Re: Planet X: TUNGUSKA as Example

Jan Friberg wrote
>
>> BTW there is insufficient physical evidence of a meteor or meteor 
>> crater to support the asteroid theory.
>>
> Could not the same be said about the methane gas explosion theory?

Circumstantial evidence would lead to methane gas as being a possible cause.
No crater is required under this theory.
The asteroid theory requires physical evidence of a meteor, crater or
residue, of which none exists.

> I have five books that mentions the Tunguska event, and consider the
> impact theory to be the most likely event.

Impact theory?    No crater / no debris

> Some mentions other explanations such as antimatter, but none said
> anything about the gas explosion theory. Is this a new theory?

Perhaps an expansion of a tectonic explosive event theory.

> There seems to be consensus about a meteor vaporizing if it's below a
> certain threshold size, so the lack of a crater does not have to be 
> problem for the impact theory.

The asteroids that seem to explode ( break up? ) are considered to be
carbonaceous chondrite which are made up of ice ,carbon , and > 3% metals.

1) What internal force exists in this composition to allow megatonnage
   explosions.
2) (meteor vaporizing below a certain size?) This was a huge
   explosion.
3) These asteroids still contain a % ( > 3% )of metals. No physical evidence
   has been found of either an impact or residue.
   Theoretical size of asteroid 60m dia. (modelled by science to fit
   explosion) would leave traces.

The Tunguska meteor theory has been used as a recent example (1908)
to justify increased spending on NEO tracking and interception.
(just look what can happen if a large meteor hits us!!)

It is not supported by the facts, and remains a theory.

JD