You are at the A. Ol'khovatov web-page:

Please pay attention that more detailed info on Tunguska can be found in my papers, for example through my ORCID

The last update: March 3, 2021

Dedicated to the memory of my dear mother, who died on February 6, 2020, without the multifaceted support of whom my research and this web-page would hardly have appeared...

Go to the A. Ol'khovatov Web-site directory in English:
(but most of my web-site is still here: )


Andrei Yu. Ol'khovatov
Russia, Moscow


Here the author's idea (first it was published in IZVESTIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF USSR in 1991, and now it is already rather popular among Tunguska researchers) is explained that the famous 1908 Tunguska event in Siberia was not an impact of a stony asteroid/meteorite or a comet, but a manifestation of geophysical (terrestrial) processes: roughly speaking, a result of coupling between tectonic and atmospheric processes in very rare combination of favourable geophysical factors.
In general it is based on the following:

  • Perusing Tunguska facts shows they don't conform with a stony meteorite or a comet fall.
  • Tunguska event in place and in time coincided with a strong upsurge of tectonic activity on regional and (partly) global levels.
  • There was strong and remarkable coincidence of Tunguska event with particular local and regional (and partly semi-global) meteorological conditions.
  • There were several other remarkable evidences of peculiarities in geophysical situation accompanied Tunguska.

  • Simultaneous realization of all these geophysical phenomena together with Tunguska as just pure accidental coincidence is very unlikely.
    Remarkably, that on small scales similar geophysical micro-Tunguskas occur rather often.
    The exact physical mechanism of Tunguska event is still disputable. In my opinion electromagnetic phenomena play large role in it.

    You can read a text of my report at the Brunel University conference, London, 2002 on Tunguska and some other related stuff here, and, detailed factual info on the geophysical Tunguska is below.

    Here is a note from SCIENCE magazine - a reaction on the above-mentioned discussion of Tunguska at the Brunel Univ. conference (SCIENCE's issue of Sept.13, 2002, p.1803):


      On the morning of 30 June, 1908, in the remote Tunguska forest of Siberia, a vast explosion charred and flattened trees across an area nearly as large as Rhode Island.
      Scientists have been mystified for years over the cause, although prevailing wisdom has it that an extra-terrestrial chunk of ice or rock struck Tunguska (Science, 20 August 1999, p. 1205).
      At a conference in London last week on environmental catastrophes, physicists from Russia and Germany rejected the 'ET hypothesis.' Andrei Ol'khovatov, formerly of the Soviet Radio Instrument Industry Research Institute, noted that decades of research has failed to find definitive traces of extraterrestrial material. No impact crater has been found and, more tellingly, patches of trees were left untouched near the epicenter of the blast.
      Wolfgang Kundt, an astrophysicist from Bonn University, Germany, then proposed an alternative scenario: a massive gas explosion. A large natural gas deposit lies below the site, a well-known fact unconnected to the event until now, he said. Kundt has modeled a Tunguska 'outgassing' and says it would fit with eyewitness accounts of the event. "The geophysical hypothesis is a fresh idea," says Jesus Martinez-Frias of the National Aerospace Institute in Madrid, Spain "It could be the answer." But Ol'khovatov believes Tunguska was a "poorly understood strong coupling between subterranean and meteorological phenomena" that science is not yet ready to understand.

    Please pay attention that this article (below) was first written for internet in 1996 and since that times is updated from time to time. So it a bit sketchy as I don't have time to re-write it completely.

    My scientific publications on the matter can be found via my ORCID









    The problem of the nature of the 1908 Tunguska event has already excited researchers over the course of many decades, and there is no consensus on Tunguska still.

    In the morning of June 30, 1908, the ground trembled north and northwest of Lake Baikal in Central Siberia, and underground jolts struck panic into the hearts of the local population. Reports of a glowing body flying over came from various points of the territory. The Tunguska forest fall, called the "impact/explosion site" or the "epicenter" was discovered just in 1927 at 61 N & 102 E, i.e. in the northern part of the Tunguska event manifestations region. Various conjectures were soon offered in 1908 to explain the nature of the event. The most popular were a meteorite fall, a ball lightning (or its formation) and an earthquake (because of the seismic phenomena). Since official science of the time put in doubt the existence of ball lightning, while the possibility of glow occurring during earthquakes was, as a rule, rejected, and a false report about a meteorite fall near a town of Kansk appeared, the general consensus was that a very large meteorite had come down in Siberia. Attempts to put forward any other interpretation had been quashed for many years.

    Since that time the situation with the "meteorite fall" rather resembles a pendulum: one group of scientists turns up new strong evidences that it couldn't have been an asteroid made of stone or iron, thus it had to be a comet.
    Pretty soon, another group of scientists comes up with new strong arguments that Tunguska could not have been a comet, thus it must have been an asteroid!
    The number of supporters of each idea varies with time. The latest maximum for the "asteroid" was around 1995. Since then, the attractiveness of an asteroid explanation seems to decline again.
    These swings hint that both groups are right and wrong at the same time: Tunguska 1908 was neither an asteroid, nor a comet. But then, what was it?

    Many researchers seeing the failure of asteroid/comet interpretation proposed other ideas: a "black hole", an "antimatter bullet", a "mirror matter" asteroid, and, of course, UFO (the latter one is, no doubt, the most correct: indeed the event was related with some "unindentified flying object", or sooner with "objects", as it will be shown below!).

    In late 1980-s I came up with the idea that Tunguska event was something completely different, not a cosmic, but a geophysical event, associated with tectonic processes. My idea, which in the meantime has been presented at several scientific conferences as well as in scientific journals (including such as SCIENCE and NEW SCIENTIST), should not be confused with an earthquake, although earthquakes were indeed associated with the 1908 explosion. It was a more complicated event of tectonic origin in which atmospheric processes played a large role. So probably we can call Tunguska as tectono-atmospheric phenomenon. Now we can just to admit that it was related with some still poorly understood processes of the Earth electricity, but it is just a speculation.
    Unfortunately, till now, such phenomena are a little known and poorly understood. Moreover, there is no scientific term accepted for the phenomena still. I prefer to call it as geophysical meteor (geometeor). You can read about it here. Probably in phenomenological very simplified way it can be often imagined as an explosion of a high-speed ball-lightning tectonic origin.

    In [1] the author ("the author" in the present paper means "the present author" i.e. Andrei Ol'khovatov, unless otherwise stated) have published the first time that the Tunguska was a tectonic (endogenic) origin. Later this interpretation was developed in [2-5]. The author also reported it at the International conference "Tunguska 95" (1995) in Moscow, Tomsk, and at the 1998 International Tunguska conference in Krasnoyarsk and later conferences.
    The idea gets a support by a group of geophysicists and geologists in Russia and abroad.
    Also 3 my books on "tectonic" Tunguska were published in 1997-2008 (one of them with a co-author).

    In the mid-1990s I got a proposal to place my point of view on Internet in English. The result is the present article. At first I write about the problems of the meteorite fall interpretation. Then I give examples of mini- and micro-Tunguskas, which I proposed to call geometeor, and apply them to the tectonic interpretation of the 1908 Tunguska.

    In this article you can read also about modern mini-Tunguskas, and probable other Tunguskas of the past.

    As it is very hard to permanently update this rather large article, so in some places new references are given as Smith J.[2001], and you can contact me for details.
    Also I post the latest data in other places of my www-site.

    A couple words about term 'tectonic Tunguska'. Its shortcoming is that the term 'tectonic' is usually associated with processes in the Earth crust i.e. in about upper layer of our planet (and does not take into account atmospheric processes). But there are hints (see this web-page) that deeper phenomena were involved too. So the term 'geodynamic' could be better, but it doesn't take into account influence of atmospheric processes too. So the term geophysical seems to be better, but it is too wide. Moreover as I admit a possible influence of solar activity, then what about 'solar-geophysical' or 'astro-geophysical'?...
    Currently I incline to slowly drift to 'geophysical' (despite its shortcoming) unless better idea appear.

    In the present paper a sign asterisk '*' means a multiplication, 'PI' means the PI-number i,e. 3.14159... , a sign '^' means raising to power (10^(-3)=0.001, for example).


    Here are, for instance, some of the problems. The author also advises to read Vasilyev N.V. articles at and his the most "free/open" article here.

    ADDITION of June 30,2019: An interesting abstract of a report for 82nd Annual Meeting of The Meteoritical Society 2019 (LPI Contrib. No. 2157) just appeared. It has many authors starting from G. Kletetschka.
    There are some points adding problems to the "Tunguska asteroid/comet impact". Here I comment just one of them.

    While the content of Fe dropped from 160 ppm to 19 ppm the magnetic susceptibility increased two fold. This is an evidence of quick and intense burst of energy, melting vapourizing the dust, causing agglutination of the dust material. This resulted in a ubiqui- tous presence of nanophase iron with large magnetic susceptibility that became part of molten dust particulates and deposited in the lake sediment. Anomalous elemental increase in lake suggested possible allochtonous material. Paleomagnetic data revealed presence of plasma during the TE near rock surfaces.
    According to the "Tunguska asteroid/comet impact" idea there were no plasma near the ground.
    So the data obtained contradicts the 'Tunguska spaceimpact' idea!


    As above-mentioned, the reason to attribute the Tunguska to the fall of a meteorite was the reports about flying fiery body. For a science of 1908 it means just a meteorite and nothing else. But let's look at these 'flying bodies' carefully from our modern knowledge. Here and below after geographical denominations, the distances from the Tunguska explosion epicenter and azimuths in degrees from the epicenter, measured from the north to the east are also given ( and you can find a catalog of Tunguska witness's accounts in Russian here).

    To better understand the situation, there is a map below (taken from the 1949 Krinov's book on Tunguska), with Krinov's marks of various Tunguska manifestations. I must add, that later it was discovered that Tunguska event manifested itself also in some farther areas, and there is spatial inhomogenity in its manifestations.

    There is just one of the Tunguska body trajectories in the picture above, which was proposed by Krinov in 1949. Here is a map of the Tunguska body trajectories below.
    The trajectory marked as 1 is a trajectory proposed by Voznesensky, and later supported by Astapovich and Kulik. It is based on witness's accounts collected in 1908-1930s.
    The trajectory marked as 2 was proposed by Krinov (as on the picture above). The trajectory is based on the same groups of witness's accounts.
    The trajectory marked as 3 was proposed in the mid-1960s. It was based on witness's accounts collected in 1960s in general and initial data on the Tunguska forest-fall symmetry.
    The above-mentioned trajectories are not lines, but sectors in reality, as their disperse is not shown.
    The trajectory marked as 4 is based on the most accurate data on symmetry of the Tunguska forest-fall combined with the tree's burn. Its wideness shows possible errors (in the Tunguska spacebody fall model).

    I think that the picture above is rather remarkable.

    Let's read some witness's accounts.

    Some details of the observed phenomena and especially the duration hardly conform to the meteorite fall.

    Some better translated accounts are also here.

    Dyomin, Dmitriev, and Zhuravlev [1984] conducted analysis of "what did the witnesses see", based on complete data-set of the accounts [Vasilyev, Kovalevskii, Razin, et al., 1981]. The result is as follows:

    Shape of the flying luminous body        Percentage of accounts
    a ball-like                                  18.8
    a cylinder                                   16.3
    a cone-like                                  2.1
    a star-like                                  3.4 
    a "tail-like"                                14.0
    a "snake-like"                               2.3
    a lightning-like                             2.1
    stripes of light                             2.5
    pillars of fire                              4.9
    a flame                                      10.3
    a sparks-like                                11.2
    other forms                                  12.1

    The eyewitness's accounts are hardly conformed with the meteorite fall. Even just in a few days-weeks after the event different time was given by different people, from early morning to the afternoon. So was the duration - from a few minutes to an hour. Astronomer Yevgenii Krinov, writing in his book "The Tunguska meteorite" published in 1949, about this side of evidence frequently uses phrases like, "the eyewitnesses either confused the cardinal points or just forgot the details".

    All researchers noted, however, that the stories told by the local Evenks sounded true and were nearly always confirmed by other evidences later. The following story was typical for the area close to the epicenter. Two Evenk brothers, Chuchancha and Chekaren, sleeping in their tent (tepee) were suddenly awaken by shaking. They heard whistling sounds and "sensed a strong wind". One of them was pushed so heavily that his head struck a supporting pole and he fell on the hot embers in the fire-place. From outside came a hideous noise and sounds of trees falling. The brothers were about to dash out of the tent when a deafening thunderbolt clapped. The ground started to tremble and sway, and, a ferocious gust of wind toppled the tent. One of the men saw from under the immobilizing poles falling trees, their branches set on fire, and the dry unbrushed and moss burning. All the place was wrapped in smoke and it was so hot the brothers feared they "could be grilled alive". Suddenly a bright lightning flashed over the hill, as if another sun suddenly went up, and a series of thunderclaps followed immediately. Several more "lightning" flashes and claps of thunder, and the frightening sounds look like fading.

    Evenk woman, Akulina, who was together with several Evenks in a tent (36 km, 121) said that suddenly "somebody strongly pushed our tent". Then it repeated again, and they fell on the ground. A loud noise came from outside, "somebody rattled and knocked the tent's cover". Suddenly bright light appeared, the bright sun was shining, strong wind was blowing". After "somebody fired (shot) and at once a whirlwind arrived". Akulina was frightened and lost consciousness. When she saw as a whirlwind "danced", she recovered. The whirlwind put her down. When she looked at the forest, she saw stems without branches and leaves. Many trees were put down. Wood bedding was burning. Ivan, her husband was thrown about 40 meters, his arm was broken and soon after he died (the another Evenk, who was in the tent told the same story, being interrogated independently).

    Evenk, Ul'kigo (56 km, 176) said that suddenly in the early morning dogs began to howl, and small children cried. The persons inside the tent felt that "somebody began to knock the ground below them and to swing a tent". When Ul'kigo got out from the sleeping bag and began to put the clothes on, "somebody pushed the earth strongly" (right before it, "somebody fired from a gun a lot"). Suddenly again "just like somebody hit the earth". Utensils fell inside the tent. A loud thunderclap followed. When Ul'kigo got out from the tent, and looked at the sky, he suddenly saw a bright flash on the clear sky with following thunderclap. Ul'kigo was so frightened that he fell on the ground. He saw as wind put down trees and burning dry wood bedding. After Ul'kigo stood up, a whirlwind struck. The knocking, smoke and thunderclaps continued for some time.

    Other eyewitnesses from the epicentral area gave similar reports. What has all that to do with the meteorite fall? Many other eyewitnesses also reported about luminous phenomena ( columns, stripes, lightning, flame, red sky glowing, etc.) which hardly resembled the meteorite fall.

    Remarkably, that even supporters of the "meteorite fall" have to recognize that practically nobody of numerous witnesses saw any trail left by the "Tunguska fireball"...

    Here is a translation from Russ. of a fragment of a letter sent by a prominent Soviet ethnographer I.M. Suslov ( about I.M. Suslov read here ) to a Soviet journalist in 1961 (original in Russ. is taken from ):

    So the stories if the poor people who flew over taiga were confirmed at the Munzhen. But how could the hypothetical Tunguska spacebody generate the air-shock wave which transported the Evenks over the forest (already burning which hints that they were not far from the epicenter) and leaving them shaken but alive? It resembles tornado action...
    Unfortunately the Suslov's article "Adgy" was never published...

    Here is one of the most interesting accounts given by Evenk who was close to the epicenter. Here I just copy from the academician N.V. Vasilyev article



    The accounts by Evenks are especially important as they are natural hunters and pathfinders, and their life depends on their senses and memory. So even Krinov who was used to write about "witness's confusion" had to recognize (in his book 'Tunguska meteorite', published in 1949) regarding Evenk's accounts that: "...we must note that many stories, as it later became known, during the expeditions, they proved remarkably accurate."
    Please pay attention that the Evenks accounts conform with the geophysical interpretation of Tunguska.

    On the basis of the eyewitness's accounts, three probable trajectories of the "Tunguska spacebody flight" were reconstructed (see also above). The first one was southern i.e. the meteorite flight from the south to the north (proposed and supported by Voznesenskii A., Kulik L. and Astapovich I. since 1920-s). Then in 1949 Krinov Ye. put forward the southeastern trajectory. Finally in the early 1960-s the eastern trajectory was proposed based on eyewitness accounts as well as on a pattern of the forest fall. Clearly, the meteorite could not have come from so many directions!

    Remarkably that there are witnesses who stated that some anomalous phenomena commenced before 'fall' (i.e. before 00.14 UTC June 30, 1908). For example an outstanding Soviet ethnographer Sevyan Izrailevich Vainshtein ( ) was in expeditions in the settlement Sulomay ( ~580 km to the west of the epicenter ) in the late 1940s. Some of the local residents were witnesses of Tunguska ( the Vainshtein's article in Russian is here: ). In brief: the witnesses stated that the anomalous skyglow commenced ~2 days before Tunguska! Also during Tunguska there was a windstorm in there which put down trees.
    Vainshtein informed some scientists who studied Tunguska about the accounts after his return to Moscow, but the scientists did not believe them as the accounts contradict the meteorite-fall... See about the Sulomay's accounts for details here in English:

    Anyway there are several important conclusions from the accounts collected by Vainshtein.

    1) There was the bright night phenomenon at Sulomay on the night June 29-June 30, and maybe even on the previous night[s]. The bright night phenomenon was in a very strong form.

    2) A very bright bolide was seen near Sulomay on the "Tunguska morning".

    3) There was a windstorm which put down tall trees near Sulomay on the "Tunguska morning". .

    Sulomay is situated at azimuth 282.7 degrees and distance 577 km from the Tunguska epicenter. There is a second-hand account from the settlement of Podkamennaya Tunguska (Vasil'ev et al., 1981) which is situated at azimuth 282.3 degrees and distance 632 km from the Tunguska epicenter. The account stated about a seeing (on the early morning in 1908) as a fiery long strip flashed across the sky, and hearing accompanying thunder as from a cannon. There are numerous first-hand, as well as second-hand accounts about strong wind during Tunguska (Vasil'ev et al., 1981). One of farthest was from the place Yessey situated at azimuth 0.8 degrees and distance 843 km from the Tunguska epicenter (Vasil'ev et al., 1981). However Sulomay is the farthest known one where the wind was strong enough to produce a forest-fall.

