CCNet 124/2007 - 2 July 2007

===============
(12) RE: TUNGUSKA IMPACT CRATER CLAIM GREETED BY SCEPTICISM

John Michael Williams [jwill@BasicISP.net] 

Hi Benny

Finding remnants would be especially problematical if the impactor mainly was made of water ice. However, in this case, oxygen isotopic analysis might reveal something useful.

The Meteor Crater (Arizona) impactor also was supposed to have exploded above the Earth's surface; however, fragments were easily found, and huge lumps of iron were carted away to be melted down for the metal. There was only one main crater, so explosion did not pulverize the impactor to dust.   In fact, it is very hard to believe that an impactor of any size could
be so mechanically uniform that it would would be reduced uniformly to untraceable dust.

It's difficult to believe that the Tunguska impactor would not have left identifiable marks, such as the crater proposed; I think skepticism without countervening evidence is not justified.

John Michael Williams
jwill@BasicISP.net

EDITOR'S NOTE: The difference between the Arizona and the Tunguska impactors is quite simple: The object that produced Meteor Crater was an iron asteroid that penetrated the atmosphere and hit the Earth's surface. The Tunguska object wasn't. bjp

===============