The pictured place is not the place of the Tunguska event. It looks like a swampy lake in the forest.

Andrey V. Zhuravlev

Dear Professor Zhuravlev,

Thanks for your comment.

"The pictured place is not the place of the Tunguska event. It looks like a swampy lake in the forest."

Is that a guess? I don't suppose anyone actually knows.

Of course this picture has nothing to do with the Tunguska event which had a flattened forest without a crater.

Despite the great amount of research on this event the situation remains an enigma: not sure what happened in the Tunguska forest in 1908 except to say that it was certainly some kind of collision with something very powerful from space.

Michael Issigonis

"except to say that it was certainly some kind of collision with something very powerful from space."

A comet or asteroid, is your best bet then? But why no crater?

The object exploded at some altitude above the surface. The energy of this explosion flattened the forest forming a radial pattern of the collapsed trees on the ground. The area affected was similar in area as the metropolitan area of London, UK (as was mentioned in a video by British scientists at the time).

According to the investigators at the time, they favoured a comet (which ls light in weight, basically just water ice), but it could also have been a low density meteor (such as we have seen since, like the Tagish Lake, 2000 meteorite).

Michael Issigonis

"The object exploded at some altitude above the surface"

Why would a comet or asteroid explode "some distance above the surface" and why were no fragments or traces of these objects found?

We learned the answer to your question in 2000 during the fall of the Tagish Lake meteorite. It was a low-density, porous rock, part of it almost like pumice. That kind of material falling at very high speed will gradually burn and eventually break up with an explosion against the friction by molecules of air.

The reason some of the fragments survived is that they fell on the frozen lake and were preserved in ice (and someone spotted them and retrieved them in a hurry before they disintegrate or before the ice melts).

Those that fell on land completely disintegrated, so that after very detailed prospecting the investigators found NONE.

Michael Issigonis

"That kind of material falling at very high speed will gradually burn and eventually break up with an explosion against the friction by molecules of air."

Meteors burning up in the atmosphere is common knowledge, isn't it? And even then, even with tiny ones, by comparision, as you mentioned, fragments -were- found.

To add a nuclear explosion to that--- isn't that a bit of a stretch?

So there was an nuclear explosion (a mini Hiroshima) caused by friction, before the meteor burnt up in the atmosphere? in the case of the Tagish Lake "event"?

The 1908 Tunguska event, is a very interested subject, this is not the epicenter, where in the true epicenter all threes were burned, and they were directed away from the center.

In our explanation to the event, we suggested based on the trajectory of the object which moves with bright light over a long distance from Gobi desert and seen by the nomads, then it turned and then caused the explosion over the Tunguska. The detailed description, showed an intelligently controlled object which I suggested used the external Magnetic Field Propulsion (ExMF-PS) in its maximum power at that stage, which fused charged particles and created the explosions with related phenomena. I wrote a paper about that, unfortunately I lost it in one of sabotages my laptop been subjected to.

Dear Professor Yousif,

"this is not the epicenter, where in the true epicenter all threes were burned, and they were directed away from the center."

Yes but perhaps this picture was taken some time (decades?) after the event? No one seems to know whence this picture originates.

"Gobi desert and seen by the nomads" -- have you evidence of this? from where?

I agree the event has the hallmarks of an intelligent or supernatural occurrence.

Prof. Gary Stephens

Prof. Boris R. German has been working for a while in the Tunguska event.

His page is:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Boris-German

Best Regards.

Pedro L. Contreras E.

Dear Professor Contreras E,

Thank you for your comment.

Yes Professor German has kindly sent me some of his very interesting papers, with very interesting facts.

The problem with his hypothesis of a "mud volcano" -- presumably the mud glowing white-hot, and then detonating into a supermassive nuclear explosion while it reaches for the clouds, ie. is "sustained" above the earth,-- is that it suffers from the same deficiency as the other hypotheses he rightly criticises : There is no evidence or remains of the said volcano ie. no lava nor crater, just as there is no evidence of comet or meteor remnants or impact site. No fragments or remnants exist at all.

Ergo... it is difficult to accept these hypotheses. To my mind we are directed by the facts to a supernatural happening.

It's just that the minds of the publick has been brainwashed to consider this out of the question.

Prof. Gary Stephens,

Your comment on outside intelligence allows me to bring you more information that I consider important, since you are determined to solve this puzzle. In the old days any such comment would receive sarcastic ridicule to put it mildly.

When I was coordinator of a provincial Crop Circle Group here in Canada I came across this map of the Tunguska felled trees. It resembled the patterns I have seen in crop circles, some sort of a spiral pattern. I did not have a camera those days to take an instant picture, so I did not keep the name of author or book. But it was a very interesting pattern. Maybe you can find that picture; it can provide vital information on the origin of the Tunguska Event.

Dear Gary Stephens ,

all answers, please, in my book

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360457608_PHYSICS_of_the_1908_TUNGUSKA_EVENT

There is more than enough evidence of the existence of the Kulikovsky mud paleovolcano at the epicenter of the 1908 Tunguska explosion. Geologists identified it only in the 70s: Luchitsky I.V., 1971, Fundamentals of paleo-volcanology. V. 2. M., Nauka (in Russian); Sapronov N.L., Sobolenko V.M., 1975, Some features of the geological elements of the Kulikovsky paleovolcano of the Triassic age, Problems of Meteoritics. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1975, pp. 13-19 (in Russian).

Mount Stoykovich is the central cylindrical dolerite vent of the Kulikovsky paleovolcano and is surrounded by lateral pipes of the volcano, with a total radius of ~10 km (see, please, pp. 23-24 and Fig. 7, in my book).

At the same time, you changed the chronology, since first the volcano exploded, and then the dark column shot up in height, but not vice versa. At the level of clouds, nothing held but dissipated very quickly.

I did not claim any nuclear explosion, you came up with it. And not clear why. All data for 1908-1909, in the epicenter (i.e. lack of evidence of radioactivity) as on the entire planet Earth (i.e. ice core samples in Greenland and rings of pines in Arizona) oppose the nuclear explosion (see pp.81-82).

In addition, I have already written to you in personal correspondence that there is no lava in mud volcanoes. Moreover, traces of the explosion of a mud volcano in the area of the epicenter are in funnels clogged with mud: clays of funnels had a mud-volcanic, i.e., fluid-gas, genesis (see p.81). These funnels were already well known to L. Kulik, who first discovered the site of a huge forest's fall (but assumed an iron meteorite; therefore, he ignored other options).

According to geologists, the Kulikovsky paleovolcano had five stages of activity and is responsible for the eruption of Siberian Trapp-basalts that led to the mass extinction on Earth 250 million years ago. Finally, moissanite formations SiC–SiC20, in layers of the mud-volcanic phases (about 7320 years old) and layers of 1908, were discovered (pp. 84-86 in my book). Hence, these moissanite phases is one of the decisive factors in the confrontation between the terrestrial and cosmic versions of the 1908 Tunguska event.

Best wishes

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

"I did not claim any nuclear explosion, you came up with it. And not clear why. All data for 1908-1909, in the epicenter (i.e. lack of evidence of radioactivity) as on the entire planet Earth (i.e. ice core samples in Greenland and rings of pines in Arizona) oppose the nuclear explosion (see pp.81-82). "

This is a fascinating observation, and I don't doubt it is true.

Beg pardon I assumed a supermassive nuclear explosion (or something similar) must have taken place.

So you are saying the light that lit up the world for days or even weeks afterward, was from the explosion of a volcano the size of Mount Etna? or Mount Everest? -- the build up of pressure from beneath, did not squirt upward in an eruption, as it usually does, but, for some as yet unknown reason, built up to such an extent that it exploded the mountain, and these fragments were so obliterated, they were effectively turned to vapour, and so nothing remained to be found? except perhaps a thin layer of dust scattered to the winds around the globe?

Is that a good description of what you think might have happened?

Dear Gary Stephens ,

you can assume anything. Earlier you wrote, I citation:

'This could well be the moment Satan (the light-bringer) was finally thrown down to earth'.

I took it as a New Year's joke.

In the case of a nuclear explosion, it is well-known that radioactive traces remain in the form of corresponding radioactive isotopes. For the layers of 1908-1909, they were not found, neither at the epicenter, nor in Greenland, nor Arizona's pines (see pp. 81-82 in my book).

>... So you are saying the light that lit up the world for days or even weeks afterward, was from the explosion of a volcano...

This is precise. Since the winds blow from Siberia towards Europa in the summer. Therefore, both before and after the explosion, the release of methane, decay products of radon, etc. at Tunguska could caused an abnormal glow over Eurasia (together with the soft Polar Lights due to solar flares).

>... the size of Mount Etna? or Mount Everest? ...

Size sometimes makes sense in a completely different area, everyone understands in which area. It makes no sense to compare the size of the Kulikovsky paleovolcano and, for example, Everest, since the explosive release of the fluid-gas mixture occurred from deep to the surface.

>... - the build up of pressure from beneath, did not squirt upward in an eruption, as it usually does, but, for some as yet unknown reason, ...

Sorry, but you read inattentively my book. I point out quite clearly the reasons for the increase in pressure in the depths of the Earth during this period: recorded flares on the Sun + the gravitational tide of the Moon.

>... built up to such an extent that it exploded the mountain, and these fragments were so obliterated, they were effectively turned to vapour, and so nothing remained to be found? ...

Geologists found: read pp. 84-86 in my book Book PHYSICS of the 1908 TUNGUSKA EVENT

>... Is that a good description of what you think might have happened?...

Certainly. And where are the traces of 'your' Satan? In what units do you measure the luminosity of light-bringer Satan? I didn’t study this at my university, sorry.

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

If we could remain for one moment, on your very interesting hypothesis, and examine it in more detail--- perhaps at a later date I can dilate upon mine.

"In the case of a nuclear explosion, it is well-known that radioactive traces remain in the form of corresponding radioactive isotopes. For the layers of 1908-1909, they were not found, neither at the epicenter, nor in Greenland, nor Arizona's pines (see pp. 81-82 in my book)."

As I think I mentioned before, this is quite a remarkable fact you have uncovered. I don't doubt it is true.

-------

>... "So you are saying the light that lit up the world for days or even weeks afterward, was from the explosion of a volcano... "

"This is precise. Since the winds blow from Siberia towards Europa in the summer. Therefore, both before and after the explosion, the release of methane, decay products of radon, etc. at Tunguska could caused an abnormal glow over Eurasia (together with the soft Polar Lights due to solar flares). "

If this were the case ; that midnight turn to day in England, was due to a very large Bunsen-burner (effectively) way out in Siberia -- then why were the trees charred only on one side -as if from a flash of blinding light? Why weren't the trees charred on both sides from the top down?

Or are you saying the methane was un-ignited, but, nevertheless, "glowed" ?

Gary Stephens

Dear Gary,

>... If we could pause for a moment on your very interesting hypothesis and look at it in more detail, perhaps I can elaborate on mine later...

It’s better now, i.e. in parallel with the review of my work. Everyone is interested. You, as I understand it, have a very non-standard approach to science and for the scientific website ResearchGate (i.e., your version of the Satan).

>..."In the event of a nuclear explosion, it is well known that radioactive traces remain in the form of the corresponding radioactive isotopes. For the layers of 1908-1909, they were not found either at the epicenter, or in Greenland, or in Arizona pine trees (see pp. 81-82 in my book )".

As I think I mentioned earlier, you have discovered a very remarkable fact. I do not doubt that this is true...

This fact was discovered a long time ago, i.e. long before my research. I am just reminding you of it.

-------

>... "So you're saying that the light that illuminated the world for days or even weeks after that was the result of a volcano explosion..."

"This is for sure. Since in the summer the winds blow from Siberia towards Europe. Therefore, both before and after the explosion, emissions of methane, radon decay products, etc. on Tunguska could cause an anomalous glow over Eurasia (along with a soft aurora due to solar flashes).

If only that were the case; that transition of midnight into day in England was due to a very large Bunsen burner (in fact) in Siberia - then why were the trees only charred on one side - as if from a flash of blinding light? ...

The methane was ignited. So, when the content in the air is up to 5-6%, methane burns near the heat source (ignition temperature 650-750 ° C), from 5-6% to 14-16% explodes, and over 16% can burn when oxygen flows from outside.

With the explosion of a large cloud of a mixture of natural gas (primarily methane, but not only) emerging from the depths, a flash is also guaranteed.

From my book as well (p.25)Book PHYSICS of the 1908 TUNGUSKA EVENT

'… volumetric (vacuum) explosion occurs due to air oxygen contact with aerosol streams of combustible substances, gases, or hydrocarbon vapour. Solutions of radium salts in water, for example, decompose the water into oxygen and hydrogen, and methane is used, among other ingredients, for volume detonation bombs. Any spark produces an instant cloud ignition and an explosion. Orders of magnitude less mass to generate a shock wave of equal power are required compared to fuel conventional'.