    The Tunguska accounts collected by S. Vainshtein confirm that manifestations of the 1908 Tunguska event were not localized near its epicenter, but spread over a rather large territory, including to far west from the Tunguska epicenter. Also the accounts confirm that bright night phenomenon commenced before the explosion.

    It is important to mention that it is not the only case when eye-witnesses' accounts were rejected. For example here is what the prominent geochemist (and a researcher of Tunguska) Kirill Pavlovich Florensky wrote (Florensky,1955) regarding his trip to Tunguska in 1953 (translated from Russian by A.Ol'khovatov):

    Even some Evenks accounts collected much earlier were almost lost for science. Some members of the [Soviet] Committee for Meteorites were against publishing accounts of Evenks who were living near the Tunguska epicentre, which were collected by I.M. Suslov in 1926 (Suslov considered these to be very reliable because they were collected during the Evenki Congress, when telling a lie was considered to be a serious misconduct). But the members of the Soviet Committee considered them to be improbable, and N.V. Vasil'ev had to make strong efforts to get them to be published.
    And how many cases were unknown and lost in the past?...


    Below here is a map by W. Fast of the famous "butterfly" pattern of the Tunguska forest-fall (its epicenter is 60.9 N, 101.9 E).

    Please pay attention that in reality the butterfly pattern of the forest-fall on the picture shows directions of the fallen trees.
    It does not show a level/degree of the forest-fall (i.e. number of trees fallen per square). For example, the forest-fall practically disappears just a few kilometres to the west of the epicenter, and farther to the west just rare fallen trees exist (see also below).

    In 2005 Italian researchers with their Russian colleagues presented a new much more complete map. Here it is taken from:
    Giuseppe Longo, Mario Di Martino, Gennady Andreev, et al. - A new unified catalogue and a new map of the 1908 tree fall in the site of the Tunguska Cosmic Body explosion //In: Asteroid-comet Hazard-2005, pp. 222-225, Institute of Applied Astronomy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia, 2005.

    In the map there are several colors - it is so called 'reliability degree'. The Italian authors explain:

    In this publication
    Longo G.: "The Tunguska event". Chapter 18, pp. 303-330 in the book: "Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society, An Interdisciplinary Approach, Bobrowsky, Peter T.; Rickman, Hans (Eds.)." , 546 p., © Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2007
    its authors wrote that:

    (By the way many works by the Italian authors are here: )

    The reliability degree shows how well-ordered is the forestfall in some place/area.
    Also it could be speculated that if to propose that Tunguska was an explosion and trees were felled by the air-shock-wave-caused aerial disturbance, then the trees felled by the Tunguska explosion should be fallen in approximately one direction (in some place/area). So if in some area trees fell in approximately one direction then it is a good reason (in the frame of the proposal) to assign them to the Tunguska explosion. Such an area would have the high reliability degree. But if the trees lay in various directions in some place, then such an area would have the low reliability degree, as it is not completely clear whether the trees were uprooted by the Tunguska event indeed.

    On the map it is seen that outer-borders of the forestfall have low reliability degrees. Near the outer-borders 'influence' of the Tunguska event was already small, and even directions of trees fallen by Tunguska may be affected by various local factors, and moreover as the number of the 'Tunguska uprooted trees' was small in there, so they could be 'dissolved' by trees fallen by other (none-Tunguska) reasons.

    A remarkable feature of the map is absence of the high reliability degree to the west of the epicenter. In other words to the west of the epicenter trees were felled by Tunguska rather chaotically or/and their number was small and they were 'dissolved' by trees felled by none-Tunguska reasons. Both variants hint that the Tunguska explosion influence was rather weak to the west of the epicenter.

    This is in agreement with result obtained by J.F. Anfinogenov and his group. In the mid-1960s J.F. Anfinogenov made a map of '100%-uprooting area' ( the map is based on aerial photo-survey conducted no later than 1949). Here it is from his (with Budaeva L.I.) book 'Tungusskie etyudy':

    The epicenter is marked by a dot near Russian letter looking like a letter 'o' divided vertically.

    It is seen from the map that there was no 'total uprooting' to west of the epicenter!
    This rather striking peculiarity of the Tunguska forestfall must be explained!

    Let's look whether do modern numeric/computer stimulations explain the peculiarity.
    Since mid-1960s numerous attempts were conducted to numerously stimulate the forest fall by a meteoroid explosion (disintegration, to be exact). The researchers try to adjust parameters of the alleged spacebody fall (angle of its infall, its speed, energy, etc.) the best way to fit results into real Tunguska data.
    One of the most detailed one was this one:
    Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVIII (2007)

    Here what they got (see Fig.2 with its signature and accompanying text from their work):

    Remarkably that the authors of the modelling twice wrote: 'may be'... Or 'may be' not... Who knows... Who cares...

    Anyway the authors of the modelling wrote that 'The forest between two blue contours is totally damaged'. The above-given image by John Anfinogenov shows that to the west from the epicenter the reality is completely different.
    Krinov wrote in his 1949 book ( from ) about some peculiarities of the forestfall (translated by Andrei Ol'khovatov with help of google-translate):

    Here a map with living trees near the Tunguska epicenter (Florensky,1963). There are the following marks on the map: 1) directions flattened (uprooted) trees; 2) standing dry dead trees damaged by fire; 3) surviving trees; 4) the Kulik expedition's huts.

    It is clearly seen on the map that many trees and groups of trees survived at the Tunguska epicenter which completely disagrees with the computer modelling!

    Another interesting research was done by Mark Boslough
    In there Mark came to conclusion that 15 Mt energy deposition is too much as:

    So he had to decrease energy to ~5 Mt.
    In other words, Boslough had to decrease the energy to 5Mt or even less (otherwise 'the hot fireball decends to the surface and slides downrange at high velocities, subjecting the landscape to blast-furnace condtions'), while N. Artemieva and V. Shuvalov don't have such a problem!... A remarkable illustration of how reliable are such modelling still!...

    Anyway let's look at snapshot of the Boslough's video

    Here is the text accompanying the video:
    It is well-seen from the snapshot that even a distances ~10 km from the epicenter the modelled air shock wave on the west side is rather strong comparing with other directions. But as we already know the forest in the west side had a little damage...

    In 2008 Boslough presented at the conference in Moscow devoted to 100th Anniversary of Tunguska the following slide:

    It is seen from the slide that a pattern of air-disturbance in modelling is more or less resembles the outer border of the forestfall on the Longo's group map (a left picture on his slide). But the outer border position is not very reliable itself ( with the low reliability degree). It would be reasonable to compare areas with high reliability degree. And the 'total uprooting' area which is well-positioned (thanks to titanic work by J. Anfinogenov!). As we know from the Anfinogenov's titanic work to the west of the epicenter there is only a weak forestfall. But the Boslough's modelling picture (the right one on the slide) shows completely different story!...

    And here is one more important factor pointed out by Evgenii Ivanovich Vasil'ev. According to research by Aleksei Vasil'evich Zolotov (1969), concentrations of the fallen trees direction's intersections in the northeast part of the forestfall are inside this (i.e. northeast) part (see the left picture on the image below where red lines mean directions of the fallen trees).
    (see for details of the Zolotov's calculations)
    Also concentrations of the fallen trees direction's intersections in the southeast part of the forestfall are inside the southeast part.

    These Zolotov's calculations were confirmed in 2008 by Evgenii Ivanovich Vasil'ev and his student basing on much larger number of fallen trees. So the 'force' which put down trees in the parts ('wings') of the forestfall was a bit divergent.
    But as it could be seen from the snapshot of the Boslough's 'Tunguska spaceimpact' modelling video (see the picture above)- the form of the airshock wave front in the regions is such (rather 'flat' ) that concentrations of the fallen trees directions are outside the regions!

    It looks like Boslough admitted some problems with accuracy of his modelling. So in the work published in 'Near-Earth Objects' Vol. 822 of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences May 30, 1997 'Shoemaker-Levy 9 and Plume-forming Collisions on Earth' by MARK B.E. BOSLOUGH AND DAVID A. CRAWFORD

    there is some interesting info:

    An obligation of argumented explanation of the Tunguska forestfall features lays on those who claim that: 'my work explains the forestfall'.
    More than 2 decades past from that time but a model which can explain the 'only weak forestfall to the west' does not appear still...

    Another intriguing detail of the forest fall is that despite the central area of the forest fall is often considered to be covered with standing trees, there are traces of the radial forest fall even in this area too! From the traces, Kulik even came to conclusion about 2-3 closely spaced epicenters!

    It is also remarkable, that results of the 'Tunguska spacebody explosion' modelling point to an angle of inclination of the hypothetical spacebody trajectory must be about 40 degrees (otherwise it is not possible to get resemblance with the Tunguska forest-fall pattern (see the text above)), while from witness's accounts it must be no more than about 10-15 degrees. Indeed in the case of inclination of the trajectory 30 deg. and more the hypothetical meteoroidal fireball could be seen (from distances several hundred miles) just in directions close to the epicenter and relatively low in the sky, which does not conform with the eyewitnesses accounts.

    Advocates of of the 'Tunguska spaceimpact' are well aware of the 'inclination problem' ( see for example V. Bronshten article 'Trajectory and orbit of the Tunguska meteorite revisited' here ), and try various 'tricks' to increase the inclination from the eyewitnesses accounts (the early trajectory estimations based on accounts gives the inclination just 7-8 degrees). However even such prominent advocate of the 'Tunguska spaceimpact' as V. Bronshten has to recognize that:

    I hope that advocates of the Tunguska spaceimpact will model 'the combined action of the gravity field and a nonzero aerodynamic lift' to test the Bronshten idea. Till now it is not done, but other Tunguska researchers debunked the idea - see, for example, Andrei Zlobin's article here where he evaluated needed aerodynamical overloads ). So the 'inclination problem' persists...

    Detailed investigation of the Kulikovskii forest-fall conducted by various researchers has shown that there are remarkable deviations of the forest fall from the radial pattern all over the area. The deviations are shown on the picture below (out of scale). The deviations are larger to the east of the epicenter (especially large in the south-east sector of the forest-fall).

    The problem of the deviations should be resolved.

    Another puzzle for the meteorite interpretation is the area of the forest fall on the ridge Chuvar (~24 km, 279), which according to the local Evenks have formed the same morning as the general (Kulikovskii) one. It was discovered by the 1959 expedition. Here is how it was discovered from a book by Vasil'ev N., Demin D., Erokhovets A., et al. - Po sledam Tungusskoi katastrofy. Tomsk, 1960. (translated by me = Andrei Ol'khovatov). The fragment says about a group of 3 researchers who explored a region to the west from the Tunguska epicenter in the direction of the mountain marked on a map as 'height-593'.

    Its square is 30-40 sq. km. and the trees damage was found to occur in about 1908. The peculiarity of that forest fall is that trees were uprooted with their tops to the east (i.e. in the opposite of what expected from the meteorite fall direction). So the supporters of the meteorite fall prefer not to discuss it, or at least, talk just about accidental coincidence. And the coincidence, as could be seen on the picture below (out of scale) is rather remarkable...

    The Kulikovskii (right on the picture above) and Chuvarskii (left on the picture above) forest-falls resemble as produced by intensive air-jets (like meteorological downburst and burst swath - see also below).

    By the way, there are reports about more forest-falls appeared about June 30, 1908 in the region. Here is just one example from English translation of the L.A. Kulik early report ( , ):

    "More concrete data about the destruction of the forest by a wind blast are furnished by an inhabitant of the village Krasnoyarovo, of the district of Kirensk, of the government of Irkutsk, V. M. Arbatsky, in answer to a questionnaire of the Meteorite Expedition. After giving a description of the phenomenon, containing nothing new, he adds: "In the region reached by going from the small river Tunguska along the little river Ayan for about 15 versts, I noticed a broad strip of completely uprooted forest, extending along the road for about one verst. As for the more remote regions [i.e. farther away from the road] I have no knowledge." "

    In the more complete version of the V. M. Arbatsky account he wrote about the forest-fall at the Ayan river that "in the same year and the month, the day is unknown...". Arbatsky added that many residents of the village Krasnoyarovo are witnesses of that.
    The river Ayan (according to the article by S.A. Razin (2008)) is 320 km from the Kulik's epicenter on azimuth 116 degrees.


    Some cases of the ignition of wood bedding were reported up to 34 km from the epicenter [9] and even probably farther (see section 2.1). But according to the Tunguska meteorite model it means that everything alive would completely burn at the epicenter. For example, according to the Tunguska meteorite model, the radiant exposure at the distances 5-9 km from the epicenter is about 300 J per sq. cm [7], but it means that right at the the epicenter the radiant exposure is about 1200-1700 J per!
    (LATER ADDITION: Interestingly that a decade later i.e. in 2006 V.V. Svetsov confirmed this: "Numerical simulations [3,4] show that the thermal energy delivered to the ground by radiation peaks at about 1 kJ/cm2 at the explosion epicenter." (Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVII (2006), abstr.1553)).

    Such powerful radiation would burn strongly every living vegetation in the epicenter!
    In reality many groups of trees survived at the epicenter, and moreover many of them have no sign of burn[10,11].

    In 2019 there was an article 'A model for thermal radiation from the Tunguska airburst' by Christopher O. Johnston , and Eric C. Stern in ICARUS v.327, pp.48-59. Rather interesting article but there is one big problem with it - it considers a source of the burn ('Tunguska bolide') too high above the ground, while all published research on locating the source of the burn (several methods were used by several groups of authors) locate the source at about 5-6 km altitude (or 7 km at the most). Higher altitude is very unlikely, while there is some small possibility of lower altitudes.

    If somehow to 'adjust' the radiant exposure to lesser values, then this helps a little, as the key peculiarity of the burn is its spotty (irregular) character. A good illustration of this is a map of the trees burn by L'vov Yu.A. and Vasil'ev N.V. (Voprosy meteoritiki, Tomsk,1976; unfortunately the quality of production-printing of the article was not good):

    On the map 1 means 'absence of burn', 2 - weak burn, 3 - moderate burn, 4 - strong burn, 5 - a border of an area with burn, 6 - a border of an area with moderate and strong burn, 7 - the axis of symmetry.

    There is another map (to better understand position of the tested trees ) by V.A. Vorob'ev, A.G. Il'in and I.K. Doroshin (Fenomen Tunguski, Nobosibirsk, str.9,2008) which is shown below:

    It is clearly seen that trees with burn (red-colored) often are very close to no-burn trees. And this occurs even close to the epicenter...

    Regarding the forest fire - it was also peculiar. It was was rather moderate (or even weak) and started in many places ('spotty' - separated by 'no-forestfire' areas) in the region (simultaneously, as experts write), and it was almost stationary.

    Moreover just several kms to the west-NW from the epicenter there is a big grove of trees without any fire damage and even without any visible traces of mechanical damage! (it was discovered in about 1960)

    From the character of the trees damage it concludes that at first was the breaking of branches and then a burn at the site of the break [9, 12]. In other words, for the meteorite explosion interpretation it means that the air-shock wave from the explosion came faster than light impulse!

    The author also would like to mention the local Evenks reports about spots of melted sand and soil.


    Here are just several examples of the seismic phenomena accompanied the Tunguska:

    Unfortunately, there is just a single paper analysing witness's accounts on seismic phenomena. It was by Igor Astapovich in 1951. He wrote that the earthquake was felt over a square of a million square km., and an isoseismal of intensity I=4 was about 1000 km from the Tunguska epicenter (see a picture from his 1951 article in PRIRODA magazine below). In there he has drawn isoseismal map of seismic phenomena associated with Tunguska event.

    You can see that the accounts above are in good agreement with his results.
    Astapovich (in 1951) also discovered a tendency to stronger seismic effects in the south from the epicenter direction, which he explained as influenced by a "meteorite's ballistic wave" (till the middle of 1960s it was thought that a "meteorite" flew from the south to the north, while later it was changed to "from the east to the west"), and it is seen on his picture above (he has drawn AM line of "symmetry", which he has associated with the "meteorite trajectory").

    There are several intriguing aspects of the seismic observations. As, for example, that in some places seismic disturbances occured several hours later than in others. This effect is a typical for all witness's accounts data, as it was discovered by Dyomin et al. in 1984, and the effect is not on a border of statistical dispersion, but forms a secondary weaker statistical maximum at about 12 noon.

    Another aspect is the long duration of the seismic events (up to 45 minutes) as reported by numerous witnesses. It is in complete agreement with recordings by nearest Irkutsk seismic station (see below).

    The seismic disturbances were also recorded by 4 seismic stations: Irkutsk, Tashkent, Tiflis, Jena [14, 15]. The Irkutsk one was the closest one to the Tunguska epicenter (about 970 km to the south from the epicenter). Ben-Menahem [14], and Pasechnik [15] based their analysis on the assumption, that the seismic recordings were caused by a meteorite explosion over the epicenter, i.e. dimensions of the source of the seismic waves were small compared with the distances (short-term point-like source).
    In frames of this assumption they have obtained a time of the earthquake origin 00.14 UT, June 30, and its magnitude 4.5-5. They also stated that durations of the recordings at Irkutsk was up to 1.5 hours. The long duration of the recording is a puzzle for a long time, as a seismic signal from a meteorite explosion must be of rather short duration. Whipple (who did not see the original recording) wrote in 1930: "A curious feature of the seismological record is the long duration of disturbance at Irkutsk." He also questioned could it be a misprint? Later, when it was confirmed, that it was not a misprint, the question was practically ignored (or just assigned to weak attenuation of seismometers without any consideration [15]).
    However, my research has showed that the long duration of the signal could not be explained by the weak attenuation [5]. I have investigated Bulleten Postoyannoi Tsentralnoi Seismicheskoi Komissii for 1908, and other similar documents, and have discovered that durations of recordings by the Irkutsk seismic station of many even much more intensive earthquakes were less than about 20 minutes in that period of time. And indeed a real damping factor of such seismometers was in order of 7-30, and a period of free oscillations 20-30 s [14,15], which implies full duration of the free oscillations no more than about 15 minutes.
    So the "meteorite explosion" theory can not explain the long duration of seismic disturbances in Irkutsk.
    And here I will show, that the "meteorite explosion" theory can not explain the witness's reports on seismic phenomena too. Indeed, there is an empiric formula for evaluation of seismic intensity I at various distances R (km), from near surface earthquake with magnitude M in the Baikal rift region: For M=4.5-5, and R=100 km, we have I=3-4. For R=300 km, I=2.5-2. In other words, such earthquake could be felt just no farther than 200-300 km from the epicenter, and anyway, it could not splash out the lamp-oil, and put down the icon (picture) standing on a shelf 1020 km away, especially as it manifested itself as just a weak signal on seismograms in near-by Irkutsk. Moreover, it also could not be felt like a shivering of the ground 1017 km away as main phases of seismic waves must have periods more than 8-9 s at 1000 km distance (no less than about 5 s at 200 km) [15], i.e. any sharp shaking of the ground is possible just in the epicenter, where seismic body-waves have a large input [14,15].

