye-witness accounts) over a long re-entry path and then explode without leaving any trace whatever of debris or fragmentary evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster

The Columbia evidence appears to strengthen the argument in favor of ice, and weaken any argument suggesting a spacecraft might have been responsible for the event.

 

It was a nuclear event, people.

The fact that we can't explain how a nuclear event could have occurred prior to our
invention of nuclear weapons, is irrelevant. Denying that it was a nuclear event
because we can't "Explain" that, is "Illogical" (thank you, Mr. Spock) - you're putting
the conclusion ahead of the data because it makes you uncomfortable.

Somebody needs to go up there and start digging and sifting, IYAM... There's a
"Shovel-Ready Job" if I ever saw one

 

It was a nuclear event, people.

All evidence indicates a comet fragment. Like, ALL of the evidence.

The fact that we can't explain how a nuclear event could have occurred prior to our invention of nuclear weapons, is irrelevant.

Lol, that's an interesting perspective. Seems very relevant in the face of the evidence, or should I say complete lack of evidence, of any radioactive or nuclear fallout in the area. Sagan is no dummy. Seems you're over complicating the situation so that it fits your opinion.

 

This may be something of a sidetrack, but would ice content in comets subliminate into space quickly (in relation to the time that a comet would form and travel to our atmosphere)? Just driving down the road with a frosted windshield near 32ºf will quickly subliminate the ice. I suppose ice content, atmospheric pressure (and lack thereof in a vacuum), and the location of the ice (surface vs. internal) would all have an effect on the speed of sublinmination.

Space isn't my forte, so I'm just asking out of curiosity.

 

no, you are exactly right. this is why a comet's tail grows as it approaches the sun.

 

south carolina has numerous (dozens IIRC) of small lakes around columbia and s-w of that have been attributed to 'cosmic buckshot' k's of years back
if that happened nowadays it would 'rattle some windows' for sure

 

We may have to wait (and hope?) for another such event, for modern instrumentation
to give us a better idea of what happened. Meanwhile, we can try to study the
radionucleide signature at the event site in more detail...

And one can hope that if it happens again, it happens over Berkeley, or Cambridge
(Or Mecca! THAT'd get 'em squawking...)

 

Meanwhile, we can try to study the
radionucleide signature at the event site in more detail...

and where is that signature? if it wasa nuke it would be perfectly easy to prove due to the abundance of certain radioisotope.... ive not seen one lick of data supporting this...

 

It wasn't a nuclear event, it was pre nuclear era, and there's no evidence of one coming here. it could of been a dirty frozen ball of CO2 for all we know.

 

There are all manner of nuclear events which occur due to wholly natural
causes.

An ancient, naturally occurring nuclear reactor has been found in Africa, for
instance.