>... Or are you saying the methane was un-ignited, but, nevertheless, "glowed" ? ...

Methane is one component responsible for the formation of noctilucent (silvery) clouds at altitudes of 80-90 km. Such clouds were noted during the 1908 Tunguska event, but in many settlements where a strong glow in the sky was, there were no NLCs (silvery) clouds:

Article About Noctilucent Clouds of the Tunguska Phenomenon

>...Why wasn't the tree burned from top to bottom on both sides?...

The trees did not burn uniformly. Among the many factors, the following can be mentioned: (1) the direction of ejection from volcanic pipes (including kimberlite pipes), (2) the presence of several centers (see page 20, Fig. 5), i.e. release of a fluid-gas mixture from volcanic pipes surrounding the central crater of the paleovolcano (+ therefore interference), (2) terrain; over an area of 2000 square km, there are both hillocks and low-lying areas (see page 21, Fig. 6), (3) screening by neighbouring trees, (4) vacuum explosion, (5) etc.

Still, it remains debatable whether an outbreak or a fire is responsible for the so-called 'burns' of trees. It was noted that the radiation burns due to explosions at the epicenter are generally dubious and are associated with frequent forest fires [Belkin, 2001a,b]. And not from bottom to top, since the fire, according to its temperature, was underground; the “burn”'s oval does not coincide with the forest's falling area in the epicenter (see page 24, Fig. 7). In the Tunguska area, the light oval was located inside the "butterfly" of the fallen forest. In addition, in the case of a nuclear explosion, there should be an increase in γ-background, but the study of the fine structure of rings had shown that there was no increase in γ-background [Vaganov, 2003].

See please as well Chapter 'THE SPOTTED FIRE', p.26.

Best wishes

Dear Professor German,

If the explosion were underground, as you suggested, then why were the tops blown off the trees as evidenced by the picture above? and the commentary, below

https://youtu.be/oKHc0o5XhzU?t=635

To attribute the documented charred on one side of the trees--- reminiscent of a blinding light (similar to the effects at Hiroshima) to cotemporary forest fires, which are supposed to have occurred near the epicentre of the Tunguska event, is, surely, a bit of a stretch?

I say these were from a blinding light above ground, as common sense suggests.

Presumably the light from the Tunguska event is below the horizon here in England, so it must have been fantastically bright or are we mistaken here too-- does this mean it must have been of supernatural origin to turn night into day here and over Europe? Was this light seen in other parts of the world?

You are too quick to dismiss a supernatural origin. The facts, to my mind, point away from a scientific explanation, and toward the supernatural.

No human was harmed (as far as I know) from this event. That in itself is significant.

Gary Stephens

Dear Gary,

let me explain in more detail.

1. I argued that the fire was underground over a large area through the surrounding central vent of the volcano and local volcanic pipes. Therefore, the fire was spotty.

2. My phrase that the volcano exploded reflects the general situation: natural gas (methane, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, radon, etc.) came out from under the surface, and while e.g. methane concentration, was low, it rose to an altitude of 80 km and was carried away by atmospheric winds to Europe. There methane caused a pre-glow (from April 1908 and later) due to noctilucent clouds (NLCs). To them, to the NLCs, were added weak auroras due to solar flares, which provoked the activation of the Kulikovsky volcano andconstantly led to an increase in glow over Eurasia. In addition, the glow could be caused by radon decay products and/or so-called ionospheric effect of earthquakes. In the cone of the Earth's shadow, plasma probably glowed.

3. When the concentration of natural gas in the atmosphere above the central vent of the Kulikovsky volcano reached critical values, on the morning of June 30, 1908, the explosion occurred at an altitude of about 5-8 km. It has been proven that the explosion occurred exactly above Mount Stojkovic, i.e. above the main vent of the paleovolcano (this greatly surprised the adepts of comets-asteroids versions). The explosion “ignited” all the natural gas that had previously escaped through the volcano’s main vent. Therefore eyewitnesses claimed the pillar of the explosion was raised. The shock wave broke the tops of the “telegraph forest” at the epicenter. There was no “nuclear Hiroshima” and nothing supernatural since powerful explosions of any nature practically do not differ from each other in consequences. For details, see, for example, my publications from different years.

4. A fire should not be confused with a burn.The question about charring remains debatable, which I point out in my book with references to different points of view on the 1908 Tunguska event: the fire or the burn due to light flash. My opinion: most likely, the fire is primarily responsible for the charring. Significantly, no cases of scorching of the bark from above, without scorching from below, were found, and peat columns contain a horizon with traces of fire. Even the roots of the trees in the depths were charred.

At various locations near the epicentre of the Tunguska explosion, the spotted fire agrees well with the release of underground gases. Underground fires run almost vertically up from the ignition point below ground. But the tree fire at the exit point may not affect the neighbouring tree.

But there are also traces of burns on a small number of lying trees. At first, the trees found themselves lying on the surface due to a shock wave or were knocked down by an earthquake, and then were subjected to thermal influence from above. Thermal burns due to a light flash naturally point towards the explosion epicenter over Mount Stoikivich.

"Bird's claw" (burn of the branches ends) was present only on knots, which were dry at the moment of explosion, and was formed from the action of heat flow directed from below, not from above, as it was absent on trees tops but was observed in their lower and middle parts.

Short-term exposure to underground gases and their vacuum explosion explains the relatively low estimated thermal temperature (T~600˚C) is the answer.

5. Apart from Eurasia, luminescent light has not been registered in other continents. There were only atmospheric halos in the area of the Yellowstone volcano, due to the mantle hotspot probably. The exact geographical boundaries of the bizarre glows are indicated in my book, but, alas, you haven’t mastered it (it looks like you haven’t read it at all?). I mention in this book and clarify the atmospheric glows over England many times.

One of the centres of glows was in the area of the Eifel volcano as well. This supports my hypothesis of whole mantle convection in the Earth's deep.

6. Unfortunately for your supernatural hypothesis, there were harmed Evenks (wounded/dead) in the area of the 1908 Tunguska epicenter. This is documented in the Catalog of Eyewitness Testimonies. Their names I may provide. According to survey data from ethnographer I. Suslov in 1926, these were Ivan Machakugyr, brother of Lyuchetkan (crushed hand and died), shaman Uiban immediately died on the Mount Lakura, and Lurbuman. Also burned warehouses (so-called 'labazs') and deer.

7. According to the video you linked, the Tomsk's group led by N. Vasiliev (I knew him well personally) suggested cometary genesis based on microparticles at the epicenter. However, the particles they found were tested in different laboratories, and the French group, Rocchia R. et al. (links see in my book) refuted the conclusions of the Siberians based on these particles. This is well-known to researchers of the 1908 Tunguska event.

8. About an allegedly flying luminous ball. Many eyewitnesses claimed to have observed ball lightning or a series of such.

I respect A. Clark, but I repeat that no radioactive traces were found either at the epicenter or anywhere else in connection with the explosion in Tunguska.

9. I can’t wait to see your proof of the hypothesis about the luminous Satan.

10. P.S. Did Satan have parents?

Best wishes,

Boris

Dear Professor German,

If the explosion were underground, as you suggested, then why were the tops blown off the trees as evidenced by the picture above? and the commentary, below

https://youtu.be/oKHc0o5XhzU?t=635

To attribute the documented charred on one side of the trees--- reminiscent of a blinding light (similar to the effects at Hiroshima) to cotemporary forest fires, which are supposed to have occurred near the epicentre of the Tunguska event, is, surely, a bit of a stretch?

I say these were from a blinding light above ground, as common sense suggests.

Presumably the light from the Tunguska event is below the horizon here in England, so it must have been fantastically bright or are we mistaken here too-- does this mean it must have been of supernatural origin to turn night into day here and over Europe? Was this light seen in other parts of the world?

You are too quick to dismiss a supernatural origin. The facts, to my mind, point away from a scientific explanation, and toward the supernatural.

No human was harmed (as far as I know) from this event. That in itself is significant.

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

Thank you for expanding in more detail upon your interesting hypothesis.

"It has been proven that the explosion occurred exactly above Mount Stojkovic, i.e. above the main vent of the paleovolcano (this greatly surprised the adepts of comets-asteroids versions)"

How can this possibly be "proven"? X marks the spot?

In regard to your assertion in 2.

2. " natural gas (methane, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, radon, etc.) came out from under the surface, and while e.g. methane concentration, was low, it rose to an altitude of 80 km and was carried away by atmospheric winds to Europe"

If it were carried away by the winds-- in a rather desperate effort (isn't it?) to explain the pre-Tunguska light phenomena, then how can this same methane "reach critical values" and "explode".

The first assertion contradicts the second.

Also if there was a "fire" underground as you claim, then how was the methane, some 5-8km up in the air, ignited?

Also surely a "fire" has to exist where there is oxygen, ie. above ground. I have never heard of a "fire" below ground? Or do you mean "lava" below ground? Molten rocks?

"There was no “nuclear Hiroshima”

I said "Hiroshima-like" blinding light, I did not say the Tunguska event was nuclear. In fact I agree with you than this event, whatever the cause, was not nuclear in origin.

"According to survey data from ethnographer I. Suslov in 1926"...

A post-mortem some 18 years after the event is hardly hard evidence... I would say this has to be pure speculation.

"According to the video you linked, the Tomsk's group led by N. Vasiliev (I knew him well personally) "

This is fascinating. Did he tell you of any strange effects near the epicentre? I heard some of the porters refused to go on?

Gary Stephens

Dear Gary,

..."It has been proven that the explosion occurred exactly above Mount Stojkovic, i.e. above the main vent of the paleovolcano (this greatly surprised the adepts of comets-asteroids versions)". How can this possibly be "proven"?...

See in my book p. 23: „Proponents of the cometary hypothesis [Gladysheva, 2008] encounter an insurmountable obstacle: 'The most surprising fact was that we found the main channel of the emission energy was precisely over/in the central conduit of the volcano'.“

… X marks the spot?...

Mount Stoikovic is number 7 in this picture

http://www.tunguska.ru/all/kos_pic.htm.

… " If it were carried away by the winds-- in a rather desperate effort (isn't it?) to explain the pre-Tunguska light phenomena, ...

Of course, it is not. Don't make my slippers laugh.

The 'methane hypothesis' in connection to the Tunguska explosion is not mine. I only explain this hypothesis to you and add something more. Therefore, I explain my interpretation of this hypothesis that different from all. However, the next variant for 'the pre-Tunguska light phenomena' is mine:

"Before the Tungus explosion on June 30, 1908, the appearance of luminous clouds over Europa on April 30, May 27, and more powerful since June 23, 1908, was consistent with the 27-day synodic/Carrington solar rotation period".

See (PDF) Atmospheric anomalies of the 1908 Tungus event. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354837901_Atmospheric_anomalies_of_the_1908_Tungus_event [accessed Jan 21 2024].

This is in the first place, as well as volcanic dust (due to the Ksudach volcano, but possibly due to the Kulikovsky volcano as well), and in the summer, in early June, NLCs (silvery) clouds were added due to the release of methane on Tunguska.

... then how can this same methane "reach critical values" and "explode". The first assertion contradicts the second. Also if there was a "fire" underground as you claim, then how was the methane, some 5-8km up in the air, ignited? Also surely a "fire" has to exist where there is oxygen, ie. above ground...

There is no contradiction. I have to repeat to you: “When the methane content in the air is up to 5-6%, methane burns near the heat source (ignition temperature 650-750 ° C), from 5-6% to 14-16% explodes, and over 16% can burn when oxygen flows from outside”.

“...when methane concentration was low, methane rose to an altitude of 80 km and was carried away by atmospheric winds to Europe"... However, the activity of the volcano grew over time. Accordingly, the yield/concentration of natural gas (methane, etc.) also increased.

From my book (p. 25): '… volumetric (vacuum) explosion occurs due to air oxygen contact with aerosol streams of combustible substances, gases, or hydrocarbon vapour. Solutions of radium salts in water, for example, decompose the water into oxygen and hydrogen, and methane is used, among other ingredients, for volume detonation bombs. Any spark produces an instant cloud ignition and an explosion”.

In addition to oxygen in the air, any spark could detonate methane. During the earthquake, lightnings is a standard phenomenon, and eyewitnesses talked about ball lightning flying towards the epicenter. These options are enough for the coming methane to explode.

... I have never heard of a "fire" below ground?...

See please: Scott A. еt al., 2000, Palaeo, v. 164, 281-329

"According to survey data from ethnographer I. Suslov in 1926". A post-mortem some 18 years after the event is hardly hard evidence. I would say this has to be pure speculation...