    Such behaviour of seismic waves generated aby a bolide air-burst is clearly seen with the 2013 Chelyabinsk bolide, where (from Heimann S., Gonzalez A., Wang R., Cesca S., Dahm T. - Seismic Characterization of the Chelyabinsk Meteor's Terminal Explosion - Seismological Research Letters, 2013. Vol. 84. N6. p.1021):

    In other words, beyond vicinity of the epicenter, the earthquake produced by a "Tunguska meteorite explosion" could be felt as just rather slow swings of the ground, and no farther than 200-300 km away.
    So we see that the seismic data can not be explained by "Tunguska meteorite explosion".

    Interestingly, there is a report from the Stepanovskii mine, a short distance from the town of Yuzhno-Yeniseisk, that an earthquake struck this area at 23.43 UT June 29, i.e. a half hour before the "fall of the Tunguska meteorite" [5].


    No any "Tunguska meteorite" fragments were discovered. And many years ago it was proposed that the meteorite completely burn out into dust (even despite that it resembles a story about a snake which completely swallowed itself, commencing with its tail...). Recently the attempt was done to calculate the burn-out [7,17]. In the author opinion this attempt can't explain the absence of the fragments, because:

    a)Even the results of [7,17] conclude that it must be a lot of small fragments a few kilometres from the epicenter. As already mentioned, despite many years of careful search - no one found. And no large quantity of extraterrestrial dust (droplets) was found in the epicentral area. The results of a search for globally dispersed the meteorite dust also are negative [18].

    If you are interested in Tunguska geochemistry, then I would like to advise you to read this group of articles by Evgenii Kolesnikov with coauthors. Kolesnikov wrote many articles on "discovering Tunguska spacebody substance" since late 1970s. Here is a link to an article by Rasmussen, Kaare L.; Olsen, Hans J. F.; Gwozdz, Raymond; Kolesnikov, Euginev M.: "Evidence for a very high carbon/iridium-ratio in the Tunguska impactor" ( METEORITICS & PLANETARY SCIENCE, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 891-895 (1999)).
    But their results on composition of the "Tunguska spacebody" are so unusual (if not strange), that it produced some argue by geochemistry's experts: METEORITICS & PLANETARY SCIENCE, v.36, p.999-1006 (2001).

    An Italian reseacher Prof. G.Longo also doubts in reality of these chemical anomalies writing in his article 'The Tunguska Event' (Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society, An Interdisciplinary Approach (2007)):

    So if even minor geochemical peculiarities possibly were detected in the "impact place" [16], there is no reason to claim them as of 'Tunguska spacebody', because of their composition. The latter one doesn't resemble a chondritic meteorite, neither a comet (as even pristine ice-rich cometary material is supposed to have a chondritic complement of about 50 wt% [18]).

    I can add that the deuterium to hydrogen ratio (D/H) in the Tunguska "catastrophic" peat layer is less than in the adjacent ones (and, much less than in ocean water, of course), while the D/H ratio in all 3 researched comets (Halley, Hyakutake, and Hale-Bopp) is on contrary much larger than even in the adjacent peat layers.

    Also isotopic ratio for Tunguska epicenter's rare Earth elements (REE) which was measured in the place of the most REE enrichment is the terrestrial one.

    Regarding C-14, its data is rather contraversial, but the latest measurements seem to show no significant deviations against background.

    And what about to propose that over the epicenter the extraterrestrial substance was dispersed into fine microparticles during the powerful Tunguska explosion and flew away, explaining why there was no fall out? The answer is "hardly". For example, the latest published calculations of the hypothetic Tunguska spacebody's explosion show that a plasma column of the remnants was to strike the ground. And as it is known. in the case of a powerful nuclear explosion significant part of radioactive debris falls out not far from its epicenter. So this scenario (99.999...% of the substance flew accurately far away from the epicenter) looks very unlikely (impossible in reality).
    But the problem is even much more deep. Where is enormous quantity of extraterrestial substance, which the hypothetic Tunguska body was to lose before its explosion? Indeed, according to practically all calculations, the hypothetic Tunguska spacebody was to loose a significant (probably even dominated) portion of its mass before it reached the explosion altitude of 5-8 km. In other words, at least, a hundred thousands tonns of extraterrestrial substance (from large fragments to dust) would be deposited along the lower part of Tunguska spacebody trajectory. Despite many years of careful search nothing was discovered... By the way, a couple years ago application of just one of the many Tunguska substance search's methods allowed easily find small fragments of a meteorite (with initial mass of several tonns, probably), which disintegrated over another place in Siberia in 1904...

    The absence of discernable nitrate excess (produced by the "Tunguska meteoroid" during its descent) is also a problem for the meteorite interpretation [18].

    There is also some interesting ice-core data relating the year 1908. Here is from

    For more you could read the whole article from the link above.
    Here are my comments of the article.

    - Authors accepted the speed of the Tunguska spacebody about 30 km/s. At such speed the spacebody unlikely to penetrate to low altitudes ~ 6 km unless it was exceptionally strong. But then it couldn't have been a comet!
    - There is an interesting fragment in the article:

    Please pay attention on how the calculations are made. What if to sum not exactly over 90 days? And if to peruse the article it can be seen that there are several such 'exact' sums and multiplications. Acting such way anybody can get what he wants! So I take the quantative results of the publication cautiously.

    Anyway even such 'loose' approach failed to fit the data with ammonium, so the authors wrote:

    So the authors have to propose: However the authors have to write in a few sentences later: So in the authors opinion the Checko lake was a huge hot (and high-pressured?) chemical reactor!
    To sum up: the research demonstrates that the Greenland ice-core data has a large problems fitting into the Tunguska spacebody interpretation.

    And finally, one more interesting fact. Chemically robust carbon particles (probably diamonds) were found near the epicenter [21,22]. Their composition leads to the conclusion of their terrestrial origin [21,22].
    Here is a the from [22] ( ):

    For more on the geochemical anomalies - see pos. 3.10.


    Trees of the second post-explosion generation exhibited higher than normal growth rates in the woodland area devastated by the explosion [23]. In recent decades, the boundaries of the high growth rate zone were "drawing in" toward the eastern "trajectory". Here the frequency of genetic mutations among the young pine trees has increased 12-fold. Till now the meteorite interpretation doesn't explain it.

    2.7. THE SKY GLOW

    The unusual glow in the sky was first observed days before the event [23]. Beginning on June 23, 1908, atmospheric optical amonalies were observed in many places of Western Europe, the European part of Russia and Western Siberia. They gradually increased in intensity until June 29 and then reached a peak in the early morning of July 1st. These anomalies included an unprecedentedly active formation of mesospheric (noctilucent) clouds, bright "volcanic" twilights, disturbances in the normal motion of the Arago and Babinet neutral points, a possible increase in the emission of the night sky, and unprecedentedly intense and long solar halos. Later on, after July 1, these effects decreased exponentially [23]. The area involved in these phenomena was limited by the Yenisey river in the East, by the Tashkent - Stavropol - Sevastopol - Bordeaux line in the South, and by the Atlantic coast in the West [23].

    For example, here is what a prominent meteor observer William Frederick Denning
    ( )
    wrote in Nature N.2020, VOL. 78 (1908):

    It's very hard (practically impossible) to explain it even by the comet dust, because:

    a) Nobody saw the comet. If it even existed it must be very small. When the Earth crossed a trail of the large spectacular Halley comet in 1910, it produced a weak (if any) effect.

    b) For a few days the trail must cover all the Earth around. But the glow was localized in the Europe and the west Siberia in general. Moreover, there were no any reports of the glow in the event region, while the hypothesized cometary coma must be the most dense near its nucleous, i.e. affect the impact region the most.

    c) Comet dust must stay in the atmosphere for many weeks, while 'light nights' disappeared in a few days.

    d) The enormous quantity of extraterrestrial dust (to produce the prominent sunlight scatter) must strongly influence on the atmospheric absorption. But no unusually large absorption in the atmosphere was detected on the days of the glow (see section 3.12).

    e) The sky glow was also observed at rather low latitudes, where it couldn't be originated by the scattering of the sunlight by the dust at night.

    It is just a small part of the meteorite interpretation problems. The supporters of the meteorite interpretation usually try to ignore them. For example, when you are talking about the incompatibility between eyewitness's accounts and the meteorite interpretation, they use to say that the eyewitnesses often confuse and so on. But on the other side, the whole idea about the meteorite is based just on the eyewitness's accounts about flying fiery body!


    The 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite event (see: and here ) is a good example to compare it with Tunguska. Indeed its energy deposition calculations (based on vast instrumental data) was about ~500 kt of TNT.
    I can say that my public early preliminary evaluation of the energy based on first mass-media reports in a few hours was: ~'measured in tens of kt TNT' (see here: ).
    It is closer to the instrumental one, than given in a press-release of Russian Academy of Science: 'several kt TNT' ( see here: ).

    As the Tunguska energy according to 'the best calculations' ( ) was about 3-5 Mt (i.e. just 6-10 times greater) then it is a good reason to compare.

    Here are several points.

    1) The 2013 Chelyabinsk was a 'classical' large bolide with no Tunguska-like anomalies, no earthshaking preceeding the bolide etc.
    Nothing like 'two giant fiery circles which persisted for 4 minutes' as in very reliable report from Kezhma in Tunguska.

    2) In Irkutsk (almost 1000 km away from the Tunguska epicenter) after Tunguska a geomagnetic disturbance was registered which lasted for several hours.
    In the 2013 Chelyabinsk modern geomagnetic detectors measured nothing similar despite being several times closer to the event.

    3) The 2013 Chelyabinsk meteoroid main body disintegrated at altutudes about 30 km. The hypothetical Tunguska meteoroid disintegrated just at 5-10 km altitude (as advocates of the Tunguska meteorite theory say) so it had to be much stronger. So what did it consist of? Iron?... :)

    4) There is nothing similar to the famous Tunguska 'bright nights' in association with the 2013 Chelyabink. It looks like some noctilucent clouds were seen IN A WEEK after the 2013 Chelyabinsk event over Europe (which doesnot contradict to the meteorite theory) but in Tunguska the glow phenomena appeared SIMULTANEOUSLY with the event and in a weaker form even PRECEEDED the event and then fastly disappeared in a few days.

    5) In the 2013 Chelyabinsk event seismic phenomena reported by witnesses were concentrated within several dozens km from its 'explosion place' (this was caused by a shock wave hitting the ground some dozens seconds after the bolide pass - quite in agreement with a meteorite theory), while the bolide was seen at distances up to ~700 km.
    In Tunguska while the VARIOUS luminous phenomena were reported up to about similar distance, but RELIABLE reports on seismic effects were reported at distances larger than 1000 km! (see this www-page nearby) which the meteorite theory can't explain (and this hints that there were several sources of seismic waves in the region).
    The manifestation of the seismic effects even BEFORE appearence of the 'Tunguska bolide' is also a problem for a meteorite theory.

    6) THE SUBSTANCE. There is a lot of reports of finding the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite substance. The reported meteorite fragments vary from 'pea'-sized to more than 600 kg piece. In December of 2013 a tourist group of 'visually impaired' people(!) discovered 24kg-sized fragment. And what about those fragments which were not openly reported, as the fragments are rather expensive and for many poor local residents they are theasure... According to some initual mass-media reports from the area some people collected small fragments with buckets...
    Nobody could demonstate even a single small fragment of Tunguska while fragments of the hypothetical 'Tunguska meteorite' should be concentrated in a rather small area (see Hills, J. G. and Goda, M. P. article: ). The area was searched for many decades even with various methods - the outcome was negative.
    And much smaller the 2013 Chelyabinsk disintegrated at ~30 km altitude and had a shallow trajectory so 'dispersed' its fragments over large region - a lot of fragments!...


    All above-mentioned facts can be explained on the assumption that the Tunguska event was a terrestrial phenomenon, in which tectonic processes played a very large role. One of their manifestations is well-known - it is rupture and trembling of the ground, i.e. an earthquake. But now let's look at some others.


    A surge in tectonic activity may produce various optical effects in the atmosphere: luminous columns, stripes, lightnings, flame, glowing sky, etc. Exploding "meteors" are among them.

    Here is from :

    Here is how the onset of an earthquake at the Russian town of Kola began on February 21, 1873. The weather was calm. Suddenly it became dark and then an enormous fireball of a dark crimson color appeared in the eastern sky and vanished in the west. At this time underground jolt occurred and the earthquake began which lasted for 5 minutes. It was so strong that the houses swung and utensils fell.

    Another interesting example. The "meteor" flew at low altitude in a blast of wind over the Russian town of Chembar past midnight on January 4, 1886, exploding on the road out of the town with loud thunderclap. This explosion killed a horse. Later the survived driver (coachman) just could tell that fiery serpent came flying and killed the horse. About 15 minutes after the explosion an earthquake struck the town.

    These exploding fireballs happen in connection with many earthquakes. Some of them are mentioned in [24]. Here is an example.

    During the earthquake in the Tama Hills, Japan June 17, 1931 "a fireball rose in the sky and disappeared. A sound like "Bah..." was heard. The lower sky was coloured pink-red for some time after the disappearance of the light".

    The author thinks that everybody who are well aware of the eyewitness accounts near the Tunguska epicenter marks the similarity between these phenomena.

    And one more very important observation proving that such luminous phenomena can be something more than just simple "lights". During the South Hyuga, Japan earthquake November 2, 1931 [24] a fishing boat called the "Ikedamaru" was engaged in fishing on the sea about 50 km off Utiumi, a town on the coast of Hyuganada. Near the time of the earthquake the boat began to pitch so heavily all of a sudden that the crew thought she was near being capsized. At the same time, to the crew's consternation, a large pillar of fire shot up from the surface of the sea near the boat.

    During Matsushiro moderate earthquake's swarm in mid-1960s earthquake lights were pictured the first times. Below is a photo of stable glow (which lasted for 96 seconds) taken Sept.26, 1966 (from J.S.Derr: Earthquake Lights...// Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer., 1973, v.63, p.2177).

    On April 22, 1974 immediately before the earthquake hit Kiangsu province in China, people saw a bright streak of light in the sky. Sparkling and glittering with the "lightnings" dancing across it, it proceeded from southwest to northeast. The spectacle went on for some 3-4 seconds. In another Chinese province, Liaoning, fiery columns and balls flashed up in the sky on February 4, 1975, and a "flame" shot up toward the sky at the time of the earthquake. The precursors of the Tangshang earthquake in the Chinese province of Hopeh on July 28, 1976, were revealing in a way. About a half hour before the disaster, a bright flickering light was spotted in the distance. Instantly it was transformed from red to silvery blue, and then lengthened into a blinding white strip that darted across the sky and went out immediately. The eyewitnesses had the impression of a nuclear explosion. At the time of the earthquake an engine driver saw a lightning in the form of 3 blinding light beams, which were followed by 3 mushroom-shaped smoke columns.

    A very interesting luminous phenomenon was seen a night before aftershock M=5 of the 27 May, 1976 Lungling earthquake (China) [25]. Two Chinese seismologists observed a fireball about 50 metres in diameter 200 meters away. They watched the fireball for almost half an hour. Next morning at the fireball's site they found "an extensive remnant of a sand boil" [25]. Why not the Muong Nong type tektites production on mini-scale?

    A great number of luminous phenomena was seen before the Sungpan-Pingwu (China) earthquake, August 1976 [25]. Columns, fans, balls and sheets were seen. Several Chinese seismologists observed on the evening July 21 a small fireball, which originated at the ground surface about 100 meters from where they stood. At first, it was about 1 meter in diameter. It then shot up to a height of 10 or 15 meters, whereupon the volume started shrinking, finally to ping-pong-ball size. After reaching the maximum height, the ball curved over in an arcuate trajectory, resembling a meteor and disappeared as it fell to the earth. The light would dim, then brighten again. Small wisps of white smoke swirled around the light, and a slight crackling sound was heard. A radio compass and telluric currents were unaffected. A small fuunnel-shaped hole in the ground was found at the place where the fireball appeared. In another case, a fireball started near a house, rose up along an arbor, and burned a hole in the roof of the house. A total of about 1000 fireballs were sighted, 50 in one evening. Chinese seismologists discovered that more fireballs occurred along intersections of river beds and faults [25].

    In connection with the swarm of earthquakes in Quebec, Canada 1988-1989 a lot of luminous phenomena were sighted: sparklings, dawn-like diffuse glow, aurora-like bands [26]. Fireballs a few meters in diameter often popped out of the ground in a repetitive manner at distances of up to only a few meters away from the observers. Others were seen several hundred meters up in the sky, stationary or moving. Some observers described dripping luminous droplets, rapidly disappearing a few meters under the stationary fireballs [26].

    A very important results on the earthquake lights were recently obtained in relation with the 1995 Kobe earthquake. The investigation of the place where during the earthquake several "streaks of bluish-white color spread out for about a second" (for details see "Geophysical Research Letters v.25, p.2721 (1998)) revealed the traces of 1000 A electric current through the area of about 1000 sq. cm. (Dr. Y. Enomoto, personal communication (1998)).

    Very interesting pictures of earthquakes lights and "their" burnt rocks preceding the 1999 Turkish earthquake can be seen here).

    It is important also to add that there are some signs of a relation between regional lightning and shallow earthquakes (see "Geophysical Journal International" v.131, p.485 (1997)). Remarkably, that during 19th century an idea was popular that earthquakes are of electric origin!

    In general "tectonic lights" could be "meteors", pillars, rays, shooting up flame (usually in an epicenter), semispheres, fireball, patches and bands (in the sky and on the ground), all-sky luminosity, flashes, "auroras", sparks, "clouds", black objects and many others. They have some tendency to move towards an epicenter of an earthquake. Also, please, pay attention, that sometimes earthquake lights accompanied very weak earthquakes.


