1979 10 00 OMNI - Oberg - Tunguska

Magazine Overview

This article, "TUNGUSKA UFO UPDATE" by James Oberg, published in OMNI magazine in November 1978, delves into the enduring mystery of the 1908 Tunguska event in Siberia. The event, characterized by a massive explosion that flattened thousands of trees but left no craters, has spurred numerous theories, ranging from natural phenomena to extraterrestrial visitation.

The Tunguska Event and Its Theories

The Tunguska event, as it has come to be called, produced an explosion comparable to an H-bomb. The blast occurred high in the air, leaving no ground craters or recognizable traces. Initial explanations ranged from antimatter meteors and miniature black holes to ball lightning and other exotic phenomena. The favored hypothesis today among some scientists is that the blast was caused by the collision of Earth with a small comet, possibly a fragment of Encke's comet.

However, many ufologists adopt the Tunguska event as proof of a visitation by an alien space probe that accidentally destroyed itself. Opinions vary on whether the explosion was a deliberate signal or an accidental overload of the starship's propulsion system. The existence of extraterrestrial nuclear-powered "flying saucers" is considered by some to be proven by the event.

Leonard Nimoy, in the television documentary "In Search of the Siberian Fireball," suggested that a nuclear explosion may have occurred on Earth as early as 1908. The program interviewed scientists who supported the comet theory, but its sympathies leaned towards more exciting suggestions, with authors Thomas Atkins and Henry Gris arguing that an alien spaceship caused the event.

Atkins stated, "There is evidence... to indicate that an extraterrestrial vehicle may explain the Siberian explosion. Though the proof is neither complete nor absolutely conclusive, the theory appears increasingly acceptable." Gris referred to the object as the "Tungusky Miracle" and quoted Russian professor Aleksei Zolotov, who believed the event was caused by a giant UFO, stating, "The explosion... saw was a perfect duplicate of what a nuclear blast looks like. ... Everything points to a nuclear origin.... I have no doubt it was sent by inhabitants of outer space to attract our attention."

Zolotov and the USSR's chief UFO expert, Feliks Zigel, have frequently discussed this theory with Western journalists, suggesting that the blast was produced by an object from outer space. This narrative is often highlighted by wire services and TV news producers.

Scientific Counterarguments and Evidence

The nuclear-blast theory favored by ufologists is partly based on traces of radiation found near the site and on observed plant mutations and accelerated plant growth, effects also seen after H-bomb tests. A mysterious glowing cloud from the explosion drifted over northern Europe for several days.

However, "traditionalist" scientists generally do not subscribe to the UFO theory. Leading astronomers and space geologists in the Soviet Union tend to favor the comet hypothesis. American meteor experts, such as Ronald Oriti of the Griffith Observatory, reject the spaceship theory. Oriti published an analysis in 1975 drawing parallels with a similar, smaller midair blast over Revelstoke, Canada, in 1965. He argued that the term "fireball" should apply to flaming objects crossing the sky, not the final explosion.

Regarding radiation reports, Oriti noted that a more careful check of scientists' opinions reveals a different picture. Willard Libby, the father of the carbon-14 dating technique and a Nobel Prize winner, supervised tests of tree rings after the 1908 explosion. While he found trace fluctuations of radiation, he computed that an actual nuclear blast would have left residues at least seven times stronger. Libby objected to being quoted as proof of a nuclear blast, stating, "No, it proves nothing of the sort. We found nothing to indicate a nuclear explosion of that size..."

Norwegian chemists recently published tree-ring test results showing no trace of any radiation, supporting Libby's claim. UFO books suggest the glowing skies over Europe were caused by radioactive clouds, but a simpler explanation is that dust from the Siberian explosion would have been carried eastward by stratospheric winds. If the object was a small comet, its tail would have pointed westward, placing dust over northern Europe.

Professor L. Kresak of the Slovak Academy of Sciences suggested that the Tunguska object was a fragment from Encke's comet, noting that the blast occurred during a meteor shower associated with the comet's debris and that the object's trajectory aligned with the comet theory.

Skeptics question why the fireball wasn't seen before impact. Astronomers counter that it was likely a very small comet, also in the daytime sky during most of its approach.

Aerodynamics Experiment and Misinterpretations

Aerodynamics experts in Moscow conducted an experiment about 20 years prior to simulate Tunguska's blast patterns. They used explosives suspended over matchsticks representing trees. This experiment created a "butterfly" pattern similar to the actual Tunguska site, demonstrating that the pattern was due to a large object exploding naturally. However, the results were reportedly misinterpreted. A 1978 "In Search of" program claimed the evidence supported the Soviet contention that Tunguska was the result of a "nuclear holocaust," a conclusion directly contrary to the experimenters' findings and falsely implying a general Soviet scientific consensus.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The article highlights the persistent fascination with the Tunguska event and the ongoing debate between scientific explanations (primarily comet impact) and ufological interpretations (alien spacecraft). It points out how scientific findings can be misinterpreted or misquoted to fit pre-existing theories, particularly in popular media. The piece also touches upon the potential for future similar events, emphasizing the frightening implications for a densely populated Earth with nuclear arsenals, suggesting that the idea of another Tunguska-like blast is a future we might prefer to avoid.

The editorial stance appears to favor a critical examination of evidence, debunking misinterpretations, and presenting both scientific and ufological viewpoints while maintaining a degree of skepticism towards sensational claims. The article concludes by noting the continued interest in the Tunguska event, which piques the interest of wire services and TV news producers annually.