Pure speculation is your 'Satan-hypothesis'! There were no autopsies in 1926. I. Suslov at the so-called Suglan (meeting) was told about Evenks who died 18 years ago during explosion 30. June 1908. Told Akulina, Kykagir, etc. Akulina - daughter of Lyuchetkan (he was L. Kulik's guide to the epicenter of the explosion during the first expeditions). Her closest relatives died. Kykagir - the head of the Evenks community.

..."According to the video you linked, the Tomsk's group led by N. Vasiliev (I knew him well personally) " This is fascinating. Did he tell you of any strange effects near the epicentre? I heard some of the porters refused to go on?...

N. Vasiliev has not said anything special. The Evenks were afraid to go there because they believed, like you, in the Evenki Satan (they didn't do well at school). But Evenk Lyuchetkan and others calmly became L. Kulik’s guides to this epicenter area.

Best wishes,

Boris

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

"There methane caused a pre-glow (from April 1908 and later) due to noctilucent clouds (NLCs). To them, to the NLCs, were added weak auroras due to solar flares"

This, to my mind, looks like a desparate attempt to explain the pre-Tunguska light phenomena. A phenomenon which defies scientific explanation, and rather points to the supernatural.

The reason your explanation appears weak, is you have attributed it to two different causes--- one from the Sun (solar flares) and one from the Earth (methane gas). Again a rather remarkable coincidence.

It would appear you have so many things going on --- cotemporary "solar flares," "auroras," methane gas "glowing" for some unwonted reason, (never documented before, never observed to "glow" in the laboratory?) --

This all looks rather haphazard, and arbitrary, doesn't it?

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

"See in my book p. 23: „Proponents of the cometary hypothesis [Gladysheva, 2008] encounter an insurmountable obstacle: 'The most surprising fact was that we found the main channel of the emission energy was precisely over/in the central conduit of the volcano'.“"

Did they travel back in time, and place a voltmeter at this very spot? (and others a little way away) -- so that they knew for sure where the blinding light landed?

How can anyone possibly know an hundred years later where the "main channel of the emission energy was"... and "precisely" ?

This all sounds like nonsense. Doesn't it?

Gary Stephens

...Did they travel back in time, and place a voltmeter at this very spot?... How can anyone possibly know an hundred years later where the "main channel of the emission energy was"... and "precisely" ?...

Dear Gary, such calculations are carried out by computer modelling based on the fine structure of forest falling and tree burn, as well as barograms and seismograms. Read Gladysheva's work at the specified link, and do not fantasize.

Gary Stephens

Dear Gary,

O.K. You noticed a typo because the NLCs have not since April 30, but since the end of May: their peak is 'in late June - early July'. This does not change the overall situation much.

But these clouds were not everywhere, which I have already reported earlier: that is, NLCs (due methane), in principle, were not the main source of abnormal glows over Eurasia in 1908 since on June, 30th, 1908 in 12 points (London, Dublin, Bordeaux, Hamburg, Prague, Uindermir, Hirshberg, Krakow, Kherson, Hempsted, Miass, and Tiraspol) where strong luminescences were observed, the NLCs were absent (read my publication: Article About Noctilucent Clouds of the Tunguska Phenomenon

And how long to wait for your hypothesis about the light-emitting Satan?

Best wishes

Gary Stephens

Dear Gary,

1. ... cotemporary "solar flares," "auroras,"...

Solar flares are, of course, associated with auroras, and not with “your" Satan.

2. >... methane gas "glowing" for some unwonted reason, (never documented before, never observed to "glow" in the laboratory?) --...

This is documented (NLCs), but you are "off topic".

I have to repeat:

"Before the Tungus explosion on June 30, 1908, the appearance of luminous clouds over Europa on April 30, May 27, and more powerful since June 23, 1908, was consistent with the 27-day synodic/Carrington solar rotation period".

See (PDF) Atmospheric anomalies of the 1908 Tungus event. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354837901_Atmospheric_anomalies_of_the_1908_Tungus_event [accessed Jan 21 2024].

This is in the first place, as well as volcanic dust (due to the Ksudach volcano, but possibly due to the Kulikovsky volcano as well), and in the summer, in early June, NLCs (silvery) clouds were added due to the release of methane on Tunguska.

P.S. In addition to the winds in the summer from Siberia towards Europe, the researchers added the following argument: methane emerging over the Kulikovsky volcano due to the rotation of the Earth moved to Europe. But they considered this exclusively after the Tunguska explosion. I also add this "mechanism" for pre-explosion luminescence of the sky in Eurasia.

Best wishes

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

I will read your publication : "About Noctilucent Clouds of the Tunguska Phenomenon".

Well done for focusing on this very odd, and inexplicable phenomena. My animadversions are merely to point out the inexplicable nature of the Tunguska event. You are right to contend that a cometary or asteroid hypothesis do not fit the facts.

---------

You are probably not aware that there is far more evidence for the truth of the Biblical scripture, as an accurate historical account than there is, for example, for UFOs or Aliens.

The is no evidence at all for extra-terrestrials. There is ample evidence the received text, (King James Version) is accurate.

Newton, in a note written on a scrap of paper, wrote about the end of the world

"I don't see that happening until the 20th of the 21st century"

2020.

And, as you know, there was a change in the zeitgeist on 1st January 2020.

So Satan being finally flung down to Earth in 1908, his light preceding him before the final arrival, makes perfect sense along this time line.

Gary Stephens

>...There is ample evidence the received text, (King James Version) is accurate. Newton, in a note written on a scrap of paper, wrote about the end of the world "I don't see that happening until the 20th of the 21st century" 2020...

Dear Gary!

Why is neither the Bible nor Newton mentioning 1908 anywhere?

You probably don't know that Newton was a joke lover (he had no problems with differentiation and the law of gravitation, but in England, at that time there was a shortage of paper).

>… And, as you know, on January 1, 2020, there was a change in the zeitgeist...

I'm hearing it for the first time. I remember many were waiting for the Apocalypse on January 1, 2000, but it was not. Or do you mean the Covid-pandemic? However, it started in 2019. What were the changes/zeitgeist on January 1, 2020?

>...Thus, the fact that Satan was finally dropped to Earth in 1908 and his light preceded him before his final arrival makes sense in this time frame...

Why did Satan from your hypothesis choose Evenks and their deer as victims?

Where has 'your' Satan been since 1908 until today? Finally, why doesn't he have a page on ResearchGate?

Best wishes,

Boris

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

Your attitude actually fits in with well with Biblical scripture. There is, in end times, a "falling away".

What you may not realise, also, is that Newton spent most of his time reading the King James Bible (1611,) in fact these were the main efforts of his investigations, his tracts on fluxions and fluents (what we now call calculus) Opticks, the Laws of Motion, and Gravitation, forming a lesser part of this considerations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGud2-blon0

Since Newton was supernaturally clever, perhaps we should be a bit more circumspect, and not overly hasty in our dismissal of these investigations, because.. "we know better" ?

To put it mildly, perhaps Professor German (notwithstanding his many and varied achievements, many of which are doubtless yet to come) --- notwithstanding these, perhaps it is fair to say, he might not "know better" than Isaac Newton?

A wild speculation, albeit.

Gary Stephens,

Dear Gary,

don't compare me to Newton since I don't suffer from megalomania.

But you never answered my direct questions:

1. Why is neither the Bible nor Newton mentioning 1908 anywhere?

2. Where did the January 1, 2020 date come from?

3. Why did Satan from your hypothesis choose Evenks and their deer as victims?

and

4. At what speed and at what angle did the light-bearing Satan, according to your hypothesis, enter the Earth's atmosphere on June 30, 1908?

5. You claimed that Satan was thrown to Earth from above, but the fire at Tunguska in 1908 was underground. Perhaps it is more correct for you to say that Satan was thrown to the surface from below?

P.S. It is well-known that Newton spent the last years of his life searching for answers through the Bible and alchemy (but it was without success).

Best wishes,

Boris

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

Let me answer your points one by one, correcting them for their factual errors.

Let us begin with the last, and work backwards:

Imprimis :

"P.S. It is well-known that Newton spent the last years of his life searching for answers through the Bible and alchemy (but it was without success)."

This is factually incorrect. Newton's investigations upon the King James (1611) Bible, in particular relating to eschatology, and the Second Coming, were cotemporary with his work on Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, as mentioned, (I think,) in the lecture by Snobelen.

"4. At what speed and at what angle did the light-bearing Satan, according to your hypothesis, enter the Earth's atmosphere on June 30, 1908?"

This is an interesting question. You may know the answer. Is there any evidence of an oval shape to the destruction of the forest? or is it perfectly symmetrical? I expect the answer is unknown.

"3. Why did Satan from your hypothesis choose Evenks and their deer as victims?"

You have provided no convincing evidence that any human (Evenk) was harmed by this event, only a very tenuous claim by an ethnographer some 18 years after the event. Why you mention deer, is unknown. I said no "human" was harmed, as far as I could gather, which is, considering where the event could have occurred, a bit of a miracle. If it had happened at sea, the tsunami would doubtless have engulfed very many populated areas. The remoteness of this event, to my mind, is also evidence, in itself, of a supernatural intelligence at work.

"2. Where did the January 1, 2020 date come from? "

Between 1 Jan and the 31st Jan 2020, is when I personally felt there to be a zeitgeist shift. According to official sources, ie. the WHO, it began on the 31 Dec 2019. ie. Within 24hrs of the start of the 1st Jan 2020.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/interactive-timeline#event-0

"Why is neither the Bible nor Newton mentioning 1908 anywhere?"

It is not known if this date is mentioned. Certainly it would fit in quite well coming before the two World Wars (the killing fields, and the inhuman happenings of the second World war,) and before our current predicament.

----------------------------------------------------

But I am hogging the discussion with my theory. Perhaps we might return to your theory, for a while, and investigate it in more detail?

One thing you mentioned baffled me. If you could explain how very many Kms above the Earth's surface, the methane was "ignited"-- bearing in mind, the ignition temperature, as stated by you is 650-750 ° C ?

Gary Stephens

Dear Gary!

>..."P.S. It is well-known that Newton spent the last years of his life searching for answers through the Bible and alchemy (but it was without success)." This is factually incorrect. Newton's investigations upon the King James (1611) Bible, in particular relating to eschatology, and the Second Coming, were cotemporary with his work on Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, as mentioned, (I think,) in the lecture by Snobelen...

In fact, everything is correct. You can think anything. That doesn't mean it really did.

Newton was a magnificent physicist and mathematician. Therefore, I believe, he did not need the Bible, where these objects are not mentioned in any way.

If health allows you can do a lot of things simultaneously as well.

>... "Why is neither the Bible nor Newton mentioning 1908 anywhere?" It is not known if this date is mentioned...

Well, since it is unknown, you can’t refer to either the Bible or Newton. These are your fantasies, nothing more.

>...4. At what speed and at what angle did the light-bearing Satan, according to your hypothesis, enter the Earth's atmosphere on June 30, 1908?". This is an interesting question...

Well, where and what is your answer?

>..."3. You have provided no convincing evidence that any human (Evenk) was harmed by this event, only a very tenuous claim by an ethnographer some 18 years after the event. Why you mention deer, is unknown...

What does a very tenuous mean? I repeat: these statements are directly from the Evenks, whose immediate relatives and reindeer died (the ethnographer only recorded their testimony). I gave you the names of the Evenks (this is indicated in the 'General Catalog of eyewitnesses' with ISBN; in Russian). Find translators from Russian to English and see for yourself.

>... I said no "human" was harmed, as far as I could gather, which is, considering where the event could have occurred, a bit of a miracle...

No miracle. There were no people directly at the epicenter. But Akulina’s family tent, whose brother died, stood closer than the others to the epicenter. Therefore, it was her relatives, deer and warehouses that suffered (they were wounded and died, etc.).

>...The remoteness of this event, to my mind, is also evidence, in itself, of a supernatural intelligence at work...

Evenkia is still sparsely populated, but nothing supernatural happens there. And on the Earth, there is more than enough remoteness, and there was and is nothing supernatural there (e.g. read about Robinson Crusoe).

>... "2. Where did the January 1, 2020 date come from? "… Between 1 Jan and the 31st Jan 2020, is when I personally felt there to be a zeitgeist shift...

This is not an argument. My friends didn’t feel anything (I specifically asked them the other day).

>...Certainly it would fit in quite well coming before the two World Wars (the killing fields, and the inhuman happenings of the second World war,) and before our current predicament...

Anything can fit in quite well coming anywhere.

>...If you could explain how very many Kms above the Earth's surface, the methane was "ignited"-- bearing in mind, the ignition temperature, as stated by you is 650-750 ° C ?...

I’ve already explained it to you three times, but apparently, this is the granite of science.

The underground fire corresponded to a temperature of about 600°C (see page 26 in my book). Have you never heard of peatland burning? And, according to the trees' fall and barograms, the explosion of a column of rising natural gas, primarily methane, occurred at an altitude of 5-7 km.

