No one can dispute the occurrence, but how it happened is the subject of continuing, and often heated, controversy. Despite the best efforts of science, every acceptable “explanation” leaves inescapable facts still shouting for attention.The event began at about 7:15 on the morning of June 30, 1908 in a remote region of central Siberia near the Stony Tunguska River. A blue-white fireball—brighter than the Sun, some said—raced across the sky, then exploded with the force of a 10- to 15- megaton hydrogen bomb.The explosion felled some 60 million trees across an area of 2000 square kilometers. Yet some trees near the blast center were not burnt and a ring of burnt trees circling the epicenter was left standing. The thunderous sounds were accompanied by a shock wave that knocked people off their feet and broke windows hundreds of kilometers away.The explosion registered on seismic stations across Europe and Asia, and as far away as Britain meteorologists registered fluctuations in atmospheric pressure. The resulting pulse of air pressure circled the Earth twice, and astronomers observed for several nights afterwards a glowing red haze in the upper atmosphere, though they were not aware of the cause at the time.

Curiously, reports of an unusually bright night sky began the night before the Tunguska event and continued for several days afterwards.For the next few weeks, reports suggest that the night skies were aglow to such an extent that one could read in their light. Both the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Mount Wilson Observatory reported a decrease in atmospheric transparency persisting for several months.What, then, was experienced by the witnesses to the event: Accounts gathered by the Russian mineralogist Leonid Kulik, in his 1930 expedition to the site of the explosion are consistent enough on many details to be considered generally reliable.

View: Full Article | Source: Thunderbolts

Regarding the Tunguska being a nuclear bomb:
Well, it was long before the atomic age, so that's a low option.

Regarding the Tunguska being a meteorite:
Meteorites don't shift directions. Twice. As according to many individual witness reports.

So what is it?

A radio controlled nuclear metorite - avaliable at all good toy stores. (may contain traces of ET)

It was Nikola Tesla and his "Death Ray" experiment I tell you!!!!

Funny how this topic came back up as soon as I just read something more about it. Last week at the local pawn shop I bought a bunch of books. In one, I haven't read the story yet, just flipped through it, they have a theory that it was a black hole that fell there.

Black holes dont shift directions nor do they move at that....Black holes suck in and as you see it doesnt look very black lol..

Wrong, black holes do move. They are not really holes but very dense object whose escape velocity is higher than the speed of light.

Carl Sagan was sure that it was a comet that had exploded from above. Some believe that it was a Interdimensional crossing of two dimensions.

I believe that it was a comet.

Black holes do not move...They are stationary I had this debate with my Astro teacher. They are an "OBject" in theory but they are not. You are correct that the "Speed of light" Cannot escape a black hole that is because it is "Sucking in" the space around it...

You are prob stating its an object because it is created by a super nova(Explosion of a star) But when one gets sucked into a black hole they become as small as a piece of spaghetti.

But like I said that pic has no characteristics of a black hole..

And if you can find a black hole that moves around that fast, leaves streeks*, and is white please send me some info.

You do realise that that isn't a photo of the Tuguska event don't you? It is an artist impression. There weren't many colour photographs taken in 1908. Trying to derive anything from that picture is not going to get you any where.

Secondly an object reentering the atmosphere ionises the the gas in the atmosphere causing a bright glow. This would occur even with a mini-black hole.

Thirdly, alhtough black holes themselves can't be seen, the area around them is often extremely bright. This is the result of an accrecion disk around the black hole. As matterial orbits the black hole before falling in it becomes extremely hot. It is the xrays emitted from these accretion disks tha make it possible for astronomers to detect black holes.

Finally, one of the theories behind gamma ray bursts is the collision of black holes. Would you care to explain how it is possible for two objects to collide if neither of them can move? Here is a link to an article from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory from 2002 describing the evidence for the collision of 2 super massive black holes: Scientists Detect "Smoking Gun" of Colliding Black Holes.

I agree, without new evidence to the contrary, it's the most likely answer...

Can you please link me something stated that black holes are bright lol. I would love to see this. Also if your big on black holes you prob have heard of a company called CERN Or you prob havent.

These people work with atom smashes and you would know that atom smashers (Particle* Accelerators*) take two particles and swing them around at EXTREMELY high speeds. Now when they get them at the speed they want. The smash the two particles together....

Thus creating a gravitational collapse...

Now that you have your "Gravitational Collapse" you create what we call a Black Hole.

Black holes are stationary. Believe me when I say this. They dont just move around sucking things up in the atmosphere(Why did I say atmosphere lol I mean outer space). They have a horizon and once an object gets within the horizon it gets sucked in..

They are called black holes for a reason. Please show me some info about how black holes are "Bright"

Why should I believe you when I have already shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are 100% wrong.

Not big on facts are you ReignStarz? CERN is not a company it is a research organisation. It has yet to make any black holes as the instrument it hopes to use to do this, the Large Hadron Collider is only just coming on line and, in fact, suffered a serious failure this week BBC News story.

Also not big on reading what people actually say. I said the regions surrounding black holes are bright, not the black hole itself. Here is an explanation:



from this Wikipedia article.

Or there is this from the Chandra web site:



Or this from Space.com:



You demand that I prove what I say is correct and I have done so, so I now make the same demand of you. Provide one article that claims black holes don't move.

I also repeat my first question to you which you totally ignored. Explain how it is possible for two objects, that you claim don't move, to collide.

RHIC and CERN work together I hope you understand that...

RHIC Have created a mini black hole out of a fireball

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4357613.stm

That was quite some time ago...

How do two objects collide if they cant move...Its actually pretty easy to understand..

Take 2 spots point A and point B their fairly close to each other.
Now lets say point A collapses and so do B. They continue to collapse and the space between them gets fairly smaller and smaller....Until they meet up with each other. They never had to move.. They just grew bigger... And then hit each other..

And where is the info stating that black holes do move around... Like I said black holes have horizons they dont just freely move around.. And im playing WoW so im totally distracted if I missed where you posted it.

The black holes would have to expand an enormous amount to do that. You are trying to defend nonsense with more nonsense.



I know what you said. Repeating something that is factually incorrect will not make it right. The event horizon of a black hole is simply the point at which the escape velocity reaches the speed of light. It has nothing at all to do with whether a black hole can move or not.

The post showing the collision between the two black holes demonstrates that they move. It seems you couldn't grasp that so here is an article from space.com. The title might give you a slight clue that you are mistaken, unless you can provide that article that backs your claims that is.

Wayward Black Hole Staggers Through Galaxy, Passes Nearby.

the first paragraph reads:



Would you like to explain how a non-moving black hole can do this?

This page on the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) International Science Community web site says:



Then there is this from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NARO) website: VLBA Reveals Closest Pair of Supermassive Black Holes
which contains this paragraph:



Again please explain how two black holes can orbit each other without moving.



I understand it, do you?. It would seem not. You ignored some important phrases in that link yo posted, for example:



and



the highlighting in both cases is mine. These phrases may seem irrelevant but they become extremely important when discussing scientific discoveries.

In fact they did not create a "real" black hole. There is this from the RHIC's web site:



The CERN ? RHIC stuff is irrelevant anyway. It seems to be just a distraction tactic on your part as it offeres no evidence to support your claim that black holes don't move.

I have now presented you with plenty of evidence that black holes do move so I challenge you again, provide one article that supports your claim.

It was a UFO that crashed.

where are the remains of the 'crashed' UFO? no trace of alien 'super metals' has ever been found... just wondering

Wait wait, you can't say it was something other than a comet because there is "no evidence to the contrary", but isn't there no conclusive evidence to prove it was a comet either? How's that logic work? I thought eyewitness accounts claimed the "comet" changed directions? If you can't take eyewitness accounts for anything, then what do we have to say it moved in a straight line? Not even eyewitness accounts? Well hell......

He said it was the most likely answer, ot that it was the definitive answer. The logic is fine. When there is no evidence to the contrary, apply Occum's Razor (the simplest explanation is the most likely).

For a long time the comet/asteroid theory was rejected because there was no crater. Now we know that these object regularly explode before hitting the ground. Such air blasts were observed regularly by satellites looking for nuclear tests or missile launches. The evidence fits perfectly with a cometary fragment exploding. As there is no evidence (except maybe an unreliable eye witness account) to the contrary this must remain the must likely explanation.

The air blast is nore consistant with a small stony asteroid than it is a comet.

So we have an event that is totally consit ant with something that is observed happening several times a year (albeit on a slightly smaller scale) and which calculations predict should occur on this scale about once every hundred years. How can the meteor theory NOT be the most likely explanation?

Had they known about air blasts in 1908 this would never have even been considered an unexplained mystery in the first place.

Thank you, YOU understood my statement...

I saw something about Tunguska on PBS, I think. There are two pieces of evidence that need explaining (at least). One is the pattern made by the fallen trees, and those that remained standing but stripped of their limbs. Secondly, there are the few exotic items found at the site. Someone showed that this pattern of fallen trees could be created by a stony meteorite coming from a particular direction and exploding 5 miles above the earth. The bits and pieces at the site were from a stony meteorite. According to this documentary, the white nights were seen AFTER the Tunguska event, not before. BTW, it is not unusual for meteorites to explode in the air, and even create craters. There is no stony meteorite buried at the Metorite site in Arizona (or is it New Mexico?), for instance.

~~~Cebrakon

There was a woman scientist that did some on site research, she had found some hydrogen carbon atoms that had an unusual build to them. They were shaped much like the lines on a soccer ball. She also said this type of hydrogen atom does not happen in nature. Thus was manufactured, we on this planet do not have the ability to duplicate this particular hydrogen atom as yet, she said. It was also here on UM that I read this I believe. MY thoughts-Possibly a meteoroid with hydrogen encased in side?? Then when the temprature reached crtical it went BANG! Just a thought. As for the brightness after ward, could be caused by the air in the area being ionized.

This sounds like a derivative of buckminsterfullerene. Not only does this occur in nature but it is found in soot. Hardly a surprise that it should be found at Tunguska.

Waspie, I just don't understand why people drudge up these things that have been for the large part explained. The original article claims that explanations don't fit and cause heated arguments and explanations don't fit. The explanations fit. Other weird stuff that people claim - need to remember that this was 100 years ago. Yeah it would be something if it was something exotic like aliens or black holes but it just ain't gonna happen. In our modern history we have one such event. But in geologic time, this must happen constantly. The downfall of some ancient civiliazations or cities for instance.

"hydrogen carbon atom"

Guess I don't agree with the razor then. I hate assuming things without alot of support, even when they're logical conclusions. Well, only about stuff like this of course, not simple everyday things, lol.



Wait... how do you know it's unreliable? Was it on record that he/she was a crack addict? I know we shouldn't go on it as if it's evidence, but I hate just ignoring an eyewitness account completely. I find it a bit closed.

about BH , i think they r 'moving' , since all universe is.
About article , well, realy dont know if any meteor, could change directions, ...
so probably ET or some genius, that could develop nuclear bomb

Its called a hydro-carbon. Look in most high school text books and u will find info on it.
They are used in plastics and such like.

Who said it was been ignored completely? It is unreliable because, compared to physical evidence, eyewitness accounts are usually unreliable. Humans are fallable, they make honest mistakes, their memory can play tricks, sometimes they lie. Eyewitness accounts can be useful, but when the physical data and the eye witness accounts don't match ditch the eyewitness accounts.

The second reason that eyewitness accounts are unreliable is that no scientists were dispatched to the area until 1930. The eyewitness accounts they would have collected would already have been 22 years old.

Hydrocarbons can't form "soccer-ball like" molecular structures. Only Carbon 60 (Fullerene) can, but it doens't have any H on it. :S

Not true for a couple of reasons. Firstly C₆₀ is not the only fullerene. C₇₀ has a shape more like a rugby ball (or American football) but C₇₆ has a very similar shape to C₆₀ (HERE) as do several other fullerenes.

Secondly it is possible to get hydrocarbon derivatives of fullerenes. These will still have the distinctive buckyball shape but will have a "tail" attached to them. A couple of examples, Methanofullerene [C61]-carboxylic acid and phenylalanine ethyl ester Methanofullerene [C61]-carboxylate can be found HERE.

That's the only part I can agree with. If it were 20 years old, ditch it. It's not easy to remember accurately 20 years back. I just hate when people exaggerate on how bad human perception is. You don't know how annoying it is when you KNOW what you've just seen, yet you have someone telling you "You are mistaking!" or "Your mind was playing tricks on you!". I mean, what can you do but offer your story? You can either do that and let them say nothing but negetive things about it(Those biased against anything "weird", or just keep your mouth shut.

tunguska was a metor or comet something they are all just lucky that the earth hadnt turned futher ie a more populated place could have been hit such as northern europe or canada

ok, I stand corrected ).

After a quick further minor research:

"The C60 molecule can also absorb large numbers of hydrogen atoms--almost one hydrogen for each carbon--without disrupting the buckyball structure."
http://www.3rd1000.com/bucky/bucky.htm

edit: Though the researcher said, if it is true, that the molecule looked like a "soccer ball." There was no mention of any "tail" or any exact geometrical shape of the alleged molecule. As the researcher, she should have known what the molecule was, unless the molecule was yet to be discovered (or manufactured) during the time of research.

this is just another occurence of a fenomina which is unexplainable, no it is not a black hole

comet...mabye? But it is safe to say that this is beyond the understanding of the human brain, we live in the 3rd demention, we have laws of physics, chemistry, and all other laws of the way things work, but do we really know that these are accurate......what if The laws of physics are wrong. Yes they work for most things, but so does a program until you do something that it doesnt know what to do with, then it crashes.

What im saying is this event, with the knowledge of the universe we have to date, cannot be explained, mabye it was a comet made from a very rare substance from a distant galaxy or solar system, far more powerful than anything found on earth, or mabye it was an alien spacecraft that crashed, we'll never know...not in the near future anyway...

I believe that it was a physical event with supernatural ties.

I've always found it intriguing that the Wright brothers first public flight came within only 39 days of the Tunguska event. Wilbur Wright would make the brothers first public demonstration at Le Mans, France, on August 8, 1908, only after signing a contract with the U.S. army. Considering the strange weather and seismic events reported before the actual blast near Tunguska. As if a warning of what was to come on the earth, if we continued down this terrible path.

After all, what was the ultimate goal at the [Tower of Babel?] What mystery or secret did they hope to unlock, and for which God put a roadblock in man's way by confusing the language of men? Perhaps now we know.

Amen brother, i agree with you 110% on that one, was it really just a coincidence the first "death ray" was supposed to be being tested around the same time and mimics the explosion with no crater seen? read up or youtube tesla and wireless power if you are intrested in this! Tesla realised the power of what he created and split the blueprints to his machine between the governments of the world, as he knew they would not share the information with each other... Not only was he genius enough to create tech that helps us in just about everything techy we use today, he was smart enough to realise that the world was not ready for this.

Or could it be that tesla was saying just before hand he was going to fire his "death ray" which uses the ionisphere to transmit energy to a chosen point on the planet... now if you look where he sent the energy from (long island) and where he was most probably aiming (north pole) then you will see that the death ray probably missed its intended target, overshot and hit tunguska... thats the theory anyways... im no genius

feel free to tear this theory to shreds... heres the source http://prometheus.al.ru/english/phisik/oni...on/tunguska.htm argue with that before you argue with me because it knows more

A Macrocosmic Dual-slit Experiment: Could a meteor enter the Earth's atmosphere as matter, then become a wave packet of meteorite potential?

Because the object wasn't actually observed, perhaps the impact was caused by a high energy wave or wave packet instead of particulate matter. The C₆₀ molecule is the largest form of matter that behaves as both particle and wave. This has been proved in quantum dual-slit experiments. All matter larger than this molecule behaves strictly as a particle.


If an object did enter the Earth's atmosphere as a high energy wave, we have little hope of ever detecting these types of bombardments in the future.