    As we saw, many of these "lights" display energy release, sometimes explosion-like character. Usually these events happen in connection (prior, at the time or after) with earthquakes. But sometimes (see below) the accompanied earthquakes are very weak and an energy release by explosive event exceeds an earthquake one. Also as they often look like an explosion of a flying luminous body, they also can be called as a geometeor).

    Indeed, more and more data appears showing that geophysical medium (at first, soil, rock) is a complicated nonlinear active system possessing its own "memory". Such a medium is to be characterized by self-organizing and self-adjusting processes in it. Possibly that geometeors are just one of the way of such self-organization [27]. Remarkably, that atmospheric processes play an important role in geometeors, i.e. probably geometeors is self-organization in/between two geospheres: solid Earth and atmosphere (and maybe outer space medium too?).
    The author inclines to think about a possible role of water vapour.

    It is remarkable that geometeors (as well as luminous phenomena in general) rather often occur at certain places and very seldom in others (it seems that such geometeors-areas often don't coincide with areas of increased seismicity, but lie close to them).

    Till now we don't know their physical mechanism. The author doubts that it could be explained just by electromagnetism, at least by known forms. Probably we must add something. Maybe just this self-organization? Probably research on a 'classical' (associated with weather) ball-lightning could help. The author have an impression that they are just "the top of an iceberg" (one of the most clear manifestations) of some universal fundamental process (of self-organization?)[27,28].

    In typical cases geometers looks like an appearence of luminous body (sometimes it could be dark and probably even invisible) which travels to some site (or originate at the site). Then it could explode.

    Unfortunately, a number of known high-energy geometeor, which aren't connected with large earthquakes a rather small, so features of geometeors are not well-known (for the latest development see my geophysical meteors article). Anyway, two properties are rather well-established already:

  • Geometeors gravitate towards geological inhomogeneity, heterogeneity and discontinuity (tectonic faults, circular structures, intrusions, ore deposits, etc.);
  • Geometeors tend to occur in connection of weather breaks, often followed by worsening of the weather. It is interesting to note a resemblance with 'earthquake lights' which tend to happen during cold front passages, i.e. also associated with worsening of weather(see section 3.12).
  • Geometeors often resemble (look like) explosions of ball lightnings. So in many cases we could say that it was the explosion of the ball lightning endogenic (tectonic) origin (if there is a clear role of tectonic activity). Who knows, maybe geometeors could help better understand when and where better try to create artificial ball lightning in a laboratory?

    When geometeors have a form of a high-speed ball-lightnings, they often resemble meteoroidal meteors (and confused with the latter ones).

    In any case, geometeors exist, and could explain some famous hard-to-explain events.


    Below are several geometeors(geophysical meteors) examples. More of them are in my geophysical meteors article.

  • THE PETROZAVODSK EVENT. An example, which looks like mini-Tunguska is the event near the Russian town of Petrozavodsk (61.7 N; 34.4 E) in 1990. It was investigated by the Siberian geologist/geophysicist (later- Prof.) Sal'nikov V. N..
  • On March 29, at 4 a.m. (i.e. about midnight UT) the eyewitness suddenly felt a headache. He turned to the window, saw a flash of light, and heard "a clap". A formation in the form of straw-white-colored cylinder rose above the forest and flew into clouds. The air over the forest was filled with a smoke, and then it rained.

    In the autumn a forest fall 30 m by 25 m size was found in a marshy area. The trees were uprooted there with its tops away the epicenter, forming a spiral with two branches. The rind of some trees was burned forming vertical stripes. The roots of trees were burned in a form of concentric bands. A part of the roots was charred from above and sometimes under rind (which, however, remained unaltered). The outer part of the spiral was characterized not only by burning trees, but also by concentric scorched circles around the standing trees.

    In this region of Russia weak earthquakes (M~3) occurred from time to time pointing to some level of tectonic activity.

    Meteorological situation was favorable for this geophysical event. Detailed look at the cloudiness's development reveals one more remarkable feature: there was a spike in the cloudiness level right after the event (compare smoothed cloudiness's data averaged for the following time intervals: March 28, 18-24 UT, and March 29, 0-6 UT).

  • THE JANUARY 23, 1974 EVENT IN THE NORTHERN MID-WALES (UK). It was described in [29] as the unexplained one (the Bala earthquake/event ). Near a mountain Arthur's Table a tremor was felt. Seismic recordings revealed that it was "unusually large magnitude". There were reports of an explosion being heard simultaneously with the tremor. It was heard over a radius of tens of miles. Before and after this event, curious fireballs were seen, both in the vicinity of Arthur's Table and nationwide. It seems that a white fireball was seen over the Isle of Man to the north, multi-colored balls of light were seen over the Bristol Channel to the south. A blue fireball was seen over East Anglia. It was speeding westwards towards Wales and in Coventry the westward course was confirmed.
  • The extraordinary sequence of events made leading news items that evening and the following day. At first it was proposed that a giant meteorite fell in UK near Arthur's Table. But the following research didn't find any traces of the fall. Quietly, the item slipped from the news as it became apparent that the experts would be unable to find an explanation.

    In [29] it is also mentioned that Arthur's Table is on Bala fault. The author discovered in [30] this earthquake. Its origin time was 20.38 UT and the position 52.7 N; 3.7 W. The depth was 33 km (i.e. uncertain) or 0 km. Totally it was recorded by 29 seismostations. One seismostation recorded dilatational first motion of seismic wave (i.e. motion toward epicenter), while a meteorite fall could produce only compressional (i.e. motion away from the epicenter) one.

    Since that time several earthquakes were detected in the area.
    Cloudiness level increased on the next day (compare smoothed cloudiness data averaged for time intervals January 23, 18-24 UT, and January 24, 18-24 UT).

    In 2006 an interesting article was published regarding details of the earthquake:
    and the following discussion:

    Here is also a wiki-article on the matter:
    And more:

  • THE APRIL 2, 1978 BELL ISLAND EVENT, CANADA. The data on this event, including photocopies of newspapers clippings was sent to the author by R. Spalding, Sandia Nat. Lab. (USA).
  • It was first described as an unidentified atmospheric explosion and sounded similar to the booms that have been heard in those years along the coast of Nova Scotia and New England.

    It was a fairly fine day with just a light snow falling on Bell Island. A little bit later 11 a.m. local time a local resident saw a straight beam of white light coming down from the sky at a 45 degree angle to the ground. The glow was not strong, accompanied with a low noise and there was a strong thunderclap at the end of it. The thunderclap was heard more than 100 km away.

    One witness said she heard 3 blasts and the ground shook with each blast. Another witness said that he heard another weaker blast a few hours after. The electric power in the houses went out just before the first explosion.

    People on the mainland shore of Conception Bay reported seeing fireballs coming down out of the sky and hitting Bell Island. Four miles from Bell Island across open water, said there were streaks of super bright silvery bright light.

    In result of the event one house was damaged, especially its electric devices. Nearby a small shed and electric transformer were struck also. Further away a barn with attached henhouse were damaged. The henhouse was virtually destroyed, a wall smashed in and the roof torn off. Five hens were killed. Nearby 3 circular holes in the snow appeared, under the branches of a thin lir tree, which was scorched black about 5 feet high. A couple of other trees were also slightly scorched. The holes formed a triangle. The biggest hole was 4 feet deep and 3 feet wide. Fused material was present at bottoms of the holes.

    All over Bell Island there was a momentary loss of electric power during the event, which soon has recovered, with the exception of a few houses in the vicinity of the incident.

    Initially 2 main interpretations (a lightning strike and a meteorite fall) were put forward. At first local meteorologists confirmed that there was no thunderstorm activity in that area at the time, but it was snowing. But later the meteorologists have concluded that atmospheric conditions were in fact of a "thunderstorm nature" (to tell the truth, the author doesn't know what does it mean), so the idea about very powerful lightning (probably a ball lightning) became more popular, as no meteorite traces were discovered.

    Remarkably that Bell Island contains one of the richest iron ore bodies in the world.

  • THE JANUARY 29, 1986 EVENT IN THE TOWN OF DAL`NEGORSK, RUSSIA. Possibly it is still the most investigated such event. The following description is based on the research by Dvuzshil`ny V.V. (a member of the commission on meteorites Acad. of Sci. USSR), Sal`nikov V.N. et al..
  • At 19.55 local time (09.55 UT) a red fireball was seen over the town of Dal`negorsk (appr. 44.5 N; 135.5 E), Russian Far East. It flew silently parallel to the ground surface with the speed of 15 m/s leaving no wake neither trail. After the fireball have passed the town, it 'dived' to the slope of the small mountain (the height 611m), then jumped up and down 6 times above the mountain surface. It was accompanied with a very bright light persisted for an hour. One eyewitness said that after it, the fireball took off and flew away.

    The 'impact' site was researched 2 days after. The fireball destroyed about 2-3 cub. m of the rock. The site was covered with singed pieces of the rock with small metallic spherules sprinkled. At the edge of the site there was a burnt tree-stump.

    Acording to some researchers even in 1989 a strange 'field' existed in the site. Living organisms avoided the site. It negatively influenced on human health. Radio-electronic devices and photo-cameras used to malfunction in the site. For example, the photo-images often were absent while taken at the site, and when taken outside the site they were of good quality. Of course such important statements are needed to be verified.

    Three main types of remnants were found at the site. Pb-spherules (about 60 g.), Fe-spherules (about 15 g.) and 'sponge'.

    The Pb-spherules consisted of Pb with a small percentage of other elements like rare-Earth ones. Dimensions - upto 4 mm.

    The Fe-spherules were 2-4 mm in diametre and consisted of Fe with C and O and a small percentage of Cr, Co, W. The Fe-spherules were magnetized.

    'Sponge' was a glass-like substance covered with a lot of 'holes'. Silicon 'threads' about 17 microns width with a gold 'thread' inside were discovered. The 'sponge' probably was remnants of rocks and the tree-stump in general.

    The singed pieces of the rock were dehydrated and enriched in oxides of various metals. The silicon contents was slightly lowered.

    The trajectory of the fireball was parallel of 2 faults and the 'impact' site was in the intersection of several faults.

    In the evening (20.30 local time) of Febr. 8, 1986 two fireballs were seen near this mountain. They flew around the mountain 4 times and then flew away.

    On the evening (about 22.40 local time) of Nov. 28, 1987 totally 32 fireballs flew over the Russian Far East region. Four of them flew over the mountain, three ones were above the town of Dal`negorsk and five ones illuminated environs.

    Analysis by Soviet researchers revealed that the 'fireballs' tend to appear above faults and ore deposits during a full Moon.

    First I would like to say that in the region some weak earthquakes occur from time to time.

    And here is the meteorological situation for the Jan.29, 1986 event.
    Several hours after the event cloudiness have increased. It is clearly seen on smoothed cloudiness's data averaged for the following time intervals: 6-12 UT, 12-18 UT, 18-24 UT.

  • THE MAY 28, 1993 BANJAWARN EVENT happened in the remote area of the golden mineralization in the Western Australia. The information on the event was sent the author by Australian geologist/geophysicist Harry Mason [31], who also kindly answered some the author's questions. Here is the description [31].
  • At 23 hours local time (15 UT) a large orange red spherical "fireball" with a very small bluish white conical tail had flown from low down in the south over observers travelling to the north. Some observers reported that the fireball was cylindrical in form and more yellow-blue-white in colour. It was heard as a pulsed roaring or loud diesel engine sound - well before it arrived, it dropped off no glowing fragments, and had no long luminous tail or sparks - as is common meteor activity. Its speed was similar to a 747 jet liner or a fast jet plane.

    No sonic booms were reported, and no observer believed that any explosion was heard until the "object" got to ground level - or very nearly so (behind low hills or tree line cover) - and exploded/or impacted.

    It flew apparently parallel to the Earth's curvature in a long "nap of the Earth" arcing trajectory at low altitude (some 1-2000 metres ?) from low down on the southern horizon, not with a "normal" meteor inbound high angle high altitude trajectory. The fireball lit up some observers and their vicinity as it passed overhead. It's flight trajectory was observed over a distance of least 250 km. It then appeared to arc down towards the ground and disappeared out of sight behind trees or low hills.

    This was followed after a 5-minutes delay by a near blinding massive high energy burst of blue-white light that rippled for about 3-5 seconds. It lit up the night (windless, cloudless, and moonless) sky as if daylight. The energy intensity involved in this light flash was similar to the light flash generated by a significant nuclear blast, and in many respects the incident strongly resembled a night time nuclear test.

    A huge red coloured flare then shot vertically skywards for some considerable distance (several kilometres ?), and this was immediately followed by a massive seismic ground wave that hit the observers nearest to "ground zero" such that rocks and beer cans vibrated off of tables and the ground shook violently so that persons tending a camp fire fell over. At the small gold mine (the Alycia Mine) underground 7.5 cm steel pipes sheared clean in half and collapsed underground drives and shafts.

    A very loud major explosive blast then followed that was heard over a 250 km by 150 km corridor, minor quake damage was reported as far as 150 km southeast of the "ground zero" - the other directions (excepting Leonora to the southwest) being largely uninhabited.

    A large deep red-orange coloured hemisphere of opaque light with a silver outer shell lining then rose from ground level to hover around over the "ground zero location". This structure when fully developed was approximately three times the size of a typical Goldfields setting Moon as seen by observers located 30-50km from it - (i.e. it was very big), and it bobbed around a bit for nearly two hours, before disappearing suddenly.

    This "half soup plate structure " (looking like a "deep red very large and half set Sun") was seen by two observers from widely separated locations, one at the Banjawarn station buildings, and one at the Deleta station buildings.

    Almost exactly one hour after the first big event three observers (located at the Banjawarn station buildings) also saw a second much smaller fireball - more blue-green-white in colour, which appeared to rise from ground level (?), but which definitely rose from behind distant trees well south of the station perimeter, and flew to the north in a high mortar shell type arc before coming down to ground level, behind distant bush. It's flight path was divergent to the north northeast when compared to that of the first major "fireball" event of that night.

    This later event then created a second but very small explosion and concomitant minor ground shake - similar to the first event, but much smaller in size, and with no resultant rising hemisphere of opaque light. This second event does not appear to have been of a magnitude sufficient to register on A.G.S.O. seismographs.

    Next morning nothing unusual was seen from the hills nearby.

    In 1995 H. Mason spent a considerable time in a airplane, but failed to find any crater or ground anomaly of any kind there or anywhere else in a 300 km diameter search area. Ground and air examination of the nearby Celia fault-lineament could find no evidence of any movement on this structure.

    At about the same time H. Mason got a report by the three truckies seeing yet another fireball soon after starting work at 5.00 a.m. (exact date unknown) in May or June of 1993. Their "moon sized" fireball flew from south to north at low level (some 1000 metres) with a high speed jet plane velocity. It was yellow-orange-red in colour and had a very small blue-white tail, and lit up the early morning dark sky in an intense blue white light flash that silhouetted the countryside, as it too headed immediately west of Laverton directly for Banjawarn station. As they were sitting next to loud diesel engines of their own we do not know if this third Banjawarn fireball made any pulsed roaring noise. This third fireball held a course that, would pass over Banjawarn.

    As H. Mason have informed the author, the 95% of eyewitnesses of luminous phenomena and seismic effects gave the epicenter at 121 deg 10 min East, 27 deg 05 min South. The distance from the Celia Lineament is 10-15 km on harmonic parallel linear. The rest 5% of eyewitnesses (just seismic effects) and the seismic monitoring network gave the epicenter a several dozens km to the south, right on the Celia Lineament, where it crosses with another fault. It is interesting to note, that the Laverton town water supply pumping station is quite close to the latter epicenter and there was a drought at that time, while several following years there was enormous flooding. In 1994 there were a few reports from the region of the "luminous epicenter" about strange 'explosive' sounds accompanied with minor seismic effects (in the author opinion - brontides, probably). Moreover, two other large orange-red hemisphere static light form structures have also been observed at night northwest of Banjawarn (in 1988 and in October 1992).

    H. Mason takes into account 5 possible origin of the event. He admits that is it unknown natural event, but, rejects 'earthquake lights', because, as he writes "of their usually very low energy output". But as he discovered strong correlation of this and other similar events in Australia (see below) with geology (tectonic faults) and earthquakes, he is supposing that the most probable it was the experiment with electromagnetic weapon for inducing earthquakes conducted by Russians or Americans!
    P.S. In August 2000 H. Mason e-mailed me asking to underline, that he has in mind several possible origins of similar events, including natural ones.

    The event was 'loud' enough to be mentioned in the world's mass-media:

    As the author found in the "Bull. of the Intern. Seismol. Centre", the focus depth of the earthquake was 1 km (according to H. Mason, the quake is calculated as negative in depth i.e. up in the air) and magnitude M=3.6, according to the Australian seismostations. By the way one seismostation recorded compressional first wave motion, while another recorded the dilatational one.

    The author also would like to attract attention at the following interesting aspect of the event. A surface explosion of about 500-1000 t TNT produces an earthquake of magnitude 3.6 (and a crater about 200 m in diameter). As no crater were found, it could be proposed that the explosion was aerial (if to ignore the given focal depth of 1 km), but it increases TNT equivalent at several orders of magnitude. But there were no reports or any signs of strongest air-shock waves produced by such powerful explosion (see also below).

    The author have many arguments that the event was not such a weapon experiment and, of course, not a 'meteorite', but already known to us geometeor, in some way a "powerful" kind of 'earthquake lights'.

    And some later info from ( ) saying that the Urban Geoscience Division of the Australian Geological Survey Organisation determined that: "Since 1993, two earthquakes occurred in an area of 50 km around the epicentre of the 28 May 1993 event. The seismic records of these earthquakes were compared with the seismic records of the 1993 event, and showed similar characteristics consistent with typical seismic activity for Western Australia.", and that the event was most likely an earthquake...
    Also very important aspect from the link above:
    So the Chelyabinsk2013-like meteoroid airburst can be ruled out due to absence of associated seismic waves. Meteorite impact resulting in football-field-sized crater can be ruled out due to absence of the crater. Also perusing witness's accounts points that they are hardly consistent with the spaceimpact interpretation...