At the same time, the hypothesis of methane release and explosion is not mine. I'm just explaining it to you (for geologists this is trivial).

>...Is there any evidence of an oval shape to the destruction of the forest? or is it perfectly symmetrical? I expect the answer is unknown...

The answer is known: the shape of a 'butterfly', but the question is not completely closed since:

1. The oval of the 'butterfly' body is a rough approximation (see page 24 of my book, Fig. 7).

2. The 'butterfly' is headless there in the western sector, and the wings are not symmetrical, i.e. symmetry is far from absolute.

Best wishes

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

It is quite remarkable-- incredible as it sounds, that the Satan hypothesis, (ordinarily, one would think, out of the question) is gaining ground in the publick's mind, and your multifaceted (gas, peat bog, fires "underground", explosion, glowing gas wafting over Europe, solar flares, "spotty fires," cotemporary "forest fires" &c) explanation is looking, well, like a mind-boggling array of causes, to put it mildly.

But let me read your book in more detail...

Gary Stephens

Dear Gary!

>... It is quite remarkable-- incredible as it sounds, that the Satan hypothesis, (ordinarily, one would think, out of the question) is gaining ground in the publick's mind,...

Why, suddenly, did you decide that Satan's "unhealthy" (i.e. without any justification) hypothesis in connection with the 1908 Tunguska event was gaining something?

Although the coronavirus could damage the brains of some people (I was not sick, but WHO warned).

>... and your multifaceted explanation is looking, well, like a mind-boggling array of causes...

My explanation is not a set of causes, but a causal chain. Solar flares and a gravitational lunar tide, acting on the Earth's core and mantle, respectively, led to the rise of natural gas (methane, CO2, hydrogen, radon, etc.) from the Kulikovsky volcano and neighbouring volcanic faults as long before the explosion, and as well the final explosion of this mud volcano during the tectonic earthquake on June 30, 1908. Naturally, in this case, an underground (and therefore spotted) fire of peat over a large area arose and spread.

Methane contributed to the formation of NLCs (silvery clouds): due to metan-derived water vapour and the mesospheric ice-particle formation over Europe (due to both the rotation of the Earth from east to west over the Kulikovsky volcano, where natural gas came out and volcanic dust rose and thanks to summer winds from east to west to Europe).

But, I emphasize again: NLCs (silvery clouds) were not the main air glow over Europe. According to my research, the registered solar protons (?) flares primarily caused abnormal glows about June 30, 1908 (the faint Aurora and the plasma glow in the Earth's shadow).

>...But let me read your book in more detail...

No problem, read (long needed). How you ripen, report, please.

Best wishes.

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

To my mind, (and to everyone else's) you have less of a "causal chain", and more of an imagined array of fantasies, strung together.

The risible nature of these causal chains rises like the methane you imagine billowing out from your supposed "peat-bog."

To give one example :

Why would "Solar flares and a gravitational lunar tide, acting on the Earth's core and mantle, respectively, " (lead) "to the rise of natural gas (methane, CO2, hydrogen, radon, etc.) from the Kulikovsky volcano and neighbouring volcanic faults as long before the explosion"

Why wouldn't these lead to something else entirely different? like a lessening of volcanic activity, for example? and why would these things, acting, as you say on the Earth's core and mantle have anything to do with what's happening locally in Siberia? Why not Japan or Hungary? or Timbuktu?

At best all this is all hyper-speculation, surely, isn't it?

But I remain with an open mind, and will continue to read your book. I'm at the very interesting part about "eye-witness accounts," which, lo and behold, are very much suggestive of a supernatural and single cause hypothesis.

Gary Stephens

Dear Gary,

>... Why wouldn't these lead to something else entirely different? like a lessening of volcanic activity, for example? and why would these things, acting, as you say on the Earth's core and mantle have anything to do with what's happening locally in Siberia? Why not Japan or Hungary? or Timbuktu?

Because the Tunguska region is connected with the Perm LLSVP anomaly. Finish the book and don’t engage in nonsense statements.

Best wishes

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

Have you calculated the explosive power (estimated by the quantity of dispersed wafting methane gas over that region of the epicentre at Tunguska) of the event?

Does this explosive power of the methane gas, match a thousand atomic bombs (a 1000 Hiroshimas), as some estimates suggest power must have been?

I am surprised methane gas has such a "pop," aren't you?

Gary Stephens

Dear Gary,

>... Does this explosive power of the methane gas, match a thousand atomic bombs (a 1000 Hiroshimas), as some estimates suggest? I am surprised methane gas has such a "pop," aren't you?...

I am not surprised. The calculations were made by professionals.

Best wishes

Boris R. German

The ingenious thing about Professor German's "hypothesis" or his "causal chain," as he is wont to call it (-- definitely not an imagined array of fantasies, strung together,) is that, it leaves no traces whatsoever of its existence.

The unimaginable explosion was.. a "pop" of methane gas. Traces nil.

The volcano that produced the methane just happened to be a "mud volcano." So, no lava is to be found. Again traces are nil.

The burnt (on one side) trees, millions of them? were from a peat-bog fire, a spotty one. Remnants of this peat-bog fire are nil. No traces are left.

The methane is particularly useful-- as it has a double utility ; the peculiar lights in the sky before the event-- Professor German styles these as a kind of "glowing gas". No traces of this are unsurprisingly extant.

All in all it's quite an ingenious theory. No evidence at all exists for his hypothesis.

But! notwithstanding, I keep an open mind, and will continue to gain insight from his very interesting book.

Gary Stephens

Dear Gary!

>... is that, it leaves no traces whatsoever of its existence...

My version leaves everything that is required for the scientific version. And what has your hypothesis of Satan left? His hooves? Where are they? Why are you hiding them?

>... The unimaginable explosion was.. a "pop" of methane gas.

It could have been. The idea is not mine, but I support it since the explosion exactly above the main vent of the Kulikovsky volcano was proven.

>... Traces nil...

There are more than enough traces.

>... The volcano that produced the methane just happened to be a "mud volcano." So, no lava is to be found...

More than once I told a 'negligent student' that the mud volcano spews a fluid-gas mixture, and methane is a gas included in the total mixture of natural gas. There is no lava and should not be.

>... The burnt (on one side) trees, millions of them? were from a peat-bog fire, a spotty one...

'On the one hand', this is after the high-altitude flash. And due to the underground fire, charring did not spread to the treetops.

Are you able to read (and understand), or do you come across unfamiliar letters of the alphabet? Soon I will get bored of explaining the same thing in a circle.

Have you also been cast on Earth with Satan? Maybe it is time to come back, where did you fly from? Is the date known?

>... Remnants of this peat-bog fire are nil...

Tens of square kilometers, joker.

>... No traces are left...

No traces in 'your' head, but there are enough of them on the ground.

>... The methane is particularly useful-- as it has a double utility ; the peculiar lights in the sky before the event-- Professor German styles these as a kind of "glowing gas".

NLCs, which included nano ice particles, glowed in the atmosphere, but methane initiated them thanks to derived water from methane. Gary, I have already repeatedly explained this.

>... No traces of this are unsurprisingly extant ...

Of course, ice floes are melting: a few days later, the glow was reduced already in 1908, spitting on your hypothesis of Satan.

>... All in all it's quite an ingenious theory....

Not only in general but also in detail. Thank you for the recognition, but I do not suffer from megalomania.

Gary, if your hypothesis of Satan is not recognized by others around people, ask the doctors if there are any empty seats in the next ward.

>... But! notwithstanding, I keep an open mind, and will continue to gain insight from his very interesting book...

I wish you success. I think I will no longer have free time to comment on nonsense. Thanks for the funny dialogues!

Best wishes to your entire Satanist sect.

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

Please don't take anything I say (my animadversions) to heart.

Your book is a very fascinating document.

For example, this extract, is particularly interesting, and I think, speaks to a supernatural explanation :

"In personal correspondence, Yu. Sbitnev, who had a long time lived at the Lower Tunguska, wrote to me:

"Russian old-timers also testified to this: according to their stories, a month before the Tunguska "miracle", Evenks started to move throughout the taiga.

They went out to the Russian villages and talked about the fact that a Doomsday should take place"."

Gary Stephens

Dear Gary,

I have already explained in my publications that the abovementioned fact is because of the behaviour of animals, including dogs, capable of responding to changes in the activation of the volcano: underground gas output and other characteristics (for example, snakes can respond to changes of the magnetic field). Of course, Evenks - good hunters, remarked this.

P.S. I am not offended at all, this is not in my character. I love humour, and you, Gary, all the time joke (Satan, etc.). But I no longer have free time to discuss. When and if you finish reading my book, perhaps I will answer certain reasonable questions. Goodbye. Good luck!!

Dear Gary,

Interesting discussion. However, if someone asks me what is the conclusion, I could not say.

Regards the meteorite/comet hypothesis, there was no follow-up from what has been done already.

Professor German introduced the volcano/ gas hypothesis. This would link Tunguska with all the other massive "holes" and depressions that have been found throughout Siberia, but no one has seen them forming (no video evidence).

Methane was suspected to be the cause of the formation of these massive "holes".

I am not an expert on the subject, but have followed the events for years.

Somebody would need to drill across the "devastated forest" area to find proof of a volcano, but that would seem like a dream to undertake in such a remote area.

During my teaching years I had found another puzzle that may fit in this situation: quarks. There was one incident that was recorded in Australia & Antarctica some years ago. A suspected quark "attack" went through the planet and caused earthquakes.

Today, we also have the "oumuamua" experience to include in any mystery situation. There is a force from afar that is operating which we didn't consider previously.

best regards,

Michael

Michael Issigonis

Boris R. German

Dear Professor Issigonis,

Thank you for bringing your expertise in the field of geology and mineral exploration, to this discussion.

Professor German has unearthed and collated some fascinating facts ; not only the eye-witness statements, but also the newspaper and other accounts on "pre-luminescence," that presaged the main event (the unimaginable explosion) :

In Kursk province, optical anomalies in the sky appeared on 28–29 June [Tomilina, 1908].

On June 29, 1908, the observatory in Kremsmünster (Austria) recorded the only case of the alba-dawn (that is, “burning the Alps”) during the entire summer of 1908 [Vasiliev, 1965].

Swedish "Bulletin of the Meteorological Observatory of the University in Uppsala" reported the nights from 29 June till the end of July were bright."5

A report from the Kursk province was indicative, where after the twilight of June 29, a golden "electric" light appeared. At midnight the phenomenon almost disappeared, but the 'white night' lasted until morning [Tomilina, 1908].

Starting from June 21, 1908, an unusual twilight glow before the Tunguska explosion of 1908, in more than 20 locations [Vasiliev, 1965.

-----------

To suppose these were caused by "glowing gas" is these disparate locations, is to my mind, quite a desperate stretch, is it not?

But these facts are fascinating, and notwithstanding Professor German attributing them to what he sees as the only scientific explanation he can possibly imagine-- I say these and other facts (like the absence of a crater) point to a supernatural origin.

Gary Stephens

Michael Issigonis

I have to repeat: I did not consider and do not consider the field of the NLCs (of silvery clouds) the only and even more so, the main source of the glow during the 1908 Tunguska event.

The NLCs, as experts believe today, arise at an altitude of about 80 km due to several components: water, low temperature and condensation centers. Methane is responsible only for water, which, when cooled, forms micro-ice floes on the condensation centers. These ice floes reflect sunny light. It would be best if you had read about NLCs on the Internet for a long time, and not taken away my time.

However, the air glowed also in the cone of the Earth's shadow, so I believe that plasma provided the main glow during the 1908 Tunguska event. It's probably due to (proton?) flashes in the Sun.

The NLCs were secondary, not primary, since only overlapped with the main glowing in the atmosphere. Read, please, e.g.Conference Paper Atmospheric anomalies of the 1908 Tungus event

Moreover, I consider the reason for the 1908 Tunguska event to be a change in the rotation of the Sun during this period. The change in the Sun's rotation was also led to the impact on the Moon due to the so-called 'evection'. But Gary is far from 'the 1908 Tunguska subject' and I will not go into details (read in my book).

So here. The volcano and methane in Siberia were consequences, not causes. Reasons: the Sun and the Moon, i.e., solar-lunar-Earth connections. I claim this in my book and cannot understand why you pervert my views.

Best wishes

P.S. Dear Gary, where does Satan live now from your hypothesis? Or is he dead? What do the Bible, Newton, and psychics report?

P.P.S. Dear Michael, I can send you a link to a computer 'picture' of the 'fallen trees' in the epicenter according to their detailed Katalog. Interestingly, your comparison with circles in the margins, as you reported earlier.

Boris R. German

Michael Issigonis

Dear Professor German,

The great thing about your document is that it is actually providing evidence for the Tunguska event being of a supernatural nature.

