Either that or we were awfully lucky that it was out away from a larger concentration of man.
Full Version: Tunguska Event
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Extraterrestrial Life & The UFO Phenomenon
What if it wasn't an asteroid or comet exploding in the air? Could it have been an ET warning us not to mess around with war or something? Their photon torpedo or something of the sort. Either that or we were awfully lucky that it was out away from a larger concentration of man.
Either that or we were awfully lucky that it was out away from a larger concentration of man.
so, aliens telling us not to fight each other by wiping out several square miles of pristine forest.....doesn't sound quite right to me.
QUOTE(Keleneki @ Dec 18 2006, 03:45 AM) [snapback]1466088[/snapback]
What if it wasn't an asteroid or comet exploding in the air? Could it have been an ET warning us not to mess around with war or something?
Not likely whatsoever, basically given the lack of substantive evidence of such.
Besides, given the lack of any radiation detected anywhere in or around the ground zero zone, the radial deflection and devastation, the complete absence of asterioidal artifact, and the absence of a blast crater, the obvious conclusion is that the Tunguska Event was indeed a cometary impact. A big one.
QUOTE
Either that or we were awfully lucky that it was out away from a larger concentration of man.
Indeed we were!
QUOTE(MID @ Dec 18 2006, 11:05 PM) [snapback]1466835[/snapback]
Besides, given the lack of any radiation detected anywhere in or around the ground zero zone, the radial deflection and devastation, the complete absence of asterioidal artifact, and the absence of a blast crater, the obvious conclusion is that the Tunguska Event was indeed a cometary impact. A big one.
I've also heard the theory that it could have been a stoney meteorite. This is an interesting link on the subject.
QUOTE
What was the explosion?
Because the meteorite did not strike the ground or make a crater, early researchers thought the object might be a weak, icy fragment of a comet, which vaporized explosively in the air, and left no residue on the ground. However, modern planetary scientists have much better tools for understanding meteorite explosion in the atmosphere. As a meteorite slams into the atmosphere at speeds around 12 to 20 km/sec or more, it experiences a strong mechanical shock, like a diver bellyflopping into water. This can break apart stones of a certain size range, which explode instead of hitting the ground. Some of them drop brick-sized fragments on the ground, but others, such as the one that hit Siberia, may produce primarily a fireball and cloud of fine dust and tiny fragments. In 1993 researchers Chris Chyba, Paul Thomas, and Kevin Zahnle studied the Siberian explosion and concluded it was of this type -- a stone meteorite that exploded in the atmosphere. This conclusion was supported when Russian researchers found tiny stoney particles embedded in the trees at the collision site, matching the composition of common stone meteorites. The original asteroid fragment may have been roughly 50-60 meters (50-60 yards) in diameter.
Because the meteorite did not strike the ground or make a crater, early researchers thought the object might be a weak, icy fragment of a comet, which vaporized explosively in the air, and left no residue on the ground. However, modern planetary scientists have much better tools for understanding meteorite explosion in the atmosphere. As a meteorite slams into the atmosphere at speeds around 12 to 20 km/sec or more, it experiences a strong mechanical shock, like a diver bellyflopping into water. This can break apart stones of a certain size range, which explode instead of hitting the ground. Some of them drop brick-sized fragments on the ground, but others, such as the one that hit Siberia, may produce primarily a fireball and cloud of fine dust and tiny fragments. In 1993 researchers Chris Chyba, Paul Thomas, and Kevin Zahnle studied the Siberian explosion and concluded it was of this type -- a stone meteorite that exploded in the atmosphere. This conclusion was supported when Russian researchers found tiny stoney particles embedded in the trees at the collision site, matching the composition of common stone meteorites. The original asteroid fragment may have been roughly 50-60 meters (50-60 yards) in diameter.
Meteorite or comet, it was on hell of an explosion! But, it wasn't ET.
Also interesting is the order of magnitude calculation at the end of the article. It was certainly one big *KABOOM*!
QUOTE(Lilly @ Dec 19 2006, 12:09 AM) [snapback]1466901[/snapback]
Meteorite or comet, it was on hell of an explosion! But, it wasn't ET.
Also interesting is the order of magnitude calculation at the end of the article. It was certainly one big *KABOOM*!
Also interesting is the order of magnitude calculation at the end of the article. It was certainly one big *KABOOM*!