  • THE JANUARY 14, 1993 JERZMANOWICE (POLAND) EVENT. The information on this event was sent the author by Dr Ceplecha Z. from Astronomical Institute Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. A lot of materials on this event also could be found in the Polish "Przeglad Geofizycny", Vol. XL, (1995), No. 4, pp. 335-407 (Komitet Geofizyki Polskej Akademii Nauk).
  • A bolide was seen (and a sky was very bright) followed by a huge electric discharge and also some seismographic records. The event happened in Poland near Cracow (Babia Skala, Jerzmanowice) on January 14, 1993. A good part of the "Babia Skala" limestone crag was thrown to distances of over 200 m, and the largest piece was of more than 100 kg (80 m apart from the stroke). Sinuous or zigzagging furrows radiating away and bifurcating were carved in the grass-cover soil surface within 50 m from the detachment point on the crag. Electric wiring in the village was melted.

    This event was connected with three discharges, which were practically straight-line discharges. The first one was the largest (at 17h 58min 53.9s UT, timing from the seismic records), and proved to be about 17 degrees (+- 10 degrees) inclined to horizon, very shallow. It started at a height of 2.05 km (+-065 km), longitude 19,693 +-0.014 deg, latitude 50.183 +-0.004 deg, and terminated exactly at longitude 19.756 deg, latitude 50.207, height 0.48 km. It was 5.5 +-1.2 km long. The second discharge happened at 18h 00min 16.4s UT and the third one at 18h 01min 43.3s UT.

    The author can add that the site of the event is the site where weak small-focus-depth earthquakes happen from time-to-time and a cold front (which was passing the area) is also favourable for 'earthquake lights' activity.

  • THE JANUARY 18, 1994 CANDO (SPAIN) EVENT. The information on this event also was sent the author by Dr Ceplecha Z.. More detailed information is published in the "Meteoritics and Planetaty Science" (v.33, p.57 (1998)) article by Docobo J.A., Spalding R.E., Ceplecha Z. et al. (you can read the scanned article here).
  • In the clear dawn of January 18, 1994 a bit before 7h 15min UT many people in Santiago de Compostela witnessed a very bright luminous object crossing the sky in a descending trajectory (according to some reports, at a certain point of the trajectory the descent changed to a sharp fall). It was described as a fireball with a small red-orange tail with apparent angular size. A surface crater in Cando (8.864 deg. W, 42.843 deg. N) with dimensions 29 m by 13 m and 1.5 deep was later discovered near the projected "impact" point of the luminous object. At this side, in addition to the topsoil, full-grown pine trees more than 20 meters high were thrown downhill over 90 m away. No meteorites were discovered.

    Meteorological conditions were favourable for geometeors. Cloudiness level increased several hours after the event. You can see this in smoothed and averaged cloudiness's data for the following time intervals: January 18 0-6 UT, 6-12 UT, 18-24 UT, and Jan.19 0-6 UT.

    The author can add that the site of the event is the site where weak small focus depth earthquakes happen from time-to-time.

  • THE NOVEMBER 22, 1996 HONDURAN EVENT. The information on this event was obtained by the author from contacts with its researchers. A description of the event by astronomer J. Borovicka could be found at:
  • In the clear evening of Nov.22, 1996 at the large area of the Western Honduras there were a lot of luminous phenomena, accompanied by sounds and ground trembling. Immediately after the event the Moon became dark and the night became foggy/cloudy. Some people reported smelling sulfur. Also at some places coffee plants faded away, the water became bad, many people became ill, some fissures were discovered on the ground, several landslides took place at about these times.

    Here are some examples of the luminous phenomena: very bright fireball followed by loud concussions 2-3 seconds later; the sky split and fire came down; bright diffuse light; string of pearls; a group of stars crossing the sky; a rotating object with curved trajectory; an object moving in zigzag; a red clearness.

    A remarkable phenomenon took place in El Progresso town about 8 hours before the event. A small stone fell on the ground. The stone was retrieved from the yard while still warm. It was spinning and de-gassing (with strong smell of sulfur) after digging itself into a small crater. The stone was red-hot, about 4 cm in diameter, and turn black on cooling. After a few days the fragment had disintegrated into gray ash. Approximately 2 minutes before the fall a bright fireball was seen high in the sky. The author would like to attract attention to this phenomenon, because it resembles (in smaller scale) some Evenks accounts of stone falling at the Tunguska times. They resemble the famous (and still unexplained) 1855 Igast episode ( see "Nature" v.209, p.67 (1966)) and some others.

    Several international expeditions searched for the meteorites, but no meteorites were discovered.

    Besides a connection with the weather change, the author would like to attract attention also to a remarkable coincidence of the event with solar activity. While the solar activity was very low at that period in average, there was a short-term upsurge of it right at the time of the event.

  • THE JUNE 1997 HUDSON BAY EVENT. The information on this event was obtained by the author from the Canadian magazine " The Nation" and from contacts with its researcher Alex Roslin.
  • It took place at about 55.4 N, 77.5 N on June 27. The sky turned black, thunders and lightnings struck. Through the clouds came the fireball. It disappeared behind the horizon, then the fireball struck with a loud bang and flash. The hunters were the closest witnesses to the impact of the fireball. When they returned home, a new bay had been carved out of the shoreline. The whole area affected had about a quarter-mile radius. Geologists proposed that it was just a landslide of the shore. But it didn't conform with the debris found 3 miles out on an ice floe, and a bus-sized crater discovered in the water. Moreover, soon reports appeared about fireballs at other dates. For example, a fireball was seen speeding towards the site in the evening June 22. There were also reports of 2 separate tremors at the time. A seismic station 210 km away recorded a disturbance in the evening of June 22. Geologists were stumped by the cause of the tremors, but said weather is probably responsible. In total, fireballs were seen on 4 different days: June 22, 24, 27 and July 4. Some local residents said that similar event took place in years gone by. As usually after large initial interest (a large meteorite fall!), it is now almost forgotten, as many other events, which don't conform popular explanations (a meteorite fall, a landslide, etc).

    For more info, below is a part of an e-mail, which Alex Roslin sent me: And here is a couple of the "epicenter area" photoes, which A. Roslin has sent me (photo 1, and photo 2).

    Geophysical situation was favorable for ball-lightning-like geometeors - "thunders and lightnings"!
    Also compare GOES-8 infrared picture of the area taken 12:15 UT, June 27, and 00:15 UT, June 28 i.e. right after the event. A tremendous development of cloud's cover in the area is clearly seen.

    For interest, also I have checked meteorological data for another fireball falling towards the place on June 22 (7-8 pm local time). There was some increase of cloudiness too! (compare satellite pictures for June 23 0.15 UT, and 12.15 UT).
    So the empirical theory works rather good!

  • THE AUGUST 3, 1963 "ALMOST TUNGUSKA" near South Africa.
    Despite that it is too little known about this event for any solid conclusion, I think that it is worth to mention.

  • In 1990s US declassified info about infrasound detections of bright bolides [D. Revelle: "Historical detection of Atmospheric Impacts by Large Bolides Using Acoustic-Gravity Waves" in ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, v.822]. The most powerful event was detected on August 3, 1963 with time origin 16.45 Z in 51 S, 24 E, i.e. to the south of Africa. Its energy was estimated as more than 1 Mt! Interestingly, D. Revelle writes [1996] that one puzzling feature is that Lamb waves were not detected at any of the four sensors at either of the two widely separated array detection locations, which is quite surprising for such a large energy source.
    Of course, I wonder, couldn't it be a geophysical event, and decided to check the cloudiness data. The result is very intriguing. The event was associated with very strong cloudiness increase. Compare smoothed and the averaged total cloudiness data for a period 6-12 Z, August 3, and the same for 12-18 Z, and for 18-24 Z.

    Just an accidental coincidence? Maybe...

  • THE JULY 15, 2003 Elma (WA,USA) EVENT. Probably it is one of the most important and intriguing events, as it deposited some substance.
  • To understand where the event was, just look at the Elma in these maps below.

    Or more detailed here.

    And now about what happened. Here is THE DAILY WORLD article (WA, USA) ( ) on the item:

    Below is an initial report of the KOMO TV, Seattle, WA, USA, with associated picture ( ): Soon afterwords the story was updated: And what was written by THE DAILY WORLD a couple days after the event ( ): More info on the development appeared in forums. Here is from :

    -------START OF CITATION-------

    -------END OF CITATION-------

    And here is follow-up almost one year later from : Below I sum up all the info I have. It looks like a few minutes after 7 a.m. GMT July 15, 2003 a fireball was seen in the region of Washington State, travelling from the south to the north. Probably over Elma, a fragment separated from the fireball, and hit the ground producing what looks like the dust cloud. In the direction of the dust cloud some (apparently fallen from the sky) hot remnants were discovered of terresrial origin right after the event.
    Several possible interpretations can be put forward. Here we consider 3 possible explanations:

    1) The fireball was extraterrestrial/meteoroidal origin, which flew away, and the remnants discovered have nothing to do with the fireball (they were accidental artefacts of some industrial/human activity, etc.).
    This interpretation has several large problems:
    a) What kind of the alleged acitivity could produce the numerous hot rocks spread in the area?
    b) As the small rocks were so hot that they even burnt skin, so the alleged activity must seized immediatedly before the event, which occured after local midnight.
    c)As I know, some rocks hit a set of aluminum bleachers and made small dents. Other rocks hit the asphalt walkway and melted. And one even was embedded into a telephone pole.
    I can not imagine any possible industrial/human activity, which could explain this - and what about you?

    2)It was a hoax. It is "the last chance" explanation, which is often being put forward, when there are problems with other explanations. In the Elma event, taking into account the above-mentioned, I can not imagine, how great number of people must be involved. I consider this very unlikely. Anyway, if anybody has any real evidences of the "plot", he must state them, otherwise, the "hoax-explanation" is not worth to consider.

    3) It was a geometeor. Or in other words - a large ball-lightning like object (which I prefer to call a "geophysical meteor" or "geometeor"). Also if the discovered "remnants" weren't of local origin, so it is possible that they were carried by the geometeor. In the latter case we could call it as "geometeorite" (see also below).
    Just a few remarks supporting the idea:
    - The largest confirmed case (a photo) of a ball-lightning was about 100 meters in diameter.
    - During the January 18, 1994 Spanish geophysical bolide (see above), which was surely non-meteoroidal, its altitude was as high as at least 25 km, and its speed was several km/s.
    - Ball-lightnings are known sometimes to divide into several parts.
    - Currently the origin of the deposited "remnants" is not known. They could be of local origin or from somewhere outside. Anyway, a possibility of a ball-lightning depositing some substance was confirmed in field search by outstanding French astronomer Camille Flammarion (after whom a Moon crater was named). And here is a link to an article where a ball-lightning deposited red-hot metallic (small) balls:

    Here we are a little beyond our modern science frontiers. Just a few cases of such events are documented in published scientific literature (but many more in this www-page), so a scientist must has some brevity to talk about this, as a conservative part of scientific society doesn't like "these ball-lightnings and other anomalies"...

    So, let's check the possibility of a geometeor/geometeorite. An empirical rule shows that geometeors have a tendency to occur in relation with instabilities in atmosphere, including cloudiness formation/dissipation (and in boundary regions of a cloud's field). Let's check how it went in the Elma event. The associated meteorological info is here, and you can check yourself that the event occurred when a "wet" air-stream was passing over the region, accompanied with variations of cloudiness. Also at the time of the event a dense cloud cover to the south from the event's area was swiftly fading away, and has disappeared almost completely in a couple of hours.
    So the meteorological situation was favourable for appearence of a geometeor, and the geometeor/geometeorite interpretation looks rather plausible.
    Also it is possible to add that there is an increased level of tectonic activity in the region, where weak earthquakes occur from time to time.

    Let's now try to answer on a question - what is the origin of the "meteorite" remnants (rocks) discovered? First possibility could be that a fragment (or fragments) of the fireball, which separated from the main fireball hit the ground in Elma and 'sprayed' some local substance.
    Another possibility is that is was a geometeorite, so the substance was transported by the fireball. If the fireball was indeed flying from rather far away, and as it was reported flying from the south to the north. So in this case, the substance could be taken somewhere to the south from Elma (and the cloudiness activity was larger in the bound). There is a volcanic province in this bound.
    Results of the chemicalt analysis could help to choose between these possibilities. And of course, something else cannot be excluded, as we are 'beyond our science frontiers'.

    So, it looks like currently (with the info on the event I was able to obtain till now) the geometeorite explanation is the best one (at least, others are worse...).

    LATER ADDITION: some pictures of the 'Elma remnants' are here:

    Let me underline that other examples of 'meteorites' are known with 'glossy' crust and even with with calcareus shells inside! See this 1947 publication:

    To finish the examination of geometeors events, the author would like to mention that anomalous sounds, described as gun shots etc. and sometimes accompanied by small tremors are well-known from many places of the world (including the West Australia, where they were heard, for example, on June 26, 1908 [33]). They are usually called "Barisal guns" or "brontides" [34] and, as a rule, are reported to be heard at the places of increased tectonic activity (which often doesn't manifest itself through strong earthquakes). Sometimes strong whirlwinds and other forms of wind actions appear with these sounds. Some authors incline to think that the sounds precede a bad weather. There is a report that the site where these sounds used to come from resembled a site which was struck many times by lightnings. The author thinks that brontides are caused by geometeors (recently he was surprised to discover that as long ago as in 1896 the proposal was published that Barisal guns and other natural booming sounds are likely due to ball lightning explosions!).

    Till the end of the 18-th century the general scientific opinion was that all fireballs are terrestrial origin. Soon after the pendulum swung in the opposite direction. In the author opinion, the truth is, as usually, in-between.

    You can read about more new events in Tunguska-related news and in geophysical meteor article.

    Let's return to the 1908 Tunguska.


    Now the author try to demonstrate that the increase of tectonic activity is expected at the site and the time of the Tunguska.

    At first, Tunguska occurred the place of the most powerful volcanic activity in the Earth history 250 millions years ago. The Tunguska explosion epicenter is right in the middle of the ancient volcanic crater, which after its discovery in 1972 got the name "Kulikovskii". This volcano is a part of Khushminskii tectono-volcanic complex [35].
    You can see this with your eyes below. Here is a satellite photo (as I understand, probably in near-infrared band) of Tunguska epicenter (from In there a "star" marks the epicenter. Pay attention to bean-like Lake Cheko (the largest dimension is 700 m) about 8 km to the NNW of the epicenter.

    click here or on the picture to enlarge

    The prominent Beryozovsko-Vanavarskii tectonic fault is passing through this structure. At about 70 km to the east of the epicenter there is the centre of the Vanavara circle structure, where several prominent tectonic faults intersect. Unique Tungusskaya and Lepchinskaya paleovolcanic superstructures are near [35]. This region was a "hotspot" [36]. The upper mantle in the Tunguska event region has anomalous speeds of seismic waves [37].

    There are many prominent tectonic faults, circular structures and other geological formations in the region (see FIGURE1). Many of these tectonic faults are no older than of the Neogene age [38]. Several prominent tectonic faults are intersecting near the Tunguska explosion epicenter.

    Figure 1: click here or on the picture for details

    The area near the Tunguska epicenter looks also interesting. Here is a fragment of the 'Kosmogeologicheskaya karta Rossii' issued by the A.P. Karpinsky Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI) in 2014.

    a fragment of the 2014 VSEGEI map

    On the fragment a series of complicated circular structures around the Tunguska epicenter is seen. Also pay attention to the ginger-colored line passing through it. On the map it marks the most prominent faults.

    Here is what geologists say (from Proceedings of the International conference "90-th years of the Tunguska problem" held in Krasnoyarsk in 1998 - a report by N.Sapronov, V.Val'chak and D.Anfinogenov - translated from Russian):

    The southern border of the Tunguska event manifestation is the Lake Baikal rift. This rift is a place of high tectonic and seismic activity.

    At least, during last century and at the beginning of 20-th, there were many reports about seismic activity in the middle of the Tunguska event region (about the latitude of Kirensk town) [39]. The author also found a couple reports about earthquakes from the northern part of the Tunguska event region in the middle of 19-th century [5].

    There are signs of increased tectonic activity during the time of the Tunguska.

    The distribution of the reports on seismic events inside the year 1908 is also remarkable. On FIGURE2 there are the reports on earthquakes in the Lake Baikal region from the spring to the fall of 1908 [39].

    Figure 2: click here or on the picture for details

    It is seen that the seismic events are concentrated near the Tunguska date, June 30. It is also notable to mention the July 1908 message by the Tomsk's student Bryukhanov A. to the director of the Irkutsk magnetic-meteorological observatory, in which Bryukhanov wrote about unusual event near Ust'-Kut settlement (513 km, 152) - the appearance in the 1908 summer of a hot spring with various chemical elements presented. It didn't exist before.

    So there are evidences of the activation of tectonic processes at the place and at the time of the Tunguska.

    Moreover the author's analysis reveals activation of tectonic processes at the Tunguska times not only in the Lake Baikal rift and the southern part of the Siberian platform but also on more large (global?) scale. The evidences are following (again - any of them taken alone maybe not crucial, but taken all together...).

  • There was an increase of the number of reported earthquakes all over the world on June 30 and July 1 (1908) - see the picture nearby which shows daily number of the reported earthquakes plus-minus a week around the Tunguska date (i.e. from June 23 to July 7). The original data is taken from [45].

  • Years close to 1908 was time when the Earth rotation was the most slowest. You can see this on a picture below taken from
    Longterm variation in length of day from 1623 to 2000 (reference value is 86400s TAI)

  • The author searched through the data on the position of the Earth axis of rotation, given in [40], together with the 'momentary' polhode radius of the Earth axis trajectory on the Earth surface (i.e. in plain language, the trajectory of the North Pole). The data in [40] is given with the interval (step) of 0.05 year. It was revealed that between 1908.35 (i.e. May 8) and 1908.40 (i.e. May 26) the strong increase of the polhode radius took place. Then, between 1908.40 and 1908.45 (i.e. June 14) it stabilized. And finally from 1908.45 to 1908.50 (i.e. July 2) the strongest decrease of the polhode radius occurred. The rate (per time) of relative change of the polhode radius for this period between June 14 and July 2 1908 was the largest not only in 1908 but also for the whole period of 1907-1910!
    You can see it yourself on the graphic of polhode's radius in 1908, taken from [40]. Date of the Tunguska event is marked by a vertical line.

