Tunguska
(2702) Fri 11 Oct 91 0:14
By: Clark Matthews
To: Michael Corbin
Re: Tunguska
St: Reply to 2690
-----------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 1:107/816 a517e19d
@REPLY: 1:104/428 a4914f6e
> From: mcgrew@porthos.rutgers.edu (Charles Mcgrew)
> Date: 8 Oct 91 02:50:58 GMT
> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
> Message-ID: <Oct.7.22.50.58.1991.7909@porthos.rutgers.edu>
> Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
>
>
> Various explainations for the explosion, which
> devastated several
> hundred square miles of (furtunately unpopulated) pine
> forest have
> been put forward.
>
> * The original one, that of a meteor, was shot down due
> to there
> being no physical meteoric evidence to be found.
>
A Russian acquaintance of mine flew over the Tunguska in the 1960s while making
a film about life on the Taiga. He said the destruction (which was still
obvious and everywhere) was the most awesome thing he had ever seen. Millions
of large trees were knocked over and lay side-by-side like toothpicks, all
pointing to the epicenter of the explosion 20 km. distant. (I don't know about
the "forest fire" story -- he says large, mature, trees.)
He told me that subsequently, a research party spent a
summer at the epicenter and *found* microscopic particles of refined metal
embedded in the soil, trees, etc. The Russians have performed calculations
based on the size, composition and distribution of the metal particles. They
came up with a vehicle made mainly of magnesium that was over 1000 feet in
diameter. Most of the material of the object would have been vaporized in the
(presumably thermonuclear) explosion.
Plus there is anecdotal evidence gathered from the settlements that the thing
passed over, which indicates that the object maneuvered before exploding,
attempting a wide turn to the north from its original east-south-eastward
trajectory.
> * An alternative explaination was that of a comet
> entering the
> atmosphere and then violently vaporizing due to the
> increased heat.
> (The EoU calls this "the accepted, conservative view").
> Since coments
> haven't been observed striking the earth before (or since)
> this event,
> it remains a possibility.
Well, I can't gainsay this (no one can).
The trees trunks at "ground zero" were all *still pointing upward*, though.
There was no impact. Tunguska was an airburst. Some snowball...
>
> * In 1947, the "spaceship theory" was put forward, that
> a
> spaceship's powerplant detonation had caused the
> devastation.
> (Or, alternatively, that the aliens detonated a nuclear
> device
> on purpose, for reasons of their own - I've even heard tell
> of
> "the war of the aliens", and such.)
>
Because of its trajectory, I think it was under some kind of control. Whether
it was a spaceship, a nuclear device, or a comet with a flat side (causing a
knuckleball effect due to wind resistance), beats me.
> * Although not mentioned in EoU, another theory
> surfaced in the
> mid-1970's, that of a "mini-blackhole" (described by
> someone else in
> an earlier message), that actually passed through the
> earth.
> Unfortunately, no effects on the far side of the earth
> (waterspouts,
> or whatever) were witnessed (to my knowledge), so there's
> no extra
> evidence for this one.
>
Maybe, but even a very small singularity (black hole) would be strong enough to
collapse the mass of our planet into itself (or the atmosphere, at least).
This did not happen. Nor did the thing collapse part of the atmosphere into
itself before sailing back into space. Instead it slowed down and turned,
finally ending with a bang. If it were a singularity, it would have been
gobbling up mass at ever-increasing rates while it slowed down, adding to its
power and destructive potential.
By: Clark Matthews
To: Michael Corbin
Re: Tunguska
St: Reply to 2690
-----------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 1:107/816 a517e19d
@REPLY: 1:104/428 a4914f6e
> From: mcgrew@porthos.rutgers.edu (Charles Mcgrew)
> Date: 8 Oct 91 02:50:58 GMT
> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
> Message-ID: <Oct.7.22.50.58.1991.7909@porthos.rutgers.edu>
> Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
>
>
> Various explainations for the explosion, which
> devastated several
> hundred square miles of (furtunately unpopulated) pine
> forest have
> been put forward.
>
> * The original one, that of a meteor, was shot down due
> to there
> being no physical meteoric evidence to be found.
>
A Russian acquaintance of mine flew over the Tunguska in the 1960s while making
a film about life on the Taiga. He said the destruction (which was still
obvious and everywhere) was the most awesome thing he had ever seen. Millions
of large trees were knocked over and lay side-by-side like toothpicks, all
pointing to the epicenter of the explosion 20 km. distant. (I don't know about
the "forest fire" story -- he says large, mature, trees.)
He told me that subsequently, a research party spent a
summer at the epicenter and *found* microscopic particles of refined metal
embedded in the soil, trees, etc. The Russians have performed calculations
based on the size, composition and distribution of the metal particles. They
came up with a vehicle made mainly of magnesium that was over 1000 feet in
diameter. Most of the material of the object would have been vaporized in the
(presumably thermonuclear) explosion.
Plus there is anecdotal evidence gathered from the settlements that the thing
passed over, which indicates that the object maneuvered before exploding,
attempting a wide turn to the north from its original east-south-eastward
trajectory.
> * An alternative explaination was that of a comet
> entering the
> atmosphere and then violently vaporizing due to the
> increased heat.
> (The EoU calls this "the accepted, conservative view").
> Since coments
> haven't been observed striking the earth before (or since)
> this event,
> it remains a possibility.
Well, I can't gainsay this (no one can).
The trees trunks at "ground zero" were all *still pointing upward*, though.
There was no impact. Tunguska was an airburst. Some snowball...
>
> * In 1947, the "spaceship theory" was put forward, that
> a
> spaceship's powerplant detonation had caused the
> devastation.
> (Or, alternatively, that the aliens detonated a nuclear
> device
> on purpose, for reasons of their own - I've even heard tell
> of
> "the war of the aliens", and such.)
>
Because of its trajectory, I think it was under some kind of control. Whether
it was a spaceship, a nuclear device, or a comet with a flat side (causing a
knuckleball effect due to wind resistance), beats me.
> * Although not mentioned in EoU, another theory
> surfaced in the
> mid-1970's, that of a "mini-blackhole" (described by
> someone else in
> an earlier message), that actually passed through the
> earth.
> Unfortunately, no effects on the far side of the earth
> (waterspouts,
> or whatever) were witnessed (to my knowledge), so there's
> no extra
> evidence for this one.
>
Maybe, but even a very small singularity (black hole) would be strong enough to
collapse the mass of our planet into itself (or the atmosphere, at least).
This did not happen. Nor did the thing collapse part of the atmosphere into
itself before sailing back into space. Instead it slowed down and turned,
finally ending with a bang. If it were a singularity, it would have been
gobbling up mass at ever-increasing rates while it slowed down, adding to its
power and destructive potential.
Comments
Post a Comment