One minor criticism of your piece :

"Atmospheric anomalies of the 1908 Tungus event."

The abbreviation NLC is not defined anywhere in the article, and so the reader has no idea what it means, when it is mentioned in the second to last sentence.

Your observation here, is a very interesting :

"Since the airglows were also observed in the Earth's shadow cone [6], they could not be caused by the sunlight scattering on ice particles, including NLCs, formed in connection with the comets or asteroids."

Does this mean there is no scientific rationale for these "air-glows" before the Tunguska event, aside from some outlandish conjecture about plasma coming down from the sun?

------------------------------------

The "Trajectories Paradox" is equally fascinating :

"Recorded in consolidated the "Catalogue" [Vasiliev, 1981], the testimony of 708 eyewitnesses who observed glow or acoustic effects before the explosion give conflicting trajectories

(Fig. 3): western trajectory by I. Suslov, southern by I. Astapovich, southeastern by E. Krinov, and eastern by V. Konenkin.

But meteoroids, even after the split, can not cover such huge territories and move almost towards each other.

Thus, "the Tunguska meteorite flew from all four sides and flew away in all four sides", as the participants in the Complex Expedition (KSE, in Russian), which included mainly Siberian scientists and volunteer students, joked."

----------------------------------------

Again, this points squarely towards a supernatural origin, as it is beyond comprehension.

Gary Stephens

>... The great thing about your document is that it is actually providing evidence for the Tunguska event being of a supernatural nature...

Dear Gary, absolutely no way.

>... the abbreviation NLC is not defined anywhere...

I checked. You don't read my book well since on page 5 (quote): "NLCs, noctilucent clouds, during the celestial glow were observed in Moscow, Koenigsberg, and Uppsala only".

Moreover. The book is designed mainly for specialists. For them, the abbreviation NLCs is well known. The rest can learn about the abbreviation NLCs and on the Internet.

>... our observation here, is a very interesting :

"Since the airglows were also observed in the Earth's shadow cone [6], they could not be caused by the sunlight scattering on ice particles, including NLCs, formed in connection with the comets or asteroids."

Does this mean there is no scientific rationale for these "air-glows" before the Tunguska event, aside from some outlandish conjecture about plasma coming down from the sun?...

Dear Gary, this means the NLCs were not the main air-glow until before the Tunguska explosion:

Article About Noctilucent Clouds of the Tunguska Phenomenon

However, the main cause of the glow, both before June 30, 1908 and after, was due to the Sun.

Solar activity (and the Moon also, i.e., observed the discrepancy in the Moon's longitude, due to evection associated with a change in the rotation of the Sun in its 14th cycle) affected both the core-mantle boundary of the Earth and the ionosphere (this led to a change in the polarization of the atmosphere, etc.). On June 30, 1908 "flight glow" in Siberia of electric lightning discharges, including ball ones, etc., as eyewitnesses said.

I argue this effect of abnormal luminescence over Eurasia was an increase in the atmosphere's own glow due to the (1) rise of the solar energy in the ionosphere, (2) rise of the mantle superplume (one of its parts) over the Perm LLSVPs anomaly on the core-mantle boundary, i.e., under Eurasia. The Perm LLSVPs anomaly (and her connection with the mantle's Superplum) has already caused activity on Tunguska before since the Kulikovsky paleovolcanic complex had five stages of multi-activity over millions of years (since the mantle plume grew to surface at intervals).

I advise you to finish reading my book, it says about it.

Book PHYSICS of the 1908 TUNGUSKA EVENT

>... Thus, "the Tunguska meteorite flew from all four sides and flew away in all four sides", ...

Electrical discharges affected the entire Siberian platform (i.e. it was a tectonic earthquake) and "objects flew" from different sides, along tectonic faults to the epicenter, i.e. to the Kulikovsky palaeovolcano.

>... Again, this points squarely towards a supernatural origin,...

Again, no.

>... as it is beyond comprehension...

Scientific comprehension is a complicated thing, of course. This is not "your" Bible's folklore and the hypothesis of Satan in connection with the 1908 Tunguska event. Your hypothesis can be considered hilarious humor.

Best wishes.

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

I said :

One minor criticism of your piece :

"Atmospheric anomalies of the 1908 Tungus event."

The abbreviation NLC is not defined anywhere in the article..

You replied :

>... the abbreviation NLC is not defined anywhere...

I checked. You don't read my book well since on page 5 (quote): "NLCs, noctilucent clouds, during the celestial glow were observed in Moscow, Koenigsberg, and Uppsala only".

I said not defined in your -article-. I know it is defined in your book. Please do not misquote me. It serves no purpose.

------------

Another interesting observation unearthed in your document is :

"Windows of silence"

Siberian researchers from KSE found that the geological expedition of A. Makarenko stood on the Podkamennaya Tunguska very close to the Kulikovsky epicentre at the end of June

1908. Paradoxically, in the report of this expedition, there was not a single word related to the 1908 Tunguska event.

The conclusion about the existence of similar "windows of silence", when the locals not only did not see any objects but also did not hear anything, came later [Epiktetova, 1990]

and the "body, shining"

"In Nizhny-Karelinsky village (200 versts north from Kirensk), peasants saw quite high above the horizon in the northwest, a "body", shining with white-bluish light and moving for

10 minutes from top to bottom. The "body" seemed in the form of a "tube", i.e., as cylindrical.

The reporter was at that time in a forest about 9 km north of Kirensk and heard from the northwest a sort of cannonade, repeated at intervals of 15 minutes several, not less than ten

times".

Both of these, to my mind, are extraordinary. They point to the Tunguska event being a supernatural happening.

Gary Stephens

>...The abbreviation NLC is not defined anywhere in the article...

Dear Gary, did you seriously expect that I need to define the well-known (for specialists) abbreviation NLCs in a short (no free space) article? Why do you need NLCs if you rely on the Bible? Search there if you don't want to search Internet. As a last resort, see here (in detail):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228479832_About_Noctilucent_Clouds_of_the_Tunguska_Phenomenon

>... Another interesting observation unearthed in your document is : "Windows of silence"...

It is not surprising: the lights/'objects' moved along the faults, spaced over a long distance.

>... a "body", shining with white-bluish light and moving for 10 minutes from top to bottom. The "body" seemed in the form of a "tube", i.e., as cylindrical...

One option: it was a cylindrical column of volcanic gas (methane, CO2); let me remind you that the vent of the Kulikovsky volcano is cylindrical. Or it was the precipitation of plasma: the Earth’s proton magnetospheric radiation belt comes close to the surface at 60 degrees latitude. During earthquakes, e.g. infrasound, etc., disturbances this belt. And so on.

Please read my book to the end, and then be amazed in an integrated way.

... to my mind, are extraordinary...

Did you hope that Satan (according to your extraordinary hypothesis) went down in 10 minutes and immediately exploded? Let's honor his memory with a minute of silence. I am ready to remain silent while you finish reading my book (for example, until the end of February). Otherwise, my time will go to all sorts of absurd nonsense of your Conspiracy theory.

Best wishes

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

I can see you are staunch atheist, and you probably think Newton was a fool. I wonder if Newton, a man of supernatural intelligence might be right? and Professor German, a brilliant man, in his own circle I'm sure, might, on this occasion, be wrong? An outlandish thought, I know, but just the same..

I'm quite interested in this sentence :

But, N. Vasiliev disputed this conclusion, recalling the options by Lvov Yu./Koval V.:

"Neither the axis of symmetry of the fall of trees nor the axis of symmetry of the radiant burn (95°), were a projection of the trajectory"

[Plekhanov, 2012].

What exactly does this mean? in especial the bit about the "radiant burn". If you could expound upon this, much appreciated.

This is fascinating :

"Eyewitnesses reported, hence, at least two types of objects: one - flying rapidly, and another, cylindrical, descending slowly."

Again this suggests a supernatural happening. The cylindrical object being the "body". And this is very difficult to explain with your hypothesis of a build up of methane gas that went "pop" isn't it?

Gary Stephens

Dear Gary!

>... I can see you are staunch atheist, and you probably think Newton was a fool. I wonder if Newton, a man of supernatural intelligence might be right?…

I already told you in this discussion that I consider I. Newton a great mathematician and physicist, but at the end of his life, his work with the Bible and alchemy did not lead to results. I am forced to repeat neither the Bible nor Newton has a word about the 1908 Tunguska event. Therefore, I am not waiting for empty words, but for your publication.

>...The cylindrical object being the "body". And this is very difficult to explain with your hypothesis of a build up of methane gas that went "pop" isn't it?...

From a distance of many kilometres, some eyewitnesses saw a glowing cylinder (i.e. unknown to them "object") over the volcano. There was no reason to say that the "object" was the "body" in a solid state. With a high probability, this cylinder was a release, for example, of natural gas from the cylindrical vent of the Kulikovsky volcano. Siberia had dry, hot weather on June 30, 1908. From the slightest spark, a cloud of gas could explode.

>...This is fascinating: "Eyewitnesses reported, hence, at least two types of objects: one - flying rapidly, and another, cylindrical, descending slowly."...

During a tectonic-volcanic earthquake, both linear and ball lightning are not a surprise even on sunny days. Therefore, my version remains valid: nothing supernatural.

>..."Neither the axis of symmetry of the fall of trees nor the axis of symmetry of the radiant burn (95°), were a projection of the trajectory" [Plekhanov, 2012]...

These researchers believed that a comet or asteroid exploded at an altitude of 5-7 km. Therefore, they tried to determine the projection of the "body" to the surface during its movement before the explosion. They calculated according to the fall of trees, according to eyewitnesses, by burn. They didn't succeed. The situation consisted of a clear discrepancy of estimates of the azimuths of the 'comet/asteroid trajectory' based on eyewitness testimony on the Angara River (135°, trajectory by Krinov), on the Lena River and Lower Tunguska River (~120°, trajectories by Boyarkina–Tsvetkov and Epiktetova) and based on the fall of trees (95°, by Fast) and their burn (95°, by Demin and Vorobyev).

About a "radiant burn" area read, please, in my book pp. 23-25 (and see Fig 7). 'Radiant' because they thought the origin of the burn of trees was due to a comet/asteroid flash during an explosion.

In my opinion, everything is well explained in my earthquake-volcano version.

Read my book until the end and ask questions afterwards (after the end of February) since my time is limited to another scientific topic, sorry.

Best wishes.

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

This is even more fascinating :

'Finally, the information was interesting from the closest to the epicentre eyewitnesses, local Evenks-hunters [Suslov, 1927]. The tent (the chum, in Russian) of the Podyga brothers, Chuchancha and Chekaren, stood in the middle reaches of the Avarkitta river at the time of the Tunguska event. I will give, which has already become classical, the story of one of the brothers (I. Suslov, the ethnographer, interviewed them in 1926):

"Chuchancha tried to recollect how many thunders strikes – "agdyllyan" – there were, and of what force they were. According to him, he counted five blows.

– Before sunrise Chekaren and I came from the river Dilyushmo and fell asleep soundly. Suddenly we both woke up at once: someone was pushing us. We heard whistling and felt a strong wind. Chekaren shouted: "Do you hear how many birds, gogols or mergansers, are flying?".

We were still in the tent and could not see what was occurring in the forest. Suddenly someone pushed me again, and so hard that I hit the pillar of the tent and fell on hot coals in the hearth. I was scared. There was a noise, behind the tent, I heard trees falling. We got out of sacks and were going to jump out of the tent. But suddenly, there was a rumble of thunder. It was the first blow.

The surface began to twitch and swing. Strong wind hit our tent and knocked it. Here I saw a terrible miracle: the trees fall, the needles burn on them, the moss burns on the ground. Smoke around, eyes hurt, very hot, you can burn out. Suddenly, over the mountain, where the forest had already fallen, it became very light and, as if to say, the second sun appeared, it became painful to the eyes. It was like what the Russians call lightning. And, immediately, there was a strong thunder. It was the second blow. The morning was sunny, there were no clouds, our sun shone brightly, as always, and then a second sun appeared.

After that, we saw that at the top, but already in another place, sparkles again. And we heard a strong thunder. It was the third blow. We watched the falling trees, saw their tops breaking, and looked at the fire. Suddenly, Chekaren shouted: "Look up to" and pointed with his hand. I looked there, and again I saw shone, and again, a strike took place. But the knock was a little less than before. It was the fourth blow, as an ordinary thunder. Now, I

remembered, there was another blow, the fifth, but it was weak and somewhere far away, where the Taimura river, where the sun sleeps at night." '

You remark :

This story may indicate that the forest fell as a result of the first two tremors due to the earthquake, with scorching then from above by lightning, resulting from the volcanic explosion.

----------------------

This conjecture is laughable isn't it?

Why would the trees fall all in one direction (cf. photo above,) if it were a result of "tremors" due to an earthdquake?

Why would hundreds of thousands of trees (millions?) become scorched by a lighting bolt that hits one tree (usually)?

Why would a volcanic explosion (I thought the explosion was from the methane gas that went "pop"?) result in lightening strikes? especially if this explosion were "below ground" as you had previously stated? So there were two explosions according to your hypothesis? one below ground? and one above ground-- the methane that went "pop"?

-------------------------------------------

The brilliant thing about your document is that is it exposing the nonsense of the comet, asteroid, earthquake or volcano hypothesis, and revealing the essential supernatural nature of the Tunguska event.

Therein lies it value--- to mankind.

I will keep reading. Your document is getting more and more amazing.

Gary Stephens

>... Why would the trees fall all in one direction (cf. photo above,)...

Dear Gary,

Do I need to repeat to you that all the trees lie with their tops from the epicenter? Your picture shows only one fragment of the forest, where the trees fall in one direction from the epicenter. In other tree fall areas, the tops of trees also 'look' towards from the epicenter, i.e. parallel to each other, but not parallel to the trees shown in the picture, at other angles, including e.g. the perpendicular line relatively of these (on the picture) trees.

>...if it were a result of "tremors" due to an earthquake?...

The thin structure of the fall of the forest is well explained by indicatrices, in the case of the earthquake, i.e., of the dependences of propagation speed on directions of seismic waves (see in my book page 66, Figs. 11A, 11B).

>...Why would hundreds of thousands of trees (millions?) become scorched by a lighting bolt that hits one tree (usually)? Why would a volcanic explosion (I thought the explosion was from the methane gas that went "pop"?) result in lightening strikes?...

At first, there was an explosive exit of natural gas (methane, CO2, etc.), mainly from the cylindrical vent of the Kulikovsky volcano, in connection with the rise of the pressure in the mantle plume in the Perm LLSVPs Anomaly. Then this cylindrical cloud of the natural gas exploded at an altitude of about 5-7 km due to a series of lightning.

Look at the monitoring report of Surtsey volcanic Island activity in Iceland in 1964 (this was analogue to the activity of the Kulikovsky volcano in 1908; in my book page 80).

I already twice warned you not to ask questions until you finish reading my book. This answer is the last (as an exception). I am no longer going to explain anything due to your total ignorance of planetology/geology. Next time, ask questions to the Bible. In the future, you will be able to entertain yourself with monologues.

I am very sorry that the Satan of your hypothesis died on Tunguska in 1908. This is the great tragedy (for your hypothesis). When you wait for the next Satan?

Best wishes! Goodbye!

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

Please don't take anything I say (my animadversions) to heart. We may end up writing a book together on the supernatural origins of the Tunguska event (in Russian and English).

More extraordinary eye-witness accounts :

'That visual effects, with a similar sound accompaniment, were being observed in Europe at this time is evident from a report by Denning of Bristol (England). Describing the luminous clouds that appeared four nights in a row from June 29, he pointed out that there was a constant acoustic noise from the north similar to the sound of trains passing far away [Denning, 1908b]:

"Sounds proceeding from the north were strikingly audible in the still air, and I never before to have heard the noise similar to distant passing trains in the northeast so loudly".

You remark :

The noise of "passing trains" is characteristic of the underground earthquake.[11]'

--------------

Yes but the earthquake (according to your hypothesis) was supposed to have occurred in Siberia, in particular in the vicinity, or not too far from the village of "Kezhma", some 5000 of miles away from Great Britain.

So according to you and your hypothesis, a Mr Denning of Bristol had such good hearing, he could discern an earthquake occurring some 5000 of miles away in Siberia.

I think there was an earthquake in Japan not so long ago. I have to say I didn't hear a thing. Did you?

I'd say this was more evidence of supernatural manifestations in disparate locations.

Gary Stephens

Maybe you'll finish reading my book after all? Everything is explained there without your extraordinary 'Satan-Bible' nonsense.

The earthquake, as well as airglows, affected not only Siberia but also Europe (pre- and after the Tunguska explosion, page 29) and was associated with the whole/planetary mantle convection and the Perm LLSVPs Anomaly.

Book PHYSICS of the 1908 TUNGUSKA EVENT

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

The "Satan-Bible" nonsense, as you frame it, is actually the most rationale view point you can possibly have, given all the facts available. That is why Newton, cotemporary with his great work on the Laws of Motion and Gravity, spent far more time studing scripture (1611-KJV- "the received text") than he did his other investigations. He realised the truth.

Educated personages-- nay academicians, are often so dunderheaded they think "gravity" is explained by Newton's Law of Gravity. It usually comes as a total shock to them to discover that Newton himself did not think it was explained-- he understood it was merely "a discription" of something unexplainable.

Many people indoctrinated in the current era think mankind is insignificant. What they don't realise is that all events and also all of science revolve around mankind. A glimpse of this can be seen here :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359348430_Some_thoughts_on_the_Edge_of_the_Universe_and_Mankind

----

Apropos : your explanation of the strange sounds being associated with earthquakes around the world--- "associated with the whole/planetary mantle convection and the Perm LLSVPs Anomaly." This, on the face of it, sounds reasonable.

But in that case there must be newspaper reports in America, South America, Japan, India, Sri Lanka &c and elsewhere that duplicate the report of Denning of Bristol (England).

Are there these reports?

Gary Stephens

>... there must be newspaper reports in America, South America, Japan, India, Sri Lanka &c and elsewhere that duplicate the report of Denning of Bristol (England). Are there these reports?...

Yes, of course. Finish reading my book, you will see, Gary, yourself. If you miss this information, then I will point you (at the end of February) to the specific pages.

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

I will read to the end, but it is so packed full of information, I feel I must comment on these unexplainable happenings as we go along.

Everything is contradictory and paradoxical, as you yourself have brought out into high relief, in your very interesting chapters.

You say here :

E. Krinov's conclusions about the paradoxicality of the situation were confirmed in the future [Vasiliev, 2004]:

"There were no less than 60 local areas and whole groves of stand trees that survived the catastrophe, the age of which was more than 150 years, adjacent to the supposed epicentre of the catastrophe. There are also unique "living witnesses" in open, unshielded places. In the west, the front of the shock wave is not closed at all. The "telegraph" trees go far to the west from the head of the "butterfly". In the western sector of the fall, there are signs of a local explosion occurring at low altitudes. The energy release occurred both high above the ground and low, above its surface, which does not fit well with the concept of a single high-altitude explosion according to the seismic and barometric data".

You remark :

In my view, this pattern reflects a substance ejection into different altitudes during explosions of several magmatic cameras/pipes of the paleovolcano.

--------------------------

By "substance" ejection, I suppose you must be magma, because in the following sentence you talk about explosions of magma "in pipes", and this magma reaching different "altitudes".

A little far-fetched, but I grant you it as a possibility--- but if this were the case, surely there would be lava found very close to the epicentre of the Tunguska event?

Is there this lava? in the vicinity of the Tunguska event?

--------------------------

"There are also unique "living witnesses" in open, unshielded places."

This to me suggests a supernatural protection of the humans very close to the epicentre.

Boris R. German

The problem with the inference (above) as with many of Professor German's inferences, is that he attributes the very strange fact of a clockwise twist to the fallen trees at the epicentre (unexplainable in my opinion,) to two separate causes. 1. the methane explosion that went "pop" and 2. an earthquake that just happened to occur at exactly the moment of the "pop," and produced a twisting of the ground --as the trees fell---. Not only this, but this earthquake produced a symmetrical twisting of the ground at the epicentre.

It's about a likely as man-bats being discovered on the moon, isn't it?

Another totally inexplicable happening -- a "body shining with white bluish light" and "many watched its slow decent".

This is supposed to be a volcanic happening, according to Professor German-- a pretty weird one at that. Even if we swallow this, (which we don't,) the obvious corollary is : where is the lava from this volcanic pipe of molten rock?

Gary Stephens

>... 1. the methane explosion that went "pop" and 2. an earthquake that just happened to occur at exactly moment of the "pop," and produced a twisting of the ground --as the trees fell---. Not only this, but this earthquake produced a symmetrical twisting of the ground at the epicentre...

Dear Gary, is your head okay? You again forgot my explanation:

(1) The trees were knocked down by seismic waves (Fig 11A). Also was the escape of the natural gas (methane, СO2, Н2О, hydrogen). Therefore, there was an underground fire that charred trees. (2) After a high-altitude explosion of natural gas (methane etc.) the already-lying trees received the so-called radiant burn. There were not many trees with a radiant burn compared to the charred by the fire. Finally, I was already answering a question about the symmetry of falled trees' field. The symmetry was painted by supporters of comets and asteroids. But now they admitted that before symmetry, like before your Moon with mice. Do you see the symmetry in Figure 11A? If yes, then you should make an appointment with an oculist.

>... Is there this lava? in the vicinity of the Tunguska event?...

Magma (under the surface) and lava (on the surface) are not the same thing.

The volcanic complex on Tunguska is clustered as, for example, Yellowstone volcano (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mud_volcano#). Therefore, I consider two complementary possibilities: (1) kimberlite explosion and/or (2) mud explosion.

Magmatic chamber concerns only kimberlites, i.e., variant (1). Read the Chapter „Kimberlites“, page 75 Fig. 12 in my book).

Practically, all of Eastern Siberia is a field of proto-kimberlite pipes, spreading for many hundreds of kilometres. Surface earthquakes can be generated by "volcanic" gases entering volcanic chambers and overtaking magma. Decompression solidification of magmas at the ascent stage is the reason for the absence of kimberlite lava on the surface and the reason for the explosion under the influence of preserved gas pressure. After the release of underground gases, the narrow necks of kimberlite pipes close again at great depths. Even if kimberlite rock enters the surface (this is exotic!), it is fragile, thin + short-lived because of erosion (Dawson J., 1980, Kimberlites and Their Xenoliths, Springer). This rock is difficult to find (if found including diamonds, the place will be a secret: such a Siberian country).

(2) In a mud explosion, the magma chamber may be absent altogether, since the mud flow exits to the surface under pressure and without magma/lava. The release of mud facies is proved by the presence of mud in the funnels at the Tunguska epicenter.

In both versions, surface earthquake seismic was responsible for forest fall, and hot gas/mud flow was responsible for underground fire and charring of trees. The Tunguska volcanic complex had five stages of activity. Read page 85 in my book: “.. the final stage was explosions of gaseous mixtures, starting from the most powerful one 15900 years ago and ending with the 1908 Tunguska event”.

>... "There are also unique "living witnesses" in open, unshielded places."

"Living witnesses" - these, of course, trees.

>... This to me suggests a supernatural protection of the humans very close to the epicentre...

No. The closest to the epicentre (more than 32 km from the epicentre) was the plague (i.e. tent and other) of the Evenks family of Akulina Chanagir. However, I have already cited in this discussion the names of the affected members of her family (killed and wounded). Their deers were also killed and warehouses burned down.

Let's say the Evenks could been guilty before Satan (from your Satan hypothesis) since no read I. Newton. However, in what/how were the deers guilty if Satan killed them? Or was Satan jealous of the beautiful branched antlers of the deers? If, in 1908, animal advocates were as active as today, they would break off horns such Satan.

Read my book and enjoy further.

And don’t expect quick explanations from me, there are more important things to do.

Book PHYSICS of the 1908 TUNGUSKA EVENT

Professor German seems to have an army of credulous dunderheads ready to recommend his divers "explanations."

Nevertheless! I read on ... with an open mind...

Gary Stephens

>... I read on ... with an open mind...

Dear Gary, for your “open mind” (c), it is recommended to use a hat on the head from an aluminium foil (good help versus Satan in/of your hypothesis).

Best wishes

Much of the fascinating data collected by Professor German, is occluded by his rather fantastic explanations. A blizzard of causes is assigned to each unexplainable fact.

The latest unexplainable fact is the rumbling (seismic activity) that went on for over 1 hour and a 1/2, although how remarkable this is, or not, is not discussed.(It sounds pretty remarkable to me.) There are other seismic charts shown-- and these are shown only for around 10 seconds.

This section of the document is quite confusing to read.

Gary Stephens

Are you able to think for yourself? Do I owe you to explain things that are clear even to schoolchildren?

Page 31 in my book: "E. Krinov divided the record of the north-south component of the seismic into two parts, according to the analysis of A. Voznesensky: attributed the beginning – rhythmic attenuating oscillations – to an earthquake (the first phase: at 0 h. 19 min. 09 sec. UT), but of the registration of a three-fold wave in the end (1 h. 03 min. 06 sec. UT) – to the explosion's airwave (Fig. 8A. The seismogram of the Tunguska explosion (Irkutsk Observatory), i.e. altogether ca. 45 min.

The shape of seismic waves is important. Therefore, for comparison with the seismogram of the Tunguska explosion (Fig. 8A), another Fig. 8B is shown, where four main types of seismic waves with a duration of about 10 seconds for each type are given.

Аccording to your idiot hypothesis, Satan is the light-bringer, i.e., electromagnetic.

Are you writing from the Faraday cage, which shields you from electromagnetic Satan? Try not to leave the Faraday cage.

To give an example of the difficulty in establish what on earth Professor German is talking about (whether it is complete pap or not) consider the above.

Here he talks about "the additional impact on the conductive E-layer of the ionosphere". The reader, I guess, is supposed to think that some kind of measurement was made up in the ionosphere in the region of the Tunguska event on June 30 1908. As if a hot-air balloon just happened to be making measurements in the area at the time.

He then goes on to say that "radioactive fragments after the explosion of a comet nucleus" can't explain this (supposed fact in the ionosphere he cites).

Why would there even be "radioactive fragments" from the explosion of a comet nucleus?-- nobody knows. It's not as if there has ever been an explosion of a comet nucleus, that mankind knows of, and so to talk about some "radioactive fragments" as if anyone or their dog has ever heard of this, is utterly preposterous, is it not?

He then says, laughably "At the same time, radon decay radioactive products during volcanic/tectonic earthquakes fulfil this process with success"

So you see, it all "sounds quite scientific," to the causal reader, but whether it is complete pap or not, I leave the reader to contemplate.

For myself-- I continue... notwithstanding.. to have an open mind.

Gary Stephens

1. You're just not the subject. Radioactive fragments as a result of the explosion of the comet's nucleus were considered by supporters of the explosion of the comet on Tunguska to explain the magnetic sub-storm registered in the Irkutsk observatory (A.Kovalevsky, and others). They also claimed about the E-layer of the ionosphere. Of course, this is not serious in connection to a comet core. Therefore, I wrote: "No reason...after the explosion of the comet nucleus" and proposed an alternative mechanism: an increase in conductivity due to the release of radon and the achievement of radioactive products of the radon's decay of high atmosphere altitudes (i.e., of the ionosphere).

2. You ask about "the rumbling (seismic activity) that went on for over 1 hour and a 1/2".

Read the answer in my book (pp. 30-33): "As it turned out later [Whipple, 1930, p. 293], the east-west direction latitudinal pendulum was the first to react in Irkutsk. Its hesitation did not stop for 1.5 hours. Therefore, registrations of seismographs could be due to the reaction to the vibrations of barographs, i.e., a seismograph worked as a barograph... Faults could arise away from the Kulikovsky paleovolcano, starting, for example, from Yarakhta Lake, in the southeast or even the Bogdo active fault in Mongolia in the southwest. Now it is known that ground motion corresponds to the resonant period of very long wavelength standing acoustic modes. These acoustic modes in the air, set off by the volcanic eruption, can couple to Rayleigh waves, in contrast to other seismic waves, efficiently [Nisida, 2010]... As a result, an earthquake shock could be recorded at 0 h 13.5(±8) min, and micro-seismic oscillations, not filtered from the solar-lunar tide, registered over the next 1.5 h (that was how long they did not fade). The prolonged seismic wave, recorded at the Irkutsk observatory, could be a reaction to the gravitational tide of the Earth's core-mantle boundary" (c).

3. I love, as in chess, to consider all possible options and choose the best variant.

P.S. Gary, please stop posting scans from my book here. The book is protected by copyright, including the Publisher.

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

Please don't take any of my animadversions to heart. I'm very interested in getting to the bottom of this Tunguska event.

I keep coming across very interesting facts you have dug up, and which, you yourself admit, are difficult to explain from a scientific viewpoint-- or from any viewpoint.

As an aside, where did you get the phrase "sheaves of fire, brooms, balls, etc." ? Is this from eye-witness accounts?

You say "a completely legitimate question arises why the recording of the seismogram lasted 1.5 hours,"

You then have great difficulty accounting for this, not surprisingly.

My feeling is, this, along with all the other extraordinary observations and eye-witness accounts, point to the Tunguska event being beyond any rationale scientific explanation.

Simply put, a "doomsday" happened, and a "terrible miracle" took place, and the world shook.

Gary Stephens

...As an aside, where did you get the phrase "sheaves of fire, brooms, balls, etc." ? Is this from eye-witness accounts?...

No, it's written in the Bible and then confirms Newton (a joke of humor).

/...You say "a completely legitimate question arises why the recording of the seismogram lasted 1.5 hours,"...

Despite the conflicting points, the scientific explanation solves them successfully. In the post above, I have already given you an answer (quote) from my book about possible options regarding the duration of the seismogram.

For especially developed conspiracy theorists, I have to repeat again:

Read the answer in my book (pp. 30-33): "As it turned out later [Whipple, 1930, p. 293], the east-west direction latitudinal pendulum was the first to react in Irkutsk. Its hesitation did not stop for 1.5 hours.

Therefore, registrations of seismographs could be due to the reaction to the vibrations of barographs, i.e., a seismograph worked as a barograph...

Faults could arise away from the Kulikovsky paleovolcano, starting, for example, from Yarakhta Lake, in the southeast or even the Bogdo active fault in Mongolia in the southwest. Now it is known that ground motion corresponds to the resonant period of very long wavelength standing acoustic modes. These acoustic modes in the air, set off by the volcanic eruption, can couple to Rayleigh waves, in contrast to other seismic waves, efficiently [Nisida, 2010]...

As a result, an earthquake shock could be recorded at 0 h 13.5(±8) min, and micro-seismic oscillations, not filtered from the solar-lunar tide, registered over the next 1.5 h (that was how long they did not fade). The prolonged seismic wave, recorded at the Irkutsk observatory, could be a reaction to the gravitational tide of the Earth's core-mantle boundary" (c)

Michael Issigonis

How do your crop circles fare (made UFO's)? Is it already possible to play football on these fields?

P.S. Note that crop circles are symmetrical figures, and the fall of trees on Tunguska was largely chaotic. Congratulations!

Dear Professor German,

More fascinating information, totally inexplicable by any rationale scientific explanation : magnetic and electrical disturbances, that lasted over 2 days in 1908.

"compass magnetic oscillations source in London and the failure of lines of the telegraph in Prag on June 30, 1908"

"The geomagnetic pulsations in Kiel were recorded by professor Weber from 19:00 UT June 27, 1908, to 0:30 UT June 30, 1908. Thus, they had a total duration of 52 h."

Professor German is right to say-- this rules out the comet or meteoroid hypothesis.

Whether this has any bearing on an earthquake hypothesis, -- I mean an earthquake plus lava-free volcano, plus methane that went "pop" , plus "glowing gas" around the world, plus moon induced various phenomena, not forgetting the "peat-bog" fire, I don't know.

The magnetic (compass oscillations in London) and electrical (telegraph lines in Prague) presaged the mass-communication era we are now in. And the two World Wars-- with all the misery and inhuman happenings. These things were coincident with the light-bringer, on that "Domesday" when a "terrible miracle" was witnessed, and the Earth shook.

Gary Stephens

All the above-mentioned information is totally explicable by rational science. Finish reading my book, you make sure yourself.

Professor German is right to conclude here :

"Astapovich deleted this barogram when processing Siberian barograms along with a dozen others barogram that did not "fit" into the concept of a single meteorite air explosion [Astapovich, 1951]."

that Astapovich deleted dozens of results because they did not fit with his single explosion hypothesis.

They also do not fit with a methane gas that went "pop" hypothesis, because there can only be one "pop". This rather "blows up" one of Professor German's myriad causes.

Again this peculiar observation is inexplicable. It points to a "terrible miracle" and a supernatural happening.

I like this. How risible is this? Talk about a desperate stretch.

Professor German asks if solar flares-- could have triggered "a chain of causes" -- Professor German is fond of these, down here, quite a long way away, it has to be said, from the Sun. Cf.

"Could the flares associated with the passage of spots on the western limb reported by Newbegin or other spots and their groups [German, 2007a,b] trigger geopulsations with a 3-min period in Kiel on June 27–30, 1908? Were they links in the chain of causes of the Tunguska explosion?"

Has Professor German considered the effect of Jupiter? or Saturn? I think he mentioned the Moon. What about Mars? That's pretty close, relatively speaking.

Gary Stephens

>... They also do not fit with a methane gas that went "pop" hypothesis, because there can only be one "pop"...

Gary, you don't read your/my "Bible" (joke) well. It is clearly written there: "The earthquake main shock was recorded at 0 h 13.5(±8) min, and micro-seismic oscillations registered over the next 1.5 h".

>..."Could the flares associated with the passage of spots on the western limb reported by Newbegin or other spots and their groups [German, 2007a,b] trigger geopulsations with a 3-min period in Kiel on June 27–30, 1908?...

Read about geo-effective events on the Sun such as flashes or coronal mass ejections (quote from https://www.eaee.org/Media/Default/2ECCES/2ecces_esc/2247.pdf):

"Analysis of other seismic-magnetic meridians (SMM, Fig. 3), allowed us to explain phenomena related to Tunguska: ... 2) SMM on June 24, 1908, covered the sea of Azov and provoked a powerful gas explosion at Makariev mine in the Taganrog district exactly one week after that; 3) SMM on June 26, 1908, went through Italy and Sicily, where Etna volcano activated; 4) powerful geomagnetic perturbations on June 29, 1908, caused a bright glow of the night like Polar lights not only in the North, but also in Antarctica seven hours before Tunguska, and on the morning of June 30, 1908, a giant protuberance was registered on the Sun. In the framework of the geophysical scenario in the review paper by N. Vasilyev [7] the known paradoxes of Tunguska received a mutually agreed explanation that could not be done within the framework of traditional (meteor or comet) versions."

(and read more in my attached file).

Dear Professor German,

You are quite good at bamboozling people with "science" or pseudoscience, as it were.

Nevertheless, you document continues to throw up extraordinary occurrences.

What on earth is a "strange rise of stones"-- in Tasmania?

"The message I discovered about the strange rise of stones in Tasmania, which began on June 7, 1908, and ended exactly on the day of the Tunguska explosion, can indicate the days of the maximum of the Arietids meteor shower"

Gary Stephens

And what is the problem? The Arietids are a science, as is the whole-mantle convection of our planet.

Read, e.g., here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arietids: „The Arietids are a meteor shower that lasts from May 22 to July 2 each year, and peaks on June 7.“

But there is another opinion (see the footnote in my book, page 58): "Perhaps the maximum of the Arietids meteor shower is June 12 [Sekanina, 2005]."

Until now, proponents of the comet hypothesis only considered the Beta-Taurid stream with a maximum of June 30 (due to the coincidence with the day of the explosion on Tunguska). I give them a chance to expand the "range". But I indicated the condition: only if they will prove a comet origin of the 1908 Tunguska event ever at all. I don't think they will prove it.

My book is a science because science must take into account all possible options (the quote, p. 58): «The message I discovered about the strange rise of stones in Tasmania, which began on June 7, 1908, and ended exactly on the day of the Tunguska explosion, can indicate the days of the maximum of the Arietids meteor shower (May 22 – July 2). This fact allows the Arietids to become one of the main competitors as a potential source of the Tunguska object (naturally, when of proof of a comet origin, ever at all).“

Moreover, I, as representative of science in our discussion, am ready to even argue on your pseudoscience "version of Satan." But you don't have any arguments.

You claim absolute nonsense that the explosion on Tunguska in 1908 led to two World Wars and the death of people. But before the Tunguska event, many more people died in tribal wars than in these World Wars. And until 1908, there was, for example, Hundred Years' War (1337-1453) as well as the 30-year War (1618-1648), etc. Why don't you write about it (you are engaged in quantum physics according to it time can spread both into the future and the past; and in general, an illusion)?

Why mention Newton if you do not indicate on which page he spoke about 1908 (it is clear that nowhere)? Why don't you mention Anaximander, Laplace or Euler on a par with Newton? They also, like Newton, did not talk about 1908!

And what does your Bible write (or maybe Newton?), will "Manchester City" become the winner of the UEFA Champions League this year?

Boris R. German

Dear Professor German,

Dismissing the supernatural is very foolish. Very foolish indeed.

Cf. below fascinating insight given by Jerry Markzinsky BA M.Ed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLv3oGLDbDs

Gary Stephens

Dear Gary,

I don't reject the supernatural (e.g., UFOs). I reject the unreasonable (Satan in the context of the 1908 Tunguska event) since everything is explained by normal/natural science.

P.S. I'll watch the video when I have free time.

Dear Professor German,

You mentioned crop circles (of flattened crops) as compared to the flattened trees of the Tunguska explosion.

The Tunguska trees were not as chaotic as you implied (if the picture of those investigators is correct). On the other hand, the flattened crop in crop circles has an orderly pattern (that could not be "manufactured" by local hoaxers). This last phenomenon has not been explained fully, but numerous investigators are studying them and publishing their results. When I was studying them I was always impressed that flattened crop had no insects, but just next to it was full of mosquitos and bugs of all sorts.