  • Interestingly, the volcanic activity probably gravitated to some of the above-mentioned dates of polhode's disturbances. At the first half of May 1908 the most strong since 1894 activity of the Kilauea volcano began [41]. On May 10, 1908 on the Savaii island from Samoan group the most powerful for the whole island's history volcanic eruption commenced [42]. Since April 1908 the fumarolic activity of the Erebus volcano, which slept since 1900, was increased with significant upsurge on June 17 [43]. Also on April 29 a remarkable eruption of the Etna volcano, which slept for 15 previous years occurred [44].
  • Moreover, while from the spring to the autumn of 1908 there was an unusual absence of large earthquakes and a decrease of the number of earthquake reports (so the seismic energy release that year was one of the lowest for 20-th century), but on June 30 and July 1 the number of registered earthquakes was increased.

    So there are evidences of the large scale (global?) disturbances in the Earth interior in 1908 which culminated at about the Tunguska time.

    There are also some other evidences of the extreme geophysical situation at the time of the Tunguska. On June 29 the 'Alps Glow' phenomenon was registered in Austria [46]. Remarkably, it was the only registration of this phenomenon for the whole 1908 summer [46]! Interestingly, that the exceptional sky glow (aurora?) was observed by the Sir Douglas Mawson expedition in the Antarctic just 7 hours before Tunguska [47]. In the expedition papers this glow was described as "The most extensive glow aurora seen on trip" [47]. Curiously, the global geomagnetic activity on these days was rather low [46], so the geomagnetic conditions were against the auroral activity. The only geomagnetic disturbances known to the author were unusual character and were registered in Kiel, Germany [48]. The disturbances occurred every evening June 27-30 for about 7 hours and had the period of 3 minutes. They were not ascribable to any recognized cause [48].

    There was a report on disturbances of telegraph lines near Prague at about June 30 [49].

    A very powerful (gas?) explosion occurred on July 1 at Makar'evskii mine (not far from the town of Taganrog, Russia) with catastrophic results and on this day the Geophysical observatory near S-Petersburg rcgistered strong air-pressure disturbances.

    It is important to note that on June 30 the appearance of a rather large solar protuberance was discovered [46]. I also suspect powerful solar proton event in the late of June, 1908.

    There were also some peculiarities in global atmospheric circulation at about the Tunguska date. In June 1908 a high barometric maximum was lying in the north (the Arctic region), and the winds were blowing from the north [49,50]. Cyclones over the Siberia in June were much deeper than usual, it led to significant increase of air pressure gradients [51] (it could also lead to activation of tectonic processes). Another peculiarity was a unusual warm (hot) weather over the Europe and, especially, Siberia in the second half of June. Together with the small number of thunderstorms it led to drought in some regions.

    At the beginning of July the situation sharply changed. There was a strong increase in thunderstorm activity. Powerful thunderstorms took place [51,52]. For, example in the Perm' province, Russia in July a quantity of precipitation was a record for the whole 70 previous years of measurements. The northern (Arctic) area of high pressure sharply decreased in dimensions [51].

    Remarkably, that an Greenland ice layer corresponding to the spring-summer of 1908 contains extremely large quantity of terrestrial dust (probably soot, in general)!

    The author also would like to emphasize that notes of the Tunguska region meteorological stations reveal that it was a change from good weather to a bad weather right on June 30, 1908 (especially on the morning). Recently the author discovered that in late 1920-s while discussing the Tunguska in Soviet Academy of Science outstanding Soviet meteorologist Prof. Mul'tanovskii B. attracted attention on a possibility of cyclonic air mass movement activation at the place and the date of the Tunguska!

    The recent research by the author reveals that Tunguska took place during strong meteorological anomaly on the regional level, in particular it exactly coincides with a powerful peak of the atmospheric pressure upsurge.
    Here are some details below.

    Recently I have ended a research of a cloudness level in association with Tunguska. A reason was an empirical fact that the geometeors have a tendency to occur on the eve of cloudiness upsurge (also it is known that sometimes before an earthquake a cloudiness is decreased in an epicentral area ). For geometeors you can see a graph of cloudiness (for details see my geophysical meteors www-article).

    So I have found data of 9 meteorological stations situated no far than 1000 km from the Tunguska epicenter (the closest was 500 km away). I have averaged the data between the stations for better statistics. And indeed, Tunguska was in 'lacuna' in cloudiness, and the averaged daily cloudness level shows strong increase of cloudiness after Tunguska! You can see it on the graphic below.

    And one more meteorological peculiarity of the Tunguska. It is thought by seismologists that atmospheric pressure variations can trigger earthquakes.
    And geometeors have some tendency to occur during atmospheric pressure variations (especially during its peaks) - see this picture (for details see my geophysical meteors www-article)
    So I used the data of 9 meteorological stations situated no far than 1000 km from the Tunguska epicenter (the closest is 500 km away). I have averaged the data between the stations for better statistics. And indeed, the time of the Tunguska was right at the time of a maximum of atmospheric pressure strong upsurge. In the best way it is seen from the data of the Irkutsk station, which had a sampling rate every 3 hours. And the maximum of the air-pressure upsurge was between 6 and 9 a.m. local time (UT + 6h.57min.), while the Tunguska explosion was a little bit later 7 a.m.!
    You can see it on the graphic below, where the time of Tunguska is marked with a vertical line.

    In other words, cloudiness and airpressure in Tunguska region behaved in accordance with the geometeors empirical theory predictions!

    Unfortunately, a little known on meteorological data right in the Tunguska epicenter. While in the closest to the epicenter places witnesses (Evenks) said about a clear weather at the time of the Tunguska event, in some others (typically a little bit far away), they said that weather was not so good. Here are several interesting accounts below. Also, please, pay attention to remarkable "red color" and that sequences of the phenomena don't conform with a meteorite explosion).
    - Nastya Genkoul'(river Khushma (somewhere ~32km, ~125)). There was a good weather, then suddenly it rained, strong wind commenced. Trees were uprooted.
    - Aksenova O. (upper reaches of the Mutorai river (54 km, 244)). There was a good weather on the early morning. Then wind commenced. It became dark, as before a rain. The ground got red color, and a strong thunder struck. She did not see anything on the sky.
    - Andreeva E. Ya. (upper reaches of the Severnaya Chunya river (137km, 84)). There was a windstorm in the morning, then there was a strong thunder, and the ground shook. After the thunder, the sky got red color towards Vanavara.
    - Dmitrieva M.V. (a little bit to the north of the mouth of Kimchu river (96 km, 305)). On the early morning the weather not not rainy, but gloomy. The sky was covered with high clouds. No wind. Then there were "explosions", a strong wind, and an earthquake at once. Also after the explosions, the sky got red color, and then the red color gradually moved to the west.

    The closest to the Tunguska epicenter Kezhma meteorological station (214 km, 193) registered at 9 pm local time on June 29 cloudiness 3. At 7 am local time June 30 (i.e. at about the time of the Tunguska) cloudiness was 4, and at 1 pm local time June 30 (i.e just less than 6 hours after Tunguska) - cloudiness was 10, i.e. maximum! Also at 2 pm local time a thunderstorm with hail occured between Kirensk (491 km, 131) and Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km, 133) settlement (but closer to Kirensk).

    Conducted by Dyomin, Dmitriev, and Zhuravlev [1984] statistical analysis of witness's accounts revealed that Tunguska event was accompanied with various meteorological phenomena, including strong wind (windstorms), haze, fog, temperature changes, thunderstorms, whirlwinds.

    In other words Tunguska indeed took place during a strong meteorological anomaly, as the tectonic Tunguska interpretation predicts!

    It is interesting, how supporters of meteorite/comet fall explain the facts. As just accidental coincidences? But aren't too many the "accidental coincidences"?

    As a conclusion, it could be stated that at about the date of the Tunguska there was the large-scale (global?) as well as local (Tunguskan) disturbance of geophysical situation, including activation of the tectonic processes.


    The simplified form of proposed scenario of the 1908 Tunguska event is following.

    The large-scale (global?) geophysical disturbances of late June 1908 (see section 3.4) manifested as the activation of the tectonic processes in the southern part of the Siberian platform and in the Lake Baikal rift. On June 30, at the time of large-scale weather worsening, the activation coupled with meteorological activity revealed itself in the most bright form - the Tunguska event.

    The first phase of the Tunguska began with the appearances in the atmosphere over the southern part of the Siberian platform (and possibly in adjacent regions) of luminous phenomena. Some of them were bolide-like and being mistaken for a bright bolide (meteorite fall). In general, they appeared above tectonic faults, circular structures, etc.. At about the same time, a swarm of (apparently shallow) earthquakes commenced, accompanied by brontides.
    At the vent of the Kulikovskii paleovolcano, the coupling between tectonic and atmospheric processes manifested in a spectacular explosion-like form. In general the seismic and other phenomena probably lasted for several hours from place to place.

    Unfortunately physical mechanisms of many of the above-mentioned processes are still unknown. But there are numerous hints that probably terrestrial electricity (electromagnetic procceses) play a large role. Anyway their manifestations on much smaller scales are known.

    Below, the author tries to demonstrate, how the tectonic interpretation can explain the phenomena, which the meteorite one fails to explain.


    The luminous phenomena of the Tunguska are in the stream of the "geophysical meteors " and 'earthquakes lights' (see sections 3.1, 3.3). Many examples were presented already here and near-by, but here are even some more:

    From China in the mid of 1970s:

    From Japan in 1995 (just one example out of many): So now just let explain the existence of the "three trajectories of the Tunguska meteorite fall". If we look at the tectonic map of the region (see FIGURE1) we could see that all three trajectories are above the main tectonic faults of the region. The eastern trajectory superimposes on the Beryozovsko-Vanavarskii fault, the south-eastern projects on the Norilsk-Markovskii fault, and the southern trajectory is over the Angaro-Khetskii fault and partly Angaro-Viluiskii fault. They intersect inside the Vanavara circle structure.

    Interestingly, at first, it was thought that the meteorite fell at this intersection site, because local Evenks told about a forest fall, fire and a disintegration of a hill (cliff) in this region. Also there were reports about an appearance of unusual pits in the ground at this region. But, unfortunately, the first research in the area was conducted just in 1960-s and didn't produce definite conclusion.

    By the way regarding the Beryozovsko-Vanavarskii fault - there is an interesting phrase in [76] about the fault (translated from Russian by me):

    The other places whence reports came about some manifestation of the Tunguska also happen to lie near major geologic features, like the Chadobedsko-Irkineevskii fault and the Chadobedskaya circle structure in the southwestern sector, for example.

    The low heights of luminous phenomena explain why there where different accounts from the same settlement, and why practically nobody saw the enormous 'Tunguska bolide' close to the epicenter, as at Vanavara, for example.


    According to the geophysical interpretation, there could be the following causes of the forest fall (probably they combined):

    Early the author already mentioned unexpected strong wind accompanied the 1886 Chembar event and whirlwinds, accompanying the Barisal guns events.

    Here is another interesting event:

  • 1971 and 1972, Grozny town, USSR. On the evening September 13, 1971 the unusual "thunderstorm" occurred in Grozny. Silent "lightnings" flashed on the clear sky. They were like white or red flashes "running" over the sky. After about 10 minutes a windstorm began. Clouds appeared later and it rained. Soon the sky became clear again, but the windstorm continued, accompanied with "silent lightnings". The duration of the windstorm was about 50 minutes. After the wind ceased, "silent lightnings" were still active for some time. The wind was so strong that windows were broken and at some places roofs were blown away. Another intriguing fact is that the meteorological data didn't conform neither windstorm, neither thunderweather. Next evening the moderate earthquake (M=3.5) struck the town. The same "silent lightnings" occurred in the town on September 27, 1972, before the earthquake with M=3.3.
  • Of course, some of the occurrences maybe just coincidental, but in the others the probability of accidental coincidence seems to be very small. The analysis of 490 earthquakes [54] revealed that a few percent of them were accompanied with different forms of wind action.

    It is interesting to note that the Tunguska forest damage resembles a damage caused by so called a downburst (a strong downdraft of the atmospheric air). Moreover, the Tunguska meteorological conditions hint on their some possible resemblance with those favorable for 'dry downburst'. Maybe a downburst, or several of them triggered or even driven by the tectonic processes (for example, by heating the atmospheric lower layer, by an increase of the atmospheric electric field, by degassing etc.) played a large role in the formation of the Tunguska forest-fall?

    According to Zotkin, Nikolaev, and Peskov [2000] experiments with 26 trees in the epicenter of Tunguska event have estimated an average wind speed to uproot a tree in the epicenter's area as low as of 26 m/s (the rather low value is probably due to a shallowness of trees roots in the area). For comparasion, a wind speed in a meteorological downburst can easy attain much larger values. It is also remarkable, that the Chuvar forest-fall resembles the one produced by a powerful inclined downdraft - so called "burst swath".

    And one more interesting detail. Sometimes lightning strikes could be accompanied by blasts of hot air [55]!


    According to the geophysical interpretation there could be 2 general sources of the trees burn: the light (including infrared and ultraviolet) radiation from the explosive source(s) and electric currents associated with them. The burn by the electric currents could explain the 'lightning-like' tree damage, the burn at the site of the branch break (see section 2.3) and the spot-like character of this burn. Of course in some places burning of endogenic gas outbursts can make an input too. Please, also pay attention that the electric discharges could be responsible for the thermoluminescence anomaly in the epicenter.

    Anyway, cases of burn in connections with earthquakes are known. For example, during the 1693 Sicilian earthquake, the small town of Millitello was suddenly plunged into an unusual mist, and a loud explosion was heard. After the disaster, the ruins of the town and its environs showed traces of burn, while the vines in the surrounding countryside looked scorched. More recently, in 1988, bushes were burnt in places in the area of a tectonic fracture on the site of the earthquake in Spitak, Armenia. See also sections 3.1, 3.3.


    If we look at the map of the tectonic faults at the region, we could see, that the reports on seismic phenomena came from the areas close to tectonic faults and circular structures. Especially strong the seismic phenomena were along the Angaro-Khetskii fault and the southern part of the Angaro-Viluiskii fault. The Angaro-Khetskii fault is also a part of the Trans-Aziatskii lineament, which crosses the whole Siberian platform. The increased number of sky glows (auroras?) was detected over it.

    So, besides the main seismic source at the Tunguska epicenter, there were probably a lot of weaker sources in those areas. Probably, the sources were of the small focal depths.


    In [16] it was recognized that the composition of the discovered microparticles resembles the traces of increased tectonic activity or volcanic activity. But authors of [16] were not aware of the increase of the tectonic activity at the Tunguska site and time (see section 3.4).

    The author also states that discovered chemical anomalies are very similar with accompanying tectonic and volcanic activity. The author compared them with microparticles from the Kamchatka volcanoes and found that their morphology and even dimensions are also similar.

    Iridium is also revealed in the volcanic emanations, especially from the "hot-spot" regions [56].

    Discovered isotopic anomalies at the Tunguska epicenter also conform the tectonic activity.

    And here is more:

    (Proceedings of the International Conference
    “Asteroid-Comet Hazard-2009” Saint Petersburg
    “Nauka” 2010)
    Georadar and Hydrogen Studies
    of the Tunguska Meteorite Craters
    V. A. Alekseev 1  , V. V. Kopeikin 2 , N. G. Alekseeva 1 , L. Pelekhan  3
     ...During the expedition, hydrogen flows were measured on
    the routes to the Farington and Stoikovich mountains and around the Suslov
    crater. In some areas, the hydrogen flows related to degassing of breakage
    structures of the paleovolcano are anomalously high. This fact also confirms
    a possible endogenous origin of the geochemical anomalies (elevated con-
    centration of microelements in the 1908 moss layers). Anomalous hydrogen
    flows suppress plant growth as identified in satellite photographs.

    Besides volcanic (tectonic) degassing/emanation, it is also important to mention that there are some evidences that some substance could be brought by the luminous objects, at least, sometimes.


    The author can refer to the work [57]. In there it was discovered the increased number of chromosome mutation in seismically active regions. It is also known that electricity (remember its probable role in Tunguska!) can accelerates a tree's growth.

    And the another interesting effect, possibly having relation to some anomalous manifestations of the Tunguska. At a half an hour before the 1988 Spitak earthquake (Armenia, USSR) the launched at Yerevan city ballooned cosmic rays counter began to register the increase of counts unusual character [58].

    It is interesting also to note, that at many trees from the Tunguska epicenter the lignification of the 1907 tree rings wasn't completed to the time of the Tunguska [59]. It looks strange from the meteorite point of view. But from the tectonic interpretation, it is well-known, that before earthquakes a plants are affected sometimes, with a tendency to a negative influence.

    3.12. THE SKY GLOW

    As we saw, the meteoritic interpretation doesn't explain the sky glow. So the only way out for the space-impact interpretation is to declare that the Tunguska and the sky glow are independent and their coincidence is pure accidental and the sky anomalies have no relations with Tunguska.
    Of course this can't be completely rule out, but a possibility that these unique phenomena just occidentally coincided looks not very plausible. Moreover in that case a question of the nature of the atmospheric anomalies would be opened...

    The geophysical interpretation admits that probably they are just different manifestations of the same geophysical processes. The author already mentioned some geophysical peculiarities of the mid-1908. But there are also some signs that they began earlier. The spring of 1908 was rather unusual. There were very strong floods on many Russian rivers. For example, Moskva-river (which had a record flood for the whole previous 100 years period), Oka-river, Volga-river. Large areas were flooded.

    Let's continue with the geophysical peculiarities of the first half of 1908. On May 23/24 it strong snowed in Switzerland. On June 5 and 6 it snowed in S-Petersburg and Petrozavodsk, Russia. Many unusual atmospheric phenomena were seen; a great number halos, strange rainbow etc. But, of course, the most remarkable were phenomena seen on the night (evening) sky. In the evening, March 27 an unusual sky illumination was seen in the north-eastern parts of USA and a thousand km from the shore [61]. It was described as never seen before and in many aspects resembled the sky glow of late June-early July 1908. The author also should mention that similar phenomenon was seen on the evening March 26 and the following several nights in the town of Yur'yev, Russia (now Tartu, Estonia). On this days a geomagnetic activity was enhanced, but as, already mentioned, the glows didn't look like usual aurora. On May 27 the first time since 1906 the "sky-colored clouds" were seen in UK [62]. The next days the sky was too cloudy.

