RIAP bulletin - Vol 04 No 1-2 - January-June 1998

Magazine Overview

The "RIAP BULLETIN" Volume 4, Number 1-2, published from January to June 1998, is dedicated to the 90th anniversary of the Tunguska space body (TSB) event. The Research Institute on Anomalous Phenomena (RIAP), an independent scientific body established in 1992, publishes this issue, focusing on studies in non-traditional energy sources, anomalous atmospheric phenomena, and SETI.

Editorial: TUNGUSKA: 90 YEARS AFTER

This editorial reflects on the 90th anniversary of the Tunguska event, highlighting the accumulation of data on TSB-related effects that challenge the conventional "classical" meteorite or comet conception. These effects include anomalies in thermoluminescence of rocks, regional geomagnetic storms, and strange atmospheric fallout. The author suggests that a comprehensive data set is emerging, potentially allowing for a well-grounded model. A key point is the unacceptability of rejecting established facts that contradict a theoretical model. The editorial contrasts the "disciplinary values" of traditional science with the broader freedom of discussion fostered by independent research groups like IITE. It posits that while the "natural" (meteorite/comet) hypothesis struggles to fit empirical data, the "artificial" (extraterrestrial spacecraft) hypothesis is gradually being substantiated. The editorial notes that the Tunguska explosion's overground character, initially dismissed, has been supported by later research. It also pays tribute to Dr. Alexey V. Zolotov for his crucial contribution to the development of the artificial hypothesis.

The Geomagnetic Effect of the Tunguska Explosion and the Technogeneous Hypothesis of the TSB Origin by V. K. Zhuravlev

1. Introduction

This section introduces Alexander Kazantsev's 1946 hypothesis that the Tunguska event was the catastrophe of a nuclear-powered extraterrestrial spaceship, explaining the lack of remnants by its overground explosion at an altitude of several hundred meters. The author argues that this hypothesis, unlike the "meteorite establishment's" insistence on impact nature, is scientific because it can be verified. The paper details the history of the investigation of the geomagnetic effect of the Tunguska explosion, which was discovered in 1959. This effect, recorded by the Irkutsk magnetographs, occurred shortly after the explosion and exhibited characteristics similar to magnetic storms generated by high-altitude nuclear explosions.

2. The History of the Question

The history of the geomagnetic effect's investigation is presented chronologically:

1. 1959: G.F.Plekhanov and N.V.Vasilyev of IITE inquired about geomagnetic records from 1908. Professor Weber's report of unusual magnetic needle variations in Kiel from June 27-30, 1908, coinciding with optical anomalies over Europe, was noted.
2. February 1960: G.F.Plekhanov received a reply from the Irkutsk Magnetographic Observatory, informing him of a strange geomagnetic effect recorded on June 30, 1908. K.G.Ivanov, who found the record, initially associated it with the Tunguska explosion. The IITE investigators critically examined the data and concluded it was a new geophysical trace of the Tunguska phenomenon.
3. February 1960: A short paper published in "Fizika" by Plekhanov, Kovalevskiy, Zhuravlev, and Vasilyev announced the discovery of the geomagnetic disturbance and correlated it with "artificial magnetic storms" following thermonuclear explosions over Pacific atolls in 1958. These storms shared detailed similarities with the Irkutsk disturbance.
4. 1961: K.G.Ivanov's paper on the geomagnetic effects observed at Irkutsk was rejected by "Astronomicheskiy Zhurnal" but later published. Ivanov initially hesitated to draw analogies with artificial magnetic storms but later recognized their significance.
5. 1961: A survey by G.M.Idlis and Z.V.Karyagina attempted to explain the geomagnetic effect using the cometary hypothesis, but their reasoning showed it would have to be global, contradicting available evidence.
6. 1960: O.I.Leypunsky pointed out similarities between geomagnetic disturbances from nuclear explosions and "usual" magnetic storms.
7. Undated: A.F.Kovalevskiy and K.G.Ivanov developed models of the Tunguska geomagnetic effect, focusing on shock wave interactions with the ionosphere. Kovalevskiy suggested a time lag could determine the explosion's altitude. However, the models struggled to explain why a "shock mechanism" would only apply to the Tunguska event and not nuclear explosions.
8. Undated: S.O.Obashev proposed a model involving a plasma cloud expanding in Earth's magnetic field, treating the TSB as an icy comet core. K.G.Ivanov showed this model could not explain the effect's duration.
9. 1967: A calculation by V.K.Zhuravlev, D.V.Demin, and L.N.Demina, informed by studies of high-altitude nuclear explosions, contradicted the "shock wave trigger" model and suggested the nuclear nature of the Tunguska explosion could not be ruled out.
10. 1969: A.V.Zolotov's monograph argued that the geomagnetic effect was proof of the Tunguska explosion's nuclear nature, developing a semi-quantitative theory of artificial magnetic storms and demonstrating that shock wave explanations were flimsy.
11. 1983: V.K.Zhuravlev and A.N.Dmitriev proposed a new heliophysical hypothesis, linking the event to Sun-Earth interactions and a solar plasmoid.

3. Description and Interpretation of the Geomagnetic Effect

This section details the geomagnetic disturbance recorded in Irkutsk on June 30, 1908. The disturbance began shortly after the Tunguska explosion (estimated at 0h 13.59 ± 0.08 min GMT) and lasted for several hours. The horizontal (H) and vertical (Z) components of the geomagnetic field showed significant changes, including an abrupt increase in H, a subsequent fall, and a "negative bay" in Z. The magnetic declination (D) also deviated. K.G.Ivanov identified three stages characteristic of usual magnetic storms. A.V.Zolotov further differentiated four "entries" on magnetograms, correlating them with specific processes in the atmosphere, such as the expansion of a plasma fireball, the interaction of charged particles with the ionosphere, and the movement of electrons in a magnetic trap. The speed of these electrons was estimated at 4 km/s, similar to that observed in nuclear explosions. The "fourth entry" is attributed to the electron flow returning from the magnetic conjugate point.

The paper emphasizes that while a blast wave can cause ionization, it's insufficient to sustain ionospheric currents for hours. Only gamma rays and neutrons from an explosion below 20 km can generate the necessary flow of secondary electrons. The hypothesis suggests that the Tunguska explosion's secondary electrons traversed the geomagnetic equator and reached regions south of 60° S. This is supported by R.Shackleton's expedition's observation of an impressive aurora australis on June 30, 1908, which occurred simultaneously with the first and second phases of "artificial geomagnetic storms" observed after Pacific nuclear tