Talk:Tunguska event

Why is this pseudoscience?
Why is this pseudoscience? It is a verified historical event. Just because some people have postulated far-fetched ideas about what caused it doesn't make it woo. Генгис   10:42, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Good point. While we're at it, look at laundry ball and tell me if that is woo-ish.  I had the same thoughts as you on that article.  Speakerface with 4 M's and a silent Q 11:15, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Wikipedia calls laundry balls woo and Straight Dope is hardly convinced either. Генгис    11:30, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

According to one theory (which can also be found on the web) it was a fragment of Comet Enke, possibly in an airburst. Alternatively it might link up with the Large Hadron Collider/the time travelling neutrinos. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not enough detail of event, some flawed reasoning arguing against some hypotheses
It would be good to have more information and analysis of the event itself. Most of the page is taken up by these 'Exotic explanations', while only a small part in the introduction is about what is said to be the most likely causes. Then the 'Exotic explanations' itself does not get off to a good start, talking about the event being hijacked by 'UFOlogists, conspiracy theorists and general woo-merchants', when in fact it is an event that remains best understood through rational analysis, with this wiki seeming to have been hijacked by dismissing theories for which there is little or no evidence for in the first place, while being overly dismissive of some others.

The part about the isotopic composition of the comet/comet fragment has got two main points, and two main flaws. 'Firstly, the processes of nuclear fusion and fission are incredibly difficult to achieve, requiring precise and controlled conditions otherwise the chain reactions required simply do not engage' implies the universe to have been created by a concious force similar to a scientist working in a lab, and there is little or no widely available evidence of this that has been discovered through empirical methodology. A natural nuclear fission chain reaction has occurred in uranium deposits in Gabon, Africa. Natural nuclear fusion chain reactions take place in stars. That section also does not provide further information to back up the assertion that it was not a 'nuclear explosion', saying it 'goes against everything we currently know about comet composition'. I don't know many details of comet composition, and judging by the 'Comet' page, nor does RationalWiki. As well as using what is known about comets to understand the Tunguska Event, it may be possible to use this event to further our understanding of comets, with this event being a very notable data point. Also it is plausible that whatever caused the explosion did not quite match RationalWiki's definition of what a comet or comet fragment is.

This event is one of those things which we know occurred and also fits in with some of the definitions of 'paranormal', it being an abnormal event that has defied scientific explanation (though the reasons for that seem to have to do with the lack of rigorous investigation done at an early stage rather than the event being something that could not be understood through scientific means). It is also something that could be classed as a UFO (it is not rational to assume UFOs necessarily involve little green men etc, it should simply be whether an object is both unidentified and is flying) without it being that much of a stretch, but to me it looks more like an 'Incompletely Identified Atmospheric Phenomenon of Extra-Terrestrial Origin'. Now the object seems to have been identified by some but not by others (but not with much detail), but at one stage it had not been identified, and it could have been considered to be flying.

What is rational qm (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Comet theory
I read 'the proverbial somewhere' (long before RW/WP) that someone had identified a comet which had visibly broken up near the sun on a previous approach and one fragment of which was proposed as the originator of the Tunguska event. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Version number 3
In December but only recently reported - and the news. Anna Livia (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Black hole
It was a respectable paper published in Nature in 1973 but quickly refuted. Amongst other reasons - they should have detected the sound from the exit hole.

"The black hole would, however, have passed through the Earth in 10-15 min and caused a similar explosion at the point of exit, which would have occurred in the North Atlantic between 30°-40° W and 40°-50° N"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v250/n5467/pdf/250555a0.pdf

Although it is behind a paywall, you can get access to the paper via the link on the BBC article here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160706-in-siberia-in-1908-a-huge-explosion-came-out-of-nowhere. Robertinventor (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, a black whole would have kind of eaten the planet so... That's another reason... 14:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible third example
My usual source of 'weird stories' came up with this; This is from a reliable source (but a different date) and there may be other examples. Russia, because of its 'width' is likely to have proportionately more such events than other countries ('this is not rocket science'). Anna Livia (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)