Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/ftp-stuff/siberia

Internet Message Format | 1996-05-18 | 6.5 KB

From [e-mail] (Charles Mcgrew) Mon Oct  7 22:50:58 1991
Path: aramis.rutgers.edu!porthos.rutgers.edu!mcgrew
From: [e-mail] (Charles Mcgrew)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Siberian space catastrophe
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Oct 91 02:50:58 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 73
Cc: mcgrew

I got  this from "The Encyclopedia of UFO's", Ronald Story, ed.

   June 30, 1908, shortly after 7am observers at the Central Siberian
Plateau near the Stony Tunuska River first saw a "ball of fire" coming
over the southern horizon heading almost due north.  Suddenly a
"pillar of fire" short upward into the sky, which could be seen for
several hundred miles.  Enourmous black clouds rose 12 miles into the
air, followed by a "black rain".  On the following day, strange
glowing clouds could be seen, at extremely high altitudes over Asia
and Europe.

   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.

    * 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.

    * 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.)

    * 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.

   The EoU goes on in some detail, I'll just hit the high points:

 Points against the "spaceship" theory:
    * The fireball was far too brief, in comparison with what we
      know now about nuclear explosions, to be one.
    * approach trajectory of the object has been determined
      to be head-on with earth, which isn't really a great
      idea to do with a spaceship, so it seems unlikely that
      any self-respecting alien would do so.
    * there is no increase in carbon-14 in tree-rings that would
      account for a nuclear explosion in 1908 (this was asserted
      by William Libby, the 'father of the carbon-14 test', in
      1976).
    * The recollections of witnesses was 20 years old before
      it was obtained by researchers.
    * spectrographic analysis (by astronomers) in 1908 showed
      that the "glowing cloud" was just dust, reflecting sunlight.
    * There had been a forest fire in 1888 in the same region,
      which accounts for descriptions of "rapid growth" in plants
      after the explosion; rather than being radiation-related,
      it was just due to nutrient-enhancement that happens to
      soil after a forest fire (and that the regions of
      "rapid growth" were in the areas of forest-fire, and not
      in other areas.)

... there's more, discussing further problems with "meteor" and
"comet" theories, but this is a.a.v, and besides, you should find
this book for yourself - try the library...

   I'll end with last line from the entry: "Whatever the actual
cause of the Tunguska event, it has maintained a powerful grip
on the popular imagination."

Hope this helps,

Charles

From KHATCH@130.187.183.15 (Kellan Hatch) Tue Oct  8 12:25:56 1991
Path: aramis.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!orca!javelin.sim.es.com!news
From: KHATCH@130.187.183.15 (Kellan Hatch)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Siberian space catastrophe
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Oct 91 16:25:56 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <1991Oct6.191302.9403@anasaz> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Evans & Sutherland
Lines: 17
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of Mon, 7 Oct 1991 03:08:19 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: taurus
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

> Another theory (I think in Science News), is that it was a small
> quantum black hole.  These are black holes created about the time of
> the Big Bang, and can be of substellar mass.  Such a black hole could
> range from mere atoms of mass up to any size.  As it happens, black
> holes this small tend to evaporate, smaller ones evaporating faster.
> So there is a lower limit on the size of the black hole.  It still
> could be of a mass of a planetoid and still be quite small, about
> subatomic diameters.  If it was a black hole, it would have passed
> right through the Earth, and out the other side.  Presumably, it's
> velocity was low enough that it wasn't captured.

    There is one piece of evidence to support this. At the same time on the
opposite side of the globe, a sea captain reported seeing a huge spout of
water towering into the sky.  An extremely dense object passing through the
earth would be likely to pull some material along with it at the exit point.

From [e-mail] Tue Oct  8 17:00:35 1991
Flags: 000000000001
Received: from postman.osf.org by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08)
    id AA12003; Tue, 8 Oct 91 17:00:30 EDT
Received: from katana.osf.org by postman.osf.org (5.64+/OSF 1.0)
    id AA15202; Tue, 8 Oct 91 17:00:19 -0400
Received: by katana (5.57/4.7) id AA07577; Tue, 8 Oct 91 16:59:51 -0400
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 16:59:51 -0400
From: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <9110082059.AA07577@katana>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Siberian space catastrophe
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Cc:

I thought this one had been put to rest over 20 years ago.  The tektites in the
area were the strongest evidence for the blast being the result of a bolide (a
meteor that explodes before impact).  The pattern of the falling of the trees,
however, made an air burst of that sort unlikely.  Testing of the results of
air bursts, however, reproduced the same patterns in models.  Accordingly, all
the evidence points to a bolide, and no more unusual theory is necessary to
explain the known facts.