Meteor explosions in the upper atmosphere are fairly common and usually go unnoticed. When the US declassified some of the data collected by it's Vela satellites (which were designed to look for nuclear explosions) it was discovered that a Hiroshima sized explosion (about 1 kilotonne) occured on average once a month. The object which exploded above Tunguska was larger so penetrated further into the atmosphere before exploding. Being larger it also caused a bigger KABOOM. Bigger bang, closer to the ground... not a good combination.
QUOTE(Waspie_Dwarf @ Dec 18 2006, 07:42 PM) [snapback]1466928[/snapback]
Meteor explosions in the upper atmosphere are fairly common and usually go unnoticed. When the US declassified some of the data collected by it's Vela satellites (which were designed to look for nuclear explosions) it was discovered that a Hiroshima sized explosion (about 1 kilotonne) occured on average once a month. The object which exploded above Tunguska was larger so penetrated further into the atmosphere before exploding. Being larger it also caused a bigger KABOOM. Bigger bang, closer to the ground... not a good combination.
And it could have easily done the damage over that area, and also leaving trees standing where the initial explosion happened!
QUOTE(Moro Bumbleroot @ Dec 19 2006, 12:44 AM) [snapback]1466933[/snapback]
And it could have easily done the damage over that area, and also leaving trees standing where the initial explosion happened!
Absolutely. In fact, it was that very blast pattern that tipped people off that it had been an air explosion, and not a ground impact.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence of radiation at the site. But there are trace elements of radiation left. Is it possible that this could have been an atomic test of the Russians? Perhaps much bigger than anticipated and all experimentors and evidence destroyed in the explosion?
QUOTE(joc @ Dec 18 2006, 08:34 PM) [snapback]1467021[/snapback]
There doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence of radiation at the site. But there are trace elements of radiation left. Is it possible that this could have been an atomic test of the Russians? Perhaps much bigger than anticipated and all experimentors and evidence destroyed in the explosion?
Maybe i seriously doubt it though! Depending on what the meteor was made out of it may not have produced alot of radiation after it exploded!
It isn't, after all, unusual for random areas to have trace radiation naturally occuring.
QUOTE(joc @ Dec 19 2006, 01:34 AM) [snapback]1467021[/snapback]
There doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence of radiation at the site. But there are trace elements of radiation left. Is it possible that this could have been an atomic test of the Russians? Perhaps much bigger than anticipated and all experimentors and evidence destroyed in the explosion?
''atomic test of the russians....'' erm, it happened in 1908
Hello, I'm new here.
I just came across this site about the Tunguska event:
FACTS ARE AGAINST SPACE IMPACT AND POINT TO GEOPHYSICAL ORIGIN
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/***...40/tunguska.htm
I just came across this site about the Tunguska event:
FACTS ARE AGAINST SPACE IMPACT AND POINT TO GEOPHYSICAL ORIGIN
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/***...40/tunguska.htm
QUOTE(Keleneki @ Dec 17 2006, 10:45 PM) [snapback]1466088[/snapback]
What if it wasn't an asteroid or comet exploding in the air? Could it have been an ET warning us not to mess around with war or something? Their photon torpedo or something of the sort. Either that or we were awfully lucky that it was out away from a larger concentration of man.
Either that or we were awfully lucky that it was out away from a larger concentration of man.Thanks for the responses. Actually, I was looking at that new adventure game, The Secret Files: Tunguska and thought I would make a comedic thread. I thought the wink emoticon would show that this was a joke. Carrry on.
Yup I Agree. Meteor or a Comet.
QUOTE(Keleneki @ Dec 19 2006, 03:02 PM) [snapback]1467534[/snapback]
Thanks for the responses. Actually, I was looking at that new adventure game, The Secret Files: Tunguska and thought I would make a comedic thread. I thought the wink emoticon would show that this was a joke. Carrry on.
It's hard to take anything for granted on this forum. We've had people posting clips from that video game Age of Giants, or something, and claiming it was evidence of giants. Last year I was talking with a guy who claimed the Sphynx had moved to face a new constellation. I asked him if he meant that the Sphynx had literally moved, and he replied that, obviously, he meant that the rotation of the Earth had re-aligned it. I asked him for a source, and he responded with a link to a series of articles about novelty newspapers, one of which published a completly fictional account of how the Sphynx had literally lifted itself up and faced a different direction.
You just can't tell where some people get their ideas from.
QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTE(joc @ Dec 19 2006, 01:34 AM)
There doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence of radiation at the site. But there are trace elements of radiation left. Is it possible that this could have been an atomic test of the Russians? Perhaps much bigger than anticipated and all experimentors and evidence destroyed in the explosion?
There doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence of radiation at the site. But there are trace elements of radiation left. Is it possible that this could have been an atomic test of the Russians? Perhaps much bigger than anticipated and all experimentors and evidence destroyed in the explosion?
''atomic test of the russians....'' erm, it happened in 1908
Atomic theory wasn't new in 1908...it's been around since the 1800's...I actually think it is probably more likely debris from a comet...mostly because there were reports of an object with a blue hue hurtling through the atmosphere. Everything seems to point to that...
...I started studying the Tunguska event early in the school semester when my nine year old chose it as her 'enigma project'...We (I) came up with the theory of the Russians being way ahead of the nuclear game as a way to give her a basic understanding of atomic structure (which is necessary if you are going to speculate about nuclear explosions). But there wasn't the levels of radiation one might expect in an explosion of that magnitude were it atomic in origin. The grass and plant life also grew at accelerated speeds...but that is consistent with new growth after a forest fire...so...an enigma it remains.
QUOTE(joc @ Dec 20 2006, 11:04 PM) [snapback]1469305[/snapback]
''atomic test of the russians....'' erm, it happened in 1908
Atomic theory wasn't new in 1908...it's been around since the 1800's...
Atomic theory wasn't new in 1908...it's been around since the 1800's...
Er... no - Einstein came up with the solution that enabled the atom bomb, and that was in 1905, and it was another 37 years before they managed to harness it as a bomb.
Do your research before posting.
QUOTE(joc @ Dec 20 2006, 11:04 PM) [snapback]1469305[/snapback]
an enigma it remains.
Not really. It has been proven to be consistant with a meteor breaking up and exploding in an airburst - hence the lack of crater. The reason the plants grew at a higher rate was the fact that ash is a fertilizer, and as there were less plants after the explosion, the remaining ones received a higher mineral intake.
QUOTE(joc @ Dec 20 2006, 11:04 PM) [snapback]1469305[/snapback]
''atomic test of the russians....'' erm, it happened in 1908
Atomic theory wasn't new in 1908...it's been around since the 1800's...I actually think it is probably more likely debris from a comet...mostly because there were reports of an object with a blue hue hurtling through the atmosphere. Everything seems to point to that...
...I started studying the Tunguska event early in the school semester when my nine year old chose it as her 'enigma project'...We (I) came up with the theory of the Russians being way ahead of the nuclear game as a way to give her a basic understanding of atomic structure (which is necessary if you are going to speculate about nuclear explosions). But there wasn't the levels of radiation one might expect in an explosion of that magnitude were it atomic in origin. The grass and plant life also grew at accelerated speeds...but that is consistent with new growth after a forest fire...so...an enigma it remains.
Atomic theory wasn't new in 1908...it's been around since the 1800's...I actually think it is probably more likely debris from a comet...mostly because there were reports of an object with a blue hue hurtling through the atmosphere. Everything seems to point to that...
...I started studying the Tunguska event early in the school semester when my nine year old chose it as her 'enigma project'...We (I) came up with the theory of the Russians being way ahead of the nuclear game as a way to give her a basic understanding of atomic structure (which is necessary if you are going to speculate about nuclear explosions). But there wasn't the levels of radiation one might expect in an explosion of that magnitude were it atomic in origin. The grass and plant life also grew at accelerated speeds...but that is consistent with new growth after a forest fire...so...an enigma it remains.
I think we can rule out Russia having nuclear technology in the early 1900s, if they had WW1 would probebly have been much shorter, & WW2 wouldn't have happened at all, & we would all be speaking russian today.
QUOTE(itsnotoutthere @ Dec 21 2006, 09:32 AM) [snapback]1470139[/snapback]
I think we can rule out Russia having nuclear technology in the early 1900s, if they had WW1 would probebly have been much shorter, & WW2 wouldn't have happened at all, & we would all be speaking russian today.
Very good point
Best,
Badeskov
QUOTE(MVxK @ Dec 21 2006, 07:33 AM) [snapback]1469890[/snapback]
Er... no - Einstein came up with the solution that enabled the atom bomb, and that was in 1905, and it was another 37 years before they managed to harness it as a bomb.
Do your research before posting.
Do your research before posting.
Umm.. I thought it was Enrico Fermi that won the Nobel Prize in 1938 for the discovery of Nuclear reactions caused by neutrons that resulted in the development of Nuclear reactors and eventually the "Bomb" seven years later.
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Dec 19 2006, 04:15 PM) [snapback]1467569[/snapback]
You just can't tell where some people get their ideas from.
As scary as it is true.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.