I started to read your book on Tunguska with great enthusiasm, but after reading about a third, I could not continue as I could not relate your findings with real examples from elsewhere. Your account of all those extraordinary events taking place before and after the explosion is impressive, but the conclusion is not straightforward.

That is why Tunguska is still a mystery to me, but maybe less of a mystery to you.

best wishes

Michael Issigonis

Dear Michael,

1. You have given the crop circles that have high symmetry. Proponents of the comet/asteroid hypothesis tried to "adjust" the fall of trees on Tunguska to the answer they needed; however, a picture of a so-called "butterfly" on Tunguska is incorrect: the real fall of trees is more chaotic and in any case, does not have high symmetry (see pages 20-24 and Fig. 11A on page 66 in my book or the "Fall of the trees.pdf" attachment here).

2. From what sources do you got your another data? In your scheme of the "butterfly" (of fallen trees) at the Tunguska, were shown a marker "Soviet Union". This Union broke up in the 20th century. But those who directed measurements of the fallen trees in the area, i.e. N. Vasiliev and G. Plekhanov, recognized the following in 2012 (read page 67 in my book):

Supporters of the "butterfly" of the 1908 Tunguska trees fallen should pay attention to the statement of academician N. Vasiliev in a dialogue with G. Plekhanov about the Tungus "imprint" of the contour of the fallen trees: "The canonical "butterfly" is not a real outline of the fallen forest but its display in the mind of young W. Fast in 1963" [Plekhanov, 2012]. W. Fast - mathematician. He needed a calculation of falling trees in the form of a "butterfly" at Tunguska to defend his dissertation.

3. You mentioned the relationship between multiple earthquakes and the passage of quark matter (previously, a version of the passage of "mirror" matter was expressed, but now it has been forgotten). But such a connection of the mirror or quark matters had been registered with a duration of one day.

The 1908 Tunguska event has a much longer period (up to months, or even two years: change in atmospheric polarization from 1907).

Best wishes,

Boris

Boris R. German

Michael Issigonis

Dear Professors German and Issigonis,

It's quite amusing that Professor German's even less symmetrical figure-- is even more evidence we are dealing with a supernatural happening, --simply because explosions are symmetrical, aren't they? Who has ever heard of an asymmetrical explosion?

Michael Issigonis

Gary Stephens

Dear Michael, do you know the formation of crop circles as a result of explosions/earthquakes comparable to the powerful explosion/earthquake at Tunguska? If not, comparing the crop circles to the fall of trees at Tunguska is pointless.

Dear Garry, for especially gifted, like you: the fall of trees at Tunguska is explained by the propagation of seismic waves of the earthquake (Fig. 11A, Fig.11B in my book). These waves, of course, are asymmetric because connection to tectonic movements along faults. Moreover, according to an aerial photos survey conducted by L. Kulik, at Tunguska, are four local centers, asymmetric to each other, of fallen trees (see Figure 5 in my book).

If, after falling trees due to an earthquake, someone wants to speculate about a subsequent high-altitude explosion, then taking into account the relief, the main shock wave will have the interferention with the waves reflected from the surface relief. Therefore, there also will be no symmetrical picture in this option.

Book PHYSICS of the 1908 TUNGUSKA EVENT

Dear Professors German and Stephens,

I don't know if we are making a worthwhile contribution to the solution of the Tunguska Event or not.

The "Physics of the 1908 Tunguska Event" made a contribution, but I have not read it all, and can't talk about it. I only can say that I can't point to a direction towards the solution of the problem after reading part of it.

The phenomenon of the crop circles is completely different, but the flattened crops have been "given" certain direction by EM pulses from above. In that way, the variable geometries of the flattened crops may resemble the fallen trees at Tunguska. During my search for information about Tunguska years ago I saw somewhere a pattern that resembled those of crop circles. I didn't keep the author and don't even know if that pattern was authentic or not.

I doubt that earthquake waves would make the trees fall in one particular area. To me the fall of trees was a result from a powerful force (blast) from above, as was described by the first investigators that visited the area. If it was not a meteorite or a comet, then what caused the disturbance? My old video (from the UK) suggested that "perhaps aliens had engine trouble" and left it at that.

As for the quarks phenomenon, I don't think there is more information since 2002 when someone theorized that Earth was "hit" by a quark to explain two strange earthquakes for which they could find no other explanation.

Dear Professors German and Issigonis,

"In turn, the thin structure of the burn and the fall of the forest, resembling a "butterfly", are well explained not by a high-altitude explosion, but by the following options: ... seismic waves "

I have to agree with Professor Issigonis, that : "I doubt that earthquake waves would make the trees fall in one particular area. To me the fall of trees was a result from a powerful force (blast) from above"

And of course Professor Issigonis' knowledge of geology is second to none. He's an expert in this field.

Also Professor German has so many "causes" -- he seems to be able to pick one or other to suit his needs. For example in the above, he forgets he ere posits a methane gas explosion--- that was the Tunguska "pop"-- according to Professor German, but in the above, because it doesn't fit the data, he simply forgets that notion, and with deft legerdemain puts another under the nose of the reader : "seismic waves".

Michael Issigonis

Gary Stephens

Dear Michael, there are specifics on Tunguska: the trees were felled by the Rayleigh surface seismic wave since the cryoplast of the permafrost vibrated (Belkin A., Kuznetsov S., 2001a, Seismoacoustical mechanism of the forest fall in Tunguska catastrophe area, Int. Conference «Tunguska 2001», Moscow, Russia.

or

Belkin A., Kuznetsov S., 2001b, Tunguska catastrophe. From airburst hypothesis to induced earthquake hypothesis, http://www.hodka.net/bib.php (in Russian).

An article with detailed calculations, if interested, I can send in personal correspondence.

Dear Gary, do you need to repeat three times the same thing? I don't forget anything, unlike you. I repeat for the fourth time: at first, there was a tectonic earthquake and a release of natural gas (including methane) from the Kulikovsky (Hushminsky) mud/kimberlite volcanic complex. This is exactly what led to the rise of the "cylinder cloud" gases to a height, where it exploded. Satan was not with the Bible on Tunguska. Nothing extraordinary. Sleep calmly.

Dear Professors German and Issigonis,

"According to Ovchinnikov, in the epicentre area, odours of sulfur had been mentioned by Evenks."

Fire and brimstone (sulfur)-- perhaps this was thrown down afterwards, and discovered by the Evenks.

Isn't it odd, how all the observations and eye-witness accounts support a supernatural hypothesis, and contradict the "scientific one".

Gary Stephens

Dear Gary,

I watched the video and disagree with the author. He carries nonsense about medicine. Psychiatrists work on two chains: dopamine and serotonin. For balance. Therefore, they select pills for everyone individually. You better know the rest. Now I understand that you have schizophrenia and everything that you write in this discussion is dictated to you by "voices" (hallucinations) in your head. I'm truly sorry for you. But you hold on, you have to cure. I'm not a doctor of medicine, look for them on the site, they must be.

Gary, with your reading speed, you can expect the end of the process somewhere in September. Waiting so long is impossible. Therefore, I am not going to answer more in this discussion. When you finish reading the book, collect your questions in bulk, I will answer the entire collection at once, but in personal correspondence on ResearchGate. Now I have more important things to do (sorry).

However, earlier you asked if there is data on planetary convection of the mantle, from different Earth regions in addition to the Eurasia area from Tunguska to the Atlantic coast. I promised you to indicate the relevant pages in my book with proof. Please:

1. Tasmania, on June 2-30, 1908 (pages 90-94).

2. Japan (Fukushima and Tokyo), on June 27-28, 1908, according to the data of the "Catalog of earthquakes" for 1908 [Szirtes, 1913] (page 29).

3.Yellowstone (USA), on June 30, 1908 [Vasiliev, 1965] (page 91).

Boris R. German

Michael Issigonis

Dear Professor German,

"I watched the video and disagree with the author. He carries nonsense about medicine. Psychiatrists work on two chains: dopamine and serotonin. For balance. Therefore, they select pills for everyone individually."

You are perfectly entitled to disagree with whom ever you like, but readers will note your qualifications in the subject matter are nil, whereas the speaker in the video-- his qualifications are exemplary, and with over 35 years dealing directly with patients.

Not to long ago, I myself was fortunate enough to come into contact with patients in an insane asylum, (God help them)-- and I can confirm what Professor Marzinsky says is true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLv3oGLDbDs

This is hilarious...

"According to my reconstructive computer simulation of the lunar tide for the Kulikovsky epicentre on June 30, 1908, the time of the gravitational extremum (tidal outflow) at this geographical point coincided with the morning time of the explosion [German, 2009a]."

"According to my reconstructive computer simulation.." No, you don't say?...the moon is linked with the morning of the explosion...

You see, what happened (according to Professor German,) is the moon did an extra tug on the magma sitting below in Siberia. This magma then squirted up through these cylinders-- and this hot rock-- beg pardon it was mud-- silly me, it was a mud volcano. No, what happened was, this tug by the moon, agitated the molten lava below ground-- at the same time the methane, which was billowing above, reached down into these crevices, and BANG! it ignited.

"It is interesting that a similar anomalous lunar tide at the beginning of the XX century (January 4, 1912) due to the position of the Moon and the Earth, which occurs once in 1400 years, may have played a role in the death of the "Titanic" ship on April 14, 1912 [Olson, 2012]."

Even more far-fetched (if it can get anymore far-fetched) Professor German then speculates that the Titanic was sunk --by the moon--!

Gary Stephens

Cheerful clown Gary must undergo further treatment for schizophrenia by Prof. Marzinsky. I wish you health, dear Gary.

For others:

Olson D., Doescher R., Sinnott R., 2012, Did the moon sink the Titanic?, Sky & Telescope, Vol. 123, No. 4, pp. 34-39

or

https://www.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/Titanic+layout.pdf

I'm impressed in how Professor German bestrides the different disciplines with ease.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Einstein's general theory of relativity under strong gravitational fields becomes internally inconsistent. The problem of the cosmological constant in it is also known. P. Dirac already assumed the value of the Newtonian gravitational constant is not constant. Experimental 102 verification of R. Dicke's hypothesis has not yet confirmed it. But other modern theories of supergravity have appeared, operating on strings and branes, showing properties of scalar fields. For example, the Jordan–Brans–Dicke theory, developing this hypothesis, adds a scalar field to the "space-time", leading to a change in the gravitational constant from point to point. Then the theory is consistent with Mach's principle,.."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now he draws in evidence from "General Relativity" not only that, but some obscure branch of it-- the Jordan–Brans–Dicke theory. Apparently this has something to do with "space-time" and a "scalar field", but Professor German assures us that this theory is consistent with Mach's principle.

No recondite corner mathematical physics is beyond his grasp.

He then tells us that "J. Carstua has introduced the concept of a second gravitational rotating field..."

What a "second gravitational rotating field" has got to do with the Tunguska event, is a bit of a riddle, assuming, that is, it has any basis in reality.

But more of a mystery is who is "J. Carstua".

If you pop him into google you get zero results. At least I couldn't find a paper by him. And I also couldn't find him in the references to Professor German's book.

Who is the mysterious "J. Carstua" ?

Boris R. German

Michael Issigonis

"But other modern theories of supergravity have appeared, operating on strings and branes.."

Is there nothing that Professor German cannot grasp?

Not only is he a geologist (well respected in his field, I'm sure) but he keeps up to date with the latest happenings in the fields of supergravity and string theory, and brane theory, by the looks of it.

He's very scientific you see, old German, he's the most scientifical personage that ever did don a scientific cap.

"Therefore, the 1908 Tunguska event can concern, as a minimum, a four-bodies problem: the Sun, the Earth, the Moon and Venus [German, 2008a]."

So, according to Professor German, the sinking of a Titanic was caused by a mere "one body problem" -- the moon, whereas the Tunguska event, now that took a goodly few more : the moon, natch, Venus-- let's toss that one in, the Earth, obvs, and the Sun.

Beg pardon, Professor German has surmised there might be are few more causes to a Tunguska event : Mercury, Haumea84 and Neptune.

Is Haumea84 an asteroid? in the Copper belt? I can't remember that being one of the planets, unless it has appeared very recently or perhaps it was hiding behind the Sun, all this time?

"today's science is sceptical of such options"

Of what? of Professor German's ere suggestion, that the Sun coughed up a blob of er, umm, Sun, from its innards, and it came careering down and exploded in Siberia.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The hypothesis of ejecting a dense object, as a non-random "asteroid", i.e., solar mascon, from the centre of the Sun was considered by me earlier [German, 2007a,b; German, 2008a, p. 118]. It is clear that today's science is sceptical of such options, was considered by me earlier [German, 2007a,b; German, 2008a, p. 118]."