    Here we come up to the atmospheric abnormalities of late June-early July 1908. In [46] they are explained as, i) the explosive development of noctilucent clouds; ii) the increased luminosity of the night sky glow. Let's think about their possible origins. Now it is usually thought that for development of noctilucent clouds 3 main conditions must exist: a low temperature at about 80-90 km height, a presence a sufficient quantity of water vapor and small nucleus of water vapor condensation. What could be the cause of the upsurge in any of them?

    At first, let us remark, that the late June-early July is the season maximum of a noctilucent clouds appearance. Moreover, as we already saw, this time was the time of the large-scale weather break, roughly speaking, from drought to thunderstorms. In other words, in the atmosphere the quantity of water vapor was significantly increased.

    The following factors could also "help" the noctilucent clouds formation. The first one is the increase of the solar activity in the late June. It is known that the increase of the solar activity leads to some decrease of the atmospheric transparency, probably due to build up of microparticles, i.e. condensation nucleus. And also solar flares, and especially solar proton events could lead to the cooling of the middle atmosphere [63]. The author also proposed that the increased tectonic activity could produce an upsurge in the Earth degassing and some of the gases through various chemical reactions could lead to elevated quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere. Anyway, the majority of the noctilucent clouds registrations from the "Salyut" spacestation was over the regions with high volcanic and seismic activity [64]. And finally, the Tunguska explosion itself could lead to a cooling of the upper atmosphere and an upsurge of the noctilucent clouds formation due to a generation of acoustical-gravity and other atmospheric waves [65].

    The sky glow of the late June-early July produced no appreciable absorption of a light: "though thin, they were strongly illuminative, and stars shone through them with surprising distinctness" [50]. The daily atmospheric absorption measurements in Paris [46] also revealed no extraordinary absorption on the days of the sky glow, but, as usually on the eve of a weather change, a polarization have changed [46], revealing the appearance of small nucleus in the atmosphere. The author discovered monthly averaged data on absorption in Irkutsk, and they also revealed no anomalies [66]. The detailed analysis of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory data on absorption in USA [12] also revealed that no increase of dust in the atmosphere is associated with the Tunguska, just increased water vapor quantity.

    So, despite we don't understand the physics of the processes well, the unusually large appearance of noctilucent clouds conforms with the geophysical situation of that period and the air-waves from the Tunguska explosion probably also made a contribution.

    Now let's consider the increased luminosity of the night sky glow. At first, the author would like to mention that the sky glow phenomenon occurred in connection with earthquakes (see also section 3.1). Here are just 2 examples. The earthquake happened September 12, 1841 near Russian town of Nizshnii Tagil. At 2. a.m. a thunder-like rumble was heard and the ground trembled. At 4 a.m. the sky was flooded with the pink light, which at 5 a.m. transformed to the yellow one. The whole day the sky was yellowish, and filled with a smoke. At the place located 40 km to the south-west from Nizshnii Tagil at first a fiery cloud appeared at 5 a.m. on the north-west and for a few hours spread all over the sky. No wind. The second example is the ill-fated Rumanian earthquake of March 4, 1977. From the western part of USSR the permanent pink sky glow was seen with flashes imposed on it. In Rumania the sky glow was in western direction from the earthquake epicenter [55].

    Another intriguing luminous phenomenon is probably related with submarine volcanoes activity 1000-2000 km away from it [67]. On 9 April 1984, crews of three separate commercial airlines observed a gigantic mushroom-like weakly luminous cloud. It reached an altitude of about 18 km and a diameter of 320 km for about 2 minutes. No other abnormalities were observed. After the detail research, the connection was proposed with the upsurge of the submarine volcanoes activity about 1000-2000 km from the cloud, but the physical mechanism is still a mystery.

    So the first cause for the large-scale sky glow could be the large-scale activation of tectonic processes. Of course, with the present day knowledge we can just propose it and can't prove. But the most important is that similar sky glows happen many times without any giant meteorite or comet. We begin with cases of just luminous spots in the night sky. When this phenomenon looks like bands on the sky, it is sometimes called "non-polar aurora". Some displays seem related to auroras, while others not. German researcher Hoffmeister C. studied this phenomenon for many years. He got their altitudes 90-180 km, with distinct maximum at 120-130 km. According to Hoffmeister's opinion, their spectrum is the enhanced usual night glow one, and they are closely related with noctilucent clouds. He discovered their correlation with disturbances of radiowaves ( wave lengths 350-530 m) propagation. He also conducted statistical analysis and revealed 12 yearly (i.e. 'inside' year) maximums, with one of them on June 18-30. Below are several examples of luminous spots taken from [55].

    Returning to the Tunguska, we see again the probable role of the acoustic gravity waves, excited by the Tunguska explosion, as well as lunar-solar tide (the angle between the Moon and the Sun was rather small on the Tunguska days).

    Now let's examine the cases of the whole sky glows, which often called "glowing night skies" [55].

  • 1783, June 18 and the following month, Europe. This year bright nights were caused by "luminous fog", associated with the eruption of the Laki volcano. This phenomenon appeared simultaneously June 18 in France and Italy. It was seen in the north of Africa, Sweden, North America and lasted for more than a month. It was at the tops of the Alps also. It ignored wind and rain. At some places it was so strong, that the sun could not be seen near horizon. It reeked nasty and was dry (moisture 57-68%). It looked self-luminous. In open sea it was practically unseen.
  • 1831, Europe and the west Siberia. This year bright nights also were caused by "luminous fog", resembling the 1783 "fog" and associated with the eruption of the Babuyan Claro volcano. On the African shore it was seen on August 3, in Odessa, Russia - August 9, France -August 10, in New York - August 15. The sun could be looked at by naked eyes. In the region from Berlin to Irkutsk it was possible to read at some summer nights. But the phenomenon was distributed in spot-like manner. At some places it was very weak and of short duration
  • 1857, January 26, Quito, Ecuador. The sky was bright enough to read print easily. The atmosphere itself seemed luminous.
  • 1861, June 30.
  • 1880, August. The sky unusually bright for the whole month.
  • About 1886, Florida. Everything was illuminated with a pale greenish light so intense that it was possibble to read by it. The atmosphere was hazy, and it was not possible to make out the stars, and the light seemed to be general and from no particular direction.
  • 1908, July 31, England. Sky bright, especially toward the north.
  • 1908, August 4, England. Bright night, clouds illuminated by a pink light.
  • 1910, September 29, Yerkes observatory, Wisconsin, USA. There was no trace of the aurora. The sky on which the luminous haze was seen, was at this time, brightened with a pale uniform illumination covering the entire heavens.
  • Late 1916 through 1919, England. Many reports of very bright nights during this extended period. 1916, December 23: bright night in England and France. It was possible to read heads of newsparer articles. The glow didn't affect telescopic observations of stars. Some observers said that the brightest part of the sky followed the path of the Sun below the horizon, and was almost exactly due North at midnight. Remarkably that an upsurge of solar activity occurred that time and on December 25 a formidable thunderstorm struck England. There was a new Moon (as during the Tunguska time).
  • 1917, December 14, England.
  • 1918, January 13, England.
  • 1918, September 30, England.
  • 1918, December 5, 7, 14, England.
  • 1919, November 25, England.
  • 1919, December 14, England.
  • 1929, November 8, Essex, England. The exceptional brightness was seen all over the visible hemisphere, no direction being obviously favored. Photometric measurements indicated the sky was four times its normal brightness. The auroral line was not conspicuous and no magnetic disturbances were recorded.
  • 1949, October 17 through the rest of the month. England.
  • 1958, May 20, Indian Ocean. Whole sky was bright, particularly toward the north.
  • 1959, November 30, Hawaii(?) [68]. The entire sky was bright with a pinkish cast and with cirrus-like structure. At dawn, the entire sky was completely clear. The red OI lines at 630 microns and 636.4 microns were enhanced, and the red end of a low dispersion spectrogram showed a strong enhancement (OH bands?). The green line and the blended sodium lines were of normal strength. A solar flare had occurred earlier.
  • So, these luminous phenomena are rare, but not unique events. The physical mechanism is not known, but the author probably can say, why we could expect their appearance at the late June-early July 1908.

    The first and probably the most important argument is so called "weather lights" [55]. Usually they are luminous whitish or reddish patches on the horizon, often mobile, and located at any azimuth. Their appearance followed by a sharp weather change, generally a storm [55]. As we are aware, the early July there was a large scale weather break to thunderstorms (also favorable for geometeors). A good example of a similar glow on mini-scale is the sky glow on December 23, 1916 (see above).

    It is interesting, that "earthquake lights" tend to occur during a passage of cold weather front!

    Another argument is the upsurge of the atmosphere glow sometimes seen by cosmonauts from spacestation by naked eyes [64]. The phenomenon consists of several parts. i) The appearance of the second luminous layer of the atmosphere at 250-350 km heights. ii) The increase of the luminosity of the well-known first luminous layer at about 90 km height. iii) The complete glow of the whole atmosphere. It is interesting that the areas with the second luminous layer coincide with the areas of increased proton and electron radiation intensity and increased ionospheric turbulence. Usually these phenomena tend to occur during geomagnetically calm period between geomagnetic disturbances and during solar flares (see also above on the glow of November 30, 1959). As we know, the late June-early July 1908 was a period of increased solar activity.

    Sometimes glow was seen even above the spacestation, and one time the visible reddening of bright stars was registered! Indeed, our planet still has a lot of puzzles!

    And finally the last, but very important factor.
    It is based on empirical result that noctilucent clouds used to be accompanied by atmospheric pressure upsurge. Now let us recall atmospheric airpressure variations at the time of Tunguska (see pos. 3.4).
    So in the Tunguska area noctilucent clouds could appear just in the morning and couldn't be seen anyway.
    But in many places to the west of the Tunguska area the upsurge took place in the evening. Also in some other places it happened in the evening of July 1. Please, pay attention, that there were several sites where it takes June 29 and even 28!
    Further investigation reveals the following. Besides this upsurge, there were also two more large upsurges: 5-7 days before the Tunguska and 5-7 after the Tunguska. And indeed, there are reports of a 'night sky' anomalies at those times!
    I incline to think that these upsurges are atmospheric Rossby waves generated by powerful cyclonogenesis at that time. But I am not a specialist in this field, so I hope that some specialists would be interested to investigate.

    So, the author think that the 1908 Tunguska event and the sky glow of late June-early July 1908 are just different manifestations of the same 'interesting' geophysical situation of that time.

    UPDATE OF AUGUST 28,2019: I just discovered a work (article) which in my opinion makes a large step forward in understanding the 'Tunguska bright nights'. Here is about the article:

    Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 44, Issue 13, pp. 7036-7043 (2017).
    WINDII airglow observations of wave superposition and the possible association with historical "bright nights" by Shepherd, G. G.; Cho, Y. -M.

    For centuries, going back to the Roman era, people have recorded experiences of brightened skies during the night, called "bright nights." Currently, scientists study airglow, an emission of light from the high atmosphere, 100 km above us. Satellite observations of a green airglow have shown that it consists of waves 1, 2, 3, and 4 around the earth. It happens that when the peaks of the different waves coincide there is an airglow brightening, and this article demonstrates that this event produces a bright night. The modern data are shown to be entirely consistent with the historical observations.


    As we saw, there are a lot of examples of small-scale Tunguskas. But do also powerful Tunguska-like events occur? In the author opinion the answer is positive. Let's look through the known history. Even some events described by ancient authors hint on their possible geometeor's origin. Of course, we can understand ancient writers descriptions very badly, so the author could talk just about "suspected" events. Here are just everal examples.

  • Circa 500 B.C. A "lightning" destroyed the town of Volsinii [69]. Pay attention that Volsinii is also a name of the volcano. But, of course, we can't completely exclude the possibility of some kind of volcanic eruption.
  • 1110 or 1111 A.D., Lake Van, Turkey. During the winter night, the sky suddenly opened (chasma event), and a large flame came down on Lake Van. It terribly roared and waves were thrown on shore. Water and ground trembled. Very deep fissures were formed. Famous French scientist Arago F. described this event as of 1110 A.D., and that fiery body fell into Lake Van. Its water became bloody-colored.
  • The circumstances of the event hint on geometeors. It is supported by that the prominent Suphan Dagi volcano is sleeping on Lake Van shore.

  • Circa 12-th century. the South island of New Zealand. Maori oral history tells of "the falling of the skies, raging winds, upheaval of the Earth, and mysterious devastating fires from space." Near Tapanui (which on Maori language means a big explosion place) there is so-called Landslip crater, a depression with dimensions 900 m by 600 m and the depth 130 m. In this area there are a lot of small silicate globules and extirpation of the moas about this time took place. There are also some reports about fallen trees, which are aligned radially away from this site to a distance of 40-80 km, and tend to point radially inward beyond [70]!
  • In [70] it was proposed, that it was caused by a large extraterrestrial projectile. According to geological research, this crater is a geological formation [70]. In the author opinion, existing data favour for endogenic origin.

  • 1737, December 16, Europe. The author is searching for the details of this remarkable event seen by the whole Europe, and probably at some other places, but today almost forgotten. Below is the summary what the author can obtain up today.
  • This was the time of "light nights"[71].

    In Naples, Italy, in the evening, when the sun was 25 degrees below the horizon, a light was observed in the north, as if the air was on fire, and flashing. At 3 a.m. it was much brighter and spread much westward. Its greatest height was about 65 degrees. The light boundaries were jagged, and scattered, and follow the course of the westerly wind. Stars of 3-th and 4-th magnitude could be easily seen through it. About 4 a.m. a very regular arch was seen to rise gently. About the 6 a.m. the intenseness of the color disappeared, and it vanished at 7.30 a.m.

    In [71] there is a reference on the preceding eruption of the Vesuvius volcano, but the closest preceding eruption the author is aware was just in May, 1737.

    In Padua, Italy, after sunset on the preceding days, as well as Dec. 16, there appeared in the west a remarkable redness. The same glow happened and on the following evening. On the evening Dec. 16 the air was calm and the barometer was remarkably high. At 5.15 p.m. there appeared near the horizon a blackish zone. Above this zone was another very luminous, resembling the dawn pretty advanced. The highest zone was of a red fiery color. Eastward they extended to the 55 degrees on the horizon, and westward to the 70 degrees. Near zenith there appeared some thin lucid clouds. A little after 6 p.m. the upper part began to emit streamings, or rays, in plenty. Its color was red mixed with whitish and darkish. In a few seconds after, there issued out from the very equinoctial west, a red and very bright column, and a little later, it became curved in the shape of the rainbow. At 8.30 a.m., almost in an instant the bright zone, from the 8 degrees west to the 50 degrees east, became more vivid, and rose higher; and above this appeared a new large one, of a red fiery color, with several successive streaming tending upward, and passing 60 degrees of altitude; the western part had assumed the form of a thin cloud. At 12 p.m. the light was nearly extinct. Twenty minutes after, there appeared a white brightish beam, at 30 degrees west and 60 degrees high, but it soon became invisible. In half an hour later, a very weak light remained in the west, near the horizon.

    In Bolonia the glow was so very remarkable that no one remembers to have ever seen the like, it was possible to distinguish houses at a great distance. At 8 p.m. the glow formed itself into a concave arch towards the horizon. The polar star was near the top of its convexity, and some stars shone bright in the midst of the light. At 8.34 p.m. the red light continued spreading. At the upper part, a considerable part of heavens was enlightened with a very vivid red light, which was interrupted by several vertical streaks or columns of a bright yellowish light. At 9.04 p.m., there remained but a little reddish light at the north pole, all the rest was collected near the zenith. In the south, where the sky was clear, there were seen some of those meteors, called falling stars. Several persons reported that in the evening Dec. 16 they perceived a certain stench in the air. There was a very thin fog in the air not only on Dec. 16 but also on the preceding and following days. The mornings of Dec. 17, 18, before and a little after sunrise, the air appeared of an uncommon fiery color. The evening of Dec.17 the crepusculum was of an extraordinary height. Between the north and west, there was seen a very thin fiery red "vapour", which lasted almost till night.

    At Edinburgh, England, at 6 p.m. on looking out at windows, the sky was in flame. There was an arch of this red light reached from the west, over zenith, to the east. The northern border of this light was tinged with somewhat of a blue color. This glow did not look like common aurora. It gradually and gently stole along the face of the sky, till it had covered the whole hemisphere. A great circle of the glow came from the west to the zenith.

    At Sussex, England. It was a strong and very steady red light. It did not seem to dart or flash at all, but continued going on in a steady course against the wind, which blew fresh from the south-west. It began about north-north-west, in form of a pillar of light at about 6.15 p.m. In about 10 minutes, a 4-th part of it divided from the rest, and never joined again. In 10 minutes more it described an arch, but didn't join the top. Exactly at 7 p.m. it formed a bow, and soon after quite disappeared. It was all the while lightest and reddest at the horizon. At 8 p.m. it began again exactly north. In half an hour it made an arch from east to west, and went quite away to the south, when it ended much with the same appearance as it began in the north, but not quite so red.

    At Sheffield, England, at 5 o'clock, afternoon, and all the evening appeared a remarkable brightness in the sky, of a blood-red color, very bright [72].

    At Philadelphia on Dec. 16 nothing unusual was seen, but on Dec. 18 an earthquake struck. And "the second evening after, and for several evenings in that month, a red vapour appeared to the south and south-west, like the aurora borealis" [73]. On November 28, about sunset, many people in this town saw a fiery "meteor" in the air, large and bright, it seemed in the zenith, and so it seemed to others some miles from the town.

    At Solikamsk, Russia (59.6 N, 56.8 E) on Dec. 17 night as a red light was everywhere above. In the morning it was hazy and stuffy. On Dec. 24 and 25 the phenomenon repeated in smaller degree.

    In Chiloe Island, Chile, on Dec. 30 the fiery cloud from the north traversed the archipelago [55].

    But probably the most remarkable event occurred at Kilkenny in Ireland on Dec. 16. A great ball of fire appeared, which burst with an explosion that shook great part of the island, and set the whole hemisphere on fire, which "burned most furiously, till all the sulphureous matter was spent." [72]. In [55], cited another source, it was written that on Dec. 26 (probably misprint), much of the Southern Europe was covered by a reddish, luminous haze. At Kilkenny it appeared like a ball of fire in the air, which lasted about an hour and then burst into pieces.

    Why not the Ireland Tunguska of 1737!


    The author thinks that the present material clearly points out to the geophysical origin of the 1908 Tunguska event, or, at least, the geohysical interpretation conforms with the facts much better then the meteoritic one.

    Anyway, there are a lot of things to investigate about our miraculous planet, which, no doubt, will present us a much more puzzles!


    My experience in contacts with scientists and general public reveals some typical questions, which are asked about the 'geophysical Tunguska'. Below I summarize them.

  • What do other scientists say about your idea?
  • Why do you think that your explanation is better than a cometary one?
  • Do you think that Tunguska was an earthquake?
  • So do you say that (outer) Space has nothing to do with Tunguska?
  • Do you know other geophysical events, similar to Tunguska?
  • What do other scientists say about your idea?
    In 1990, when I sent my article on the tectonic Tunguska to the PHYSICS OF THE EARTH journal, they were surprised with it, but were to recognize that there were no mistakes in it. So they have accepted and have printed it. Since that time the tectonic Tunguska got many supporters (you can understand it, if look at the abstracts of the Tunguska 98 conference, for example). But of course, if you wrote many articles, for example, on the asteroid/cometary Tunguska, you will not be glad with the popularity of the tectonic one. Just read a citation below from

    And since about mid-1990s one more aspect of the geophysical Tunguska appeared. It is related with funding. Now there are a lot of talks of the Earth protection (and associated funding) due to "danger of an asteroid strikes". And very often Tunguska is given as the very good example of how dangerous such strikes can be...
    Anyway, I am interested in reasoned critique of the idea, especially as it helps to develop the interpretation.

    The most important critics is from those who knows Tunguska facts. In my opinion Prof.G. Longo knows Tunguska facts well. That's why it is important to consider his critics. Here is from his publication in Longo, Giuseppe (2007). "The Tunguska event". In Bobrowsky, Peter T.; Rickman, Hans. Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society, An Interdisciplinary Approach (PDF). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 303–330.

    I think that a reader who read this my web-page can decide whether the accounts contradict my interpretation of Tunguska. I just am interested in asteroid which behaves like: 'the ball approached the ground… it had the appearance of two pillars of fire'.
    By the way, the complete account is the following: Very interesting asteroid!...

    Why do you think that your explanation is better than a cometary one?
    Because if you peruse arguments for the "cometary Tunguska", you will see that there is no solid argument in its favour! Moreover, there are a lot of arguments (many of them are very reliable and solid) against cometary Tunguska. By the way, many scientists prefer to talk about a stony asteroid fall in Tunguska, just because the extremely large problems with the cometary Tunguska.
    Remarkably, that the cometary Tunguska itself has appeared just because there were very large problems with the "stony asteroid Tunguska"!... In my opinion the "tectonic Tunguska" nowadays is the best in explaining the Tunguska event.
    Interestingly, that when I sent my article on the tectonic interpretation of the Tunguska event to PHYSICS OF THE EARTH journal in 1990, I knew not much on Tunguska. Since that time more and more new facts in favour of the tectonic intepretation appear.
    And the tectonic interpretation was the only theory, which was able to predict new results in Tunguska - related meteorological peculiarities (see pos. 3.4)

    Do you think that Tunguska was an earthquake?
    No, if you ask: "was it just an earthquake?". According to modern encyclopedias, an earthquake is trembling of a ground produced by earth's rupture. But, for example, earthquakes lights are out of this definition. And indeed, some of them appear hours, days, and even weeks before an earthquake. So it would be strange to say that a burnt (by an earthquake light ) roof in a house a couple weeks before the August 16, 1976 earthquake in China was caused by that earthquake!
    So the phenomena are another way of manifestations of tectonic (endogenic) processes, besides rupture of the ground (i.e. earthquake itself). And observational data point that atmospheric conditions play a large role in the manifestations too. That's why a term (name) 'geophysical' maybe better (despite being more general).
    It seems that it is a way of coupling of the subterranean and atmospheric processes, possibly involving some electromagnetic mechanisms, but we still poorly understand it. You can read more in my geophysical meteors www-article.
    In typical cases the phenomena are not very energetic, but in Tunguska there was a very rare combination of supportive/intensifying factors (see above), which apparently made them so energetic.

    So do you say that (outer) Space has nothing to do with Tunguska?
    No, I don't say so. I just say that Tunguska was not a fall of an asteroid (or comet). Our planet is a small part of the Universe. For example there are some researches pointing that solar activity can influence on formation of clouds (and even the length of day). And I admit that some outer Space's processes can influence on appearence of Tunguska. But as in the case of the cloud's formation it would be reasonable to say about this as of terrestrial event in general (while keeping in mind possible Cosmos influence).

    Do you know other geophysical events, similar to Tunguska?
    There are several events, which in my opinion were probably "other Tunguskas" (see pos. 3.13).
    On mini and micro-scales similar events occur rather often (see pos. 3.3), and geophysical meteors www-article).


    1. Ol'khovatov, A.Yu., O veroyatnoi roli seismotectonicheskikh protsessov v Tungusskom fenomene 1908 g. // Izvestiya AN SSSR, Fizika Zemli, N 7, p.105 (1991) (in Russ.).

    2. Ol'khovatov, A.Yu., The meteorite that never was. // Science in Russia, N 2, p.19. (1996) (unfortunately due to translation there are some inaccuraties).

    3. Ol'khovatov, A.Yu., Prodelki "podzemnogo" kosmosa. // Znanie-Sila, N 12, p.32 (1996) (in Russ.).

    4. Ol'khovatov, A.Yu., Yesche raz o meteorite, kotorogo ne byelo. // Poisk, N 48, p.15 (1996) (in Russ.).

    5. Ol'khovatov, A.Yu., Mif o Tungusskom meteorite. Tungusskii fenomen 1908 goda - zemnoe yavlenie. Moscow, Ekologiya nepoznannogo, 128 p. (1997) (in Russ.).

    6. Korobeinikov, V.P., Chushkin, P.I., Shurshlov, L.V., Kompleksnoe modelirovanie poleta i vzr'iva v atmosfere meteornogo tela. // Astronomicheskii Vestnik, v.25, N 3, p.327 (1991) (in Russ.).

    7. Svetsov, V.V., Total ablation of the debris from the 1908 Tunguska explosion. // Nature, v.383, N 6602, p.697 (1996).

    8. Fast, W.H., Forest fall caused by the Tunguska explosion. // Abstracts of the International Workshop Tunguska 96, Bologna, Italy, July 15-17, 1996, p.2 (1996). ( could be obtained from

    9. Tsinball, M.N., Shnitke, V.E., Thermal consequences of the Tunguska explosion. // Abstracts of the International Workshop Tunguska 96, Bologna, Italy, July 15-17, 1996, p.43 (1996). ( could be obtained from

    10.Zenkin, G.M., Il'in, A.G., Egorshin, A. I., et al. Kharakteristika derev'yev, perezshivshikh katastrofu v eyo epitsentre. // Problema Tungusskogo meteorita. Tomsk, Tomskii Gosudarstvennyii Universitet, p.84 (1963) (in Russ.).

    11.Vronskii, B.I., Taina Tungusskoi katastrfyi. // Priroda, N3, p. 88 (1960) (in Russ.).

    12.Nikolsky, G.A., Tsinball, M.N., Shnitke, V.E. and Shultz, E.O., Tunguska "vacuum bomb" of cometary origin. // Abstracts of the International Workshop Tunguska 96, Bologna, Italy, July 15-17, 1996, p.17 (1996). ( could be obtained from

    13.Neobichnoe otkritiye na meste Tungusskoi katastrofi. // Zvezdochyet, N 12, p.6 (1996) (in Russ.).

    14.Ben-Menahem, A., Source parameters of the Siberian explosion of June 30, 1908, from analysis and synthesis of seismic signals at four stations. // Phys. Earth Planet. Sci. v.11,, p.1 (1975).

    15.Pasechnik, I.P., Otsenka parametrov vzriva Tungusskogo meteorita po seismicheskim i mikrobarograficheskim dannim. // Kosmicheskoe veschestvo na Zemle. Novosibirsk. Nauka, p.24 (1976) (in Russ.).

    16.Longo, G., Serra, R., Cecchini, S. and Galli, M., Search for microremnants of the Tunguska cosmic body. // Planet. Space Sci., v.42, N 2, p.163 (1994).

    17.Svetsov, V.V., Kuda delis' oskolki Tungusskogo meteorita? // Astronomicheskii Vestnik, v.30, N 5, p.427 (1996) (in Russ.).

    18.Rasmussen, K.L., Clausen, H.B. and Kallemeyn, G.W. No iridium anomaly after the 1908 Tunguska impact: evidence from a Greenland ice core. // Meteoritics, v.30, N 6, p.634 (1995).

    19.Zahnle, K., Leaving no stone unburned. // Nature, v.383, N 6602, p.674 (1996).

    20.Kosarev, I.B., Loseva, T.V., and Nemchinov, I.V., Opticheskie svoistva parov i ablyatsyia bol'shikh khondritnykh i ledyanyikh tel v atmosfere Zemli. // Astronomicheskii Vestnik, v.30, N 4, p.307 (1996) (in Russ.).

    21.Sobotovich, E.V., Piven', P.I., Kolesov, G.M. et al., Rasprostranennost' nekotorikh elementov v almaz-grafitovom srostke i drugikh ob'ektakh iz epitsentra Tungusskoi katastrofi. // Meteoritika, N 44, p.135 (1985) (in Russ.).

    22.Hough, R.M., Gilmour, I., Newton, J. et al., Chemically robust carbon particles in peat from the Tunguska impact site. // Meteoritics, v.30, N 5, p.521 (1995).

    23.Vasilyev, N.V., The Tunguska event: what we know today and what we hope to learn soon. // Abstracts of the International Workshop Tunguska 96, Bologna, Italy, July 15-17, 1996, p.1 (1996). ( could be obtained from

    24.Musya, K., Investigations into the luminous phenomena accompaning earthquakes. // Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst., v.10,, p.649 (1932) (in Jap. with Engl. abstract.).

    25.Wallace, R.E., Teng, T., Prediction of the Sungpan-Pingwu earthqukes, August 1976. // Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer., v.70, N 4, p.1199 (1980).

    26.Quellet, M., Earthquake lights and seismicity. // Nature, v.348, p.492 (1990).

    27.Ol'khovatov, A.Yu., Sasovo explosions in 1991 and 1992. // Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth (Engl. Transl.), v.31, N 5, p.452 (1995).

    28.Ol'khovatov, A.Yu., Explosions at Sasovo, Russia, as examples of explosions of ball lightning-like formations endogenic origin. // Proc. of the 5-th Intern. Symp. Ball Lightning, August 26-28, 1997, Tsugawa town, Niigata prefecture, Japan, p.20 (1997).

    29.Devereux, P., Earth lights. Turnstone Press Ltd., p.229 (1982).

    30.Bull. of the Intern. Seismol. Centre (UK), January 1974.

    31.Mason, Harry, Bright skies. Part 1. // Nexus Magazine, April-May (1997).

    32.Brown, P., Hildebrand, A.R., Green, D.W.E., et al., The fall of the St-Robert meteorite. // Meteoritics & Planet. Sci., v.31, N 4, p.502 (1996).

    33.Cooke, W.E., Barisal guns in Western Australia. // Nature v.78, N 2026, p.390 (1908).

    34.Gold, T., Soter, S., Brontides. // Science, v.204, p.371 (1979).

    35.Sapronov, N. L., Drevnie vulcanicheskie strukturi na yuge Tungusskoi sineklezi. Novosibirsk, Nauka, p.104 (1986) (in Russ.).

    36.Duncan, R.A., Richards, M.A., Hotspots, mantle plumes, flood basalts, and true polar wander. // Rev. Geophys., v.29, N 1, p.31 (1991).

    37.Pavlenkova, G.A., Solodilov, L.N., Blokovaya structara verkhov mantii Sibirskoi platformi. // Fizika Zemli, N 3, p.11 (1997) (in Russ.)

    38.Naumkin, A.N., Kinematika noveishikh razlomov yugo-vostoka Tungusskoi sineklezi. // Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, ser. 4, N 4, p.76 (1993) (in Russ.).

    39.Katalog zemletryasenii na territirii SSSR. Sibir. // Trudy seismologicheskogo instituta, N 89 (1939) (in Russ.).

    40.Kotlyar, P.Ye., Kim, V.I., Polozkhenie polyusa i seismicheskaya aktivnost' Zemli. Atlas. Novosibirsk, Nauka (1994). (in Russ.).

    41.Science, v.28, N705, p.19 (1908).

    42.Nature, June 18, p.155 (1908).

    43.Newhall, C.G., Dzurisin, D., Historical unrest at large calderas of the World. // Bull. US Geol. Survey, N 1855 (1988).

    44.Nature, v.78, p.435 (1908).

    45.Sieberg, A., Catalogue regional des tremblements de terre 1908. Part A., Strasbourg (1917). (in French).

    46.Vasylyev, N.V., Zhuravlyev, V.K., Zhuravlyeva, R.K. et al., Nochnyie svetyasshiesya oblaka i opticheskie anomalii, cvyazannye s padeniem Tungusskogo meteorita. Moskva, Nauka (1965) (in Russ.).

    47.Steel D., Ferguson R., Auroral observations in the Antarctic at the time of the Tunguska event, 1908 June 30. // Australian journal of astronomy, v.5, N 1, p.1 (1993).

    48.Nature, v.78, N2022, p.305 (1908).

    49.Brauner, B., The recent nocturnal glows. //Nature, v.78, N 2019, p.221 (1908).

    50.Sky glows. // Sci. Amer., v.99, p.139 (1908).

    51.Kozkhenkova, Z.P., Brok, V.A., Fedyushina, L.P. et al., Sinoptiko-meteorologicheskie usloviya leta 1908 g.. // Problema Tungusskogo meteorita. Tomsk, p.179 (1963) (in Russ.).

    52.Nature, v.78, N 2019, p.228 (1908).

    53.Earthquakes, Tides, Unidentified Sounds and Related Phenomena. compiled by Corliss W.R., The Source Book Project, Glen Arm, USA, (1983).

    54.Parnell, A., Earthquakes and electricity. // Amer. journal of Sci., v.20, p.7 (1884)

    55.Lightning, Auroras, Nocturnal Lights, and Related Luminous Phenomena. compiled by Corliss W.R., The Source Book Project, Glen Arm, USA, (1982).

    56.Toutain, J.-P., Meyer G., Iridium-bearing sublimates at the hot-spot volcano (Piton de la Fournaise, Indian Ocean). // Geophys. Res. Lett. v.16, p.1391 (1989).

    57.Vorontsov, N.N., Lyapunova, E.A., Shirokaya izmenchivost' khromosom i vspishki khromosomnogo vidoobrazovaniya v seismicheski aktivhikh rayonakh. // Dokladi AN SSSR, v.277, N 1, p.214 (1984) (in Russ.).

    58.Asatryan, G.A., Asatrayn, Gr.A., Babayan, V.Kh,, et al., Uvelichenie intensivnosti ioniziruyuschei komponenti kosmicheskikh luchei v stratosfere v period spitakskogo zemletryaseniya 1988 g. // Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR, ser. Fizicheskaya, v.55, N 10, p.1979 (1991) (in Russ.).

    59.Longo, Dzsh., Zshivie svideteli Tungusskoi katastrofi // Priroda N1, p.40 (1996) (in Russ.).

    60.Derr, J.S., Persinger, M.A., Geophysical variables and behavior. 56. Seasonal hydrological load and regional luminous phenomena (UFO reports) within river systems, the Mississippi valley test. // Perceptual and motor skills, v.77, p.1163 (1993).

    61.Ellis, W. E., Auroral displays. // Science, v.28, p.727 (1908).

    62.Backhouse, T.W., The "sky-colourd clouds"// Nature, June 11, p.127 (1908).

    63.Zadorozhny, A. M., Kikhtenko, V. N., Kokin, G. A., Middle atmosphere response to the solar proton events of October 1989 using the results of rocket measurements. // Jour. Geophys. Res., v.99, p.21059 (1994).

    64.Lazarev, A.I, Bondur, V.G., Koptev, Yu. I., et al. Kosmos otkryivaet tainyi Zemli. Leningrad, Gidrometeoizdat, p.136 (1993) (in Russ.).

    65.Romeiko, V.A., O prirode opticheskikh anomalii leta 1908 g. // Astronomicheskii Vestnik, v.25, p.482 (1991) (in Russ.).

    66.Shostakovich, V.B., Geliograf, kak pribor dlya nablyudeniya otnositel'nikh izmenenii solnechnoi radiatsii. // Geofizicheskii sbornik, issue 2, p.69 (1914) (in Russ.).

    67.Walker, D. A., McCreery, C. S., Oliveira F. J., Kaitoku seamount and the mystery cloud of 9 April 1984. // Science, v.227, p.607 (1985).

    68.Peterson, A.W., Airglow events visible to the naked eye. // Appl. Optics, v.18, p.3390 (1979).

    69.Stothers, R. B., Rampino, M. R., Volcanic eruptions in the Mediterranean before A.D. 630 from written and archaeological sources. // Journ. Geophys. Res., v.88, p.6357 (1983).

    70.Steel, D., Snow, P., The Tapanui region of New Zealand: A 'Tunguska' of 800 years ago? // the paper submitted to the Conference "Asteroids, Comets, Meteors, 91", Flagstaff, USA, June 1991.

    71.A collection of the observations of the remarkable red lights seen in the air on Dec. 5 or 16th N.S. 1737, sent from different places to the Royal Society. // Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., v.41, p.583 (1740).

    72.Short, T., An account of several meteors. // Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., v.41, p.625 (1740).

    73.Breintnall, J., Notice of some meteors observed at Philadelphia, in North America. // Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., v.41, p. 359 (1740).

    74.Bailey, M. E., Markham, D. F., Massai, S., et al., The 1930 August 13 'Brazilian Tunguska' event. // The Observatory, v.115, p.250 (1995).

    75.Tornado or meteor crash? // The Sky, v.3, p.8 (1939).

    76.Yeromenko, V. Ya, Kosmicheskie snimki pri izuchenii morfotektoniki i geodinamiki Sibirskoi platformi. Leningrad, Nedra, 160 p. (1990).(in Russ.)


    Go to the A. Ol'khovatov Web-site directory in English: