A couple of points related to the questions posed
The Ries impactor is believed to have hurled multi-ton limestone sections up
slope onto the Alps, 100km/60miles away. It was far larger than Tunguska and a
different scenario all together save for it could have been a dead comet and
related
I agree... If the Tunguska event was caused by a comet and not a
meteoroid or asteroid there truly may not be any material left from the
blast. However, if I remember correctly, the cometary theory is based
not just on the fact no meteorites were found near the epicenter, but
somewhat on the
I agree... If the Tunguska event was caused by a comet and not a
meteoroid or asteroid there truly may not be any material left from the
blast. However, if I remember correctly, the cometary theory is based
not just on the fact no meteorites were found near the epicenter, but
somewhat on
In response to your question...
...A couple small asteroids per year do themselves in without leaving
ground fragments seems natural, why not a somewhat bigger asteroid once
every 50 or 100 years doing the same thing?...
OK, I'll go along with that if you can answer this question
Good question Eric
But, in such a location that is forested, or was until the forest was
flattened, I'd suspect that activities by creature would be much less than
the yearly fall of needles and leaves, freezing and thawing, rain and wind.
with rain and wind causing the most relocation or
Yes a lot of
the mass would have been melted and disintegrated but, how likely is it
really that the blast would make ALL trace of the meteoroid disappear?
Tunguska was pretty much a terminal burst when it smacked up against the
atmosphere. I visualize a terminal burst like someone throwing
If a Navy destroyer can launch a huge shell a hundred miles
using a few pounds of gunpowder,
I think the largest gun on a U.S. Navy destroyer is around a 5 inch? I
think their range is about 8 to 10 miles? Just guessing here. A battleship
equipped with a 16 inch gun, I think it's range is
In regard to Tunguska and bioturbation, Meteorites USA asked:
“Paul H's post on bioturbation brings up an interesting
question. The first expedition led by Leonid Kulik to
Tunguska in 1927 to study the devastation and search
for meteorites happened 19 years AFTER the event
in 1908, (He had an
Eric, List
In order to get the original data, the facts on the
ground and to get as close in time to the event,
but more scientifically sophisticated and prior
to Tunguska being adopted by whackoes and
ufo-theorists, I suggest this exhaustive
summary of the result of the 1961 Soviet
large-scale
I believe one of the less hysterical Discovery Channel programs about
revisiting Tunguska and looking for evidence of what created the blast with
modern analysis techniques aired 3 or 4 months ago. They showed the 'Plasma
Dragon' animations for incoming space debris of various types. They
Do you really believe absolutely EVERYTHING was destroyed from the
blast?
I have no reason to believe otherwise.
I know a nuclear explosion is powerful but come on. Don't you
think it's possible something larger than the grain of sand, macroscopic
particles, and isotopic evidence
Hi,
Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia, however accurate this is I'm not sure
but it give and example of the firepower of a small projectile. The
charge used to fire such a distance is a few pounds of gun powder. Maybe
I was wrong about the hundred mile range of the Naval artillery.
...On 20
On Sat, 16 May 2009 01:10:08 EDT, you wrote:
Just about anything is possible, but so far no one has come up with
anything bigger that I know of. There's an awful lot of energy involved here.
Also, if Tunguska was cometary in origin, there might not have been anything
much larger than dust
I recall reading something recently that stated there was a mass at the bottom
of the lake you mentioned that may be remains of the meteorite... I think it
was also on TV.
Greg C.
--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Meteorites USA e...@meteoritesusa.com wrote:
From: Meteorites USA e...@meteoritesusa.com
14 matches
Mail list logo
