Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Did a UFO collide with Tunguska meteorite ?


UM-Bot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
tunguska.jpg
A Russian scientist has claimed that a UFO deliberately collided with a gigantic meteorite over Tunguska in order to save the Earth. The claim is based on unusual materials found at the site following the explosion event.

"Did a UFO deliberately crash into a meteor to save Earth 100 years ago? That's what one Russian scientist is claiming. Dr. Yuri Labvin, president of the Tunguska Spatial Phenomenon Foundation, insists that an alien spacecraft sacrificed itself to prevent a gigantic meteor from slamming into the planet above Siberia on June 30, 1908."

arrow3.gifView: Full Article | arrow3.gifSource: Fox News
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • The Skeptic Eric Raven

    3

  • Queen in the North

    5

  • WoIverine

    5

  • Juanita Rose Violini

    2

Well it couldn't have just been a meteorite, could it? Oh no, there's always someone making more out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His "evidence" is too ambiguous. So it's from space. Doesn't mean it's from an extraterrestrial craft. & what E.T. in his right mind would sacrifice himself for Earth?

TeraLink Was Here!

Edited by TeraLink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

His "evidence" is too ambiguous. So it's from space. Doesn't mean it's from an extraterrestrial craft. & what E.T. in his right mind would sacrifice himself for Earth?

TeraLink Was Here!

Very true...It is from space and dont say that it is Ambigous because what he said was correct....It was some type of Unidentified Object

Thanks

B???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His "evidence" is too ambiguous. So it's from space. Doesn't mean it's from an extraterrestrial craft. & what E.T. in his right mind would sacrifice himself for Earth?

TeraLink Was Here!

The only reason i can think of that an "E.T." would willingly sacrifice itself for earth, is if they had some stake in it, if they needed this planet, it'd have to be somehow very important. Which isn't that far fetched, i mean, there are many abduction accounts that note that the E.Ts talked to the abductees about the need for us to look after our planet, touting messages of working in harmony with the planet etc etc.

What if... they aren't Extraterrestrial at all? What if they inhabit this planet alongside us? I mean, theres lots of sightings of UFOs (or USOs) coming out and going into large bodies of water... what if they are living deep under the sea? If they lived here, they'd want to protect it wouldn't they? If they lived here, it'd also mean their technology wouldn't have to be that far ahead of ours... theres no longer a need to have physic-defying space travel methods.

The above is entirely what if's and thoughts spoken out loud, so im not trying to argue that it is true, its just an idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the heck are the Tunguska Spatial Phenomenon Foundation?

Space dot com's take, Jim O Berg gets a mention :D

Howdy Jim.

Struck by the similarity of Tunguska and Hiroshima decades later, a science fiction writer named Kazantsev wrote a story in which the Tunguska blast was the exploding nuclear power plant of a spaceship from Mars, according to Oberg.

A few Russian scientists took up the cause and claimed to find various bits of evidence -- never substantiated -- for a civilized alien explanation. Oberg wrote in 1984 that even then, as evidence built for a natural cause, a handful of "spaceship buffs seem to have grown more desperate, but no less effective, in corralling the public's attention." He said annually some unsuspecting journalist would stumble on the claims and write about them, setting off a fresh round of public speculation.

On that front, little has changed since 1984.

Astronomer Philip Plait, author of the myth-debunking book Bad Astronomy (Wiley & Sons, 2002), agrees with Peiser that the Russian researchers intention for finding ET-evidence hurts their case.

"They are not undertaking a scientific expedition, that is, an unbiased investigation to see what happened," Plait said Thursday via e-mail. "They are going to try to prove their preconceived ideas. That's not science, that's religion. And it almost certainly means that they are more willing to ignore or play down any evidence that it was a comet or rock impact, while playing up anything they find consistent with their hypothesis."

Prove it

Whatever anyone believes, Plait points out that proof is what's important.

"I am not saying they didn't find an alien ship. I am saying that it's a) unlikely in the extreme, and B ) they are predisposed to make such claims, which means we need to be very skeptical, even more so than usual in such cases. If they provide sufficient evidence, then scientists are obligated to investigate, of course. But given everything I've read, their evidence to even consider a non-natural cause is pretty weak."

Plait has even thought about what evidence might be necessary. A chunk of debris would help, but not just any sort of material.

"It would need a weird ratio of isotopes, for examples, or clear evidence of long duration space travel," he said. "Even then they must be careful; manmade space debris rains down on Earth all the time."

Plait, a naturally skeptical person, is willing to wait and see.

"Let's see what these guys bring back," he said. "In the end, it's not what they can claim but what they can support with factual evidence that counts. The burden of proof is clearly -- and heavily-- on them."

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The eyewitness accounts of Tunguska Incident said that some people saw a very tiny object circling the meteorite's tail as it descended to the surface. This tiny object, presumably the UFO, eventually struck the meteorite and both objects exploded in mid-air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a UFO crashed into the meteor (which I find far fetched) it could have been a remotely operated drone. Which answers the question of sacrificing a life. Also, many claim that grays are actually manufactured life forms that perform work for Aliens. In that case it wouldn't really be a sacrifice.

My opinion is a meteor crashed and that is all there is to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that no meteorite material was ever found at the crash site. Accurate or not, this article presents an interesting hypothesis.

post-87042-1243612527_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything is possible, regardless of however improbable it may be. The universe is huge, filled with things we haven't the foggiest of ideas about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The eyewitness accounts of Tunguska Incident said that some people saw a very tiny object circling the meteorite's tail as it descended to the surface. This tiny object, presumably the UFO, eventually struck the meteorite and both objects exploded in mid-air.

Link to that info please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything is possible, regardless of however improbable it may be. The universe is huge, filled with things we haven't the foggiest of ideas about.

That is such a tired argument that has no relevance. So you believe in Santa too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that no meteorite material was ever found at the crash site. Accurate or not, this article presents an interesting hypothesis.

A wobbly psychic deer caused the explosion with it's mind?

Thats what that picture seems to represent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything is possible, regardless of however improbable it may be. The universe is huge, filled with things we haven't the foggiest of ideas about.

That is possibly the vaguest statement I've ever heard. You could apply that argument to just about any idea on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although no people were hurt thousands of animals died in the blast. Actually it's a picture of the pilot of the UFO. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK... even basic research tells you that no meteoric framents have been found. There are no reports of anything circling the comet (which is best hypothesis by far), this is just an attempt at grandstanding by some unknown "scientist" looking for his 15mins of fame. Well now he has had it, so we should all ask ourselves what hard evidence is there to back his claims?

There have been several international expeditions to the area but no-one else found any "slabs".

I wonder.... :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be glad to hear this guy explaining the physics of such an event. To me his scenario sounds like a bee stopping a bullet.

Edited by Clobhair-cean
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds ridiculous to me. But even IF it were a UFO, why would he think it purposely sacrificed itself? Could have been an accident. Drunk flying. Faulty controls.

Personally, I think it was just natural phenomena and that's it. No magic, no nibiru, no ufos involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is such a tired argument that has no relevance. So you believe in Santa too?

Tired argument or not, it applies. I didn't state any personal beliefs, if somehow you gathered from my post that I did, you're a fool.

Edited by SpIdErCyDe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds ridiculous to me. But even IF it were a UFO, why would he think it purposely sacrificed itself? Could have been an accident. Drunk flying. Faulty controls.

Personally, I think it was just natural phenomena and that's it. No magic, no nibiru, no ufos involved.

I think it's just humans thinking we're all important, as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is possibly the vaguest statement I've ever heard. You could apply that argument to just about any idea on this forum.

Exactly. Read between the lines, think about what I said, find the deeper meaning.

Edited by SpIdErCyDe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Read between the lines, think about what I said, find the deeper meaning.

Why don't you spell it out oh wise one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you spell it out oh wise one?

:lol: Seconded.

Unless, Spidercyde, you're saying that the unexplained truly is the unexplained... which is kind of dumb.

Edited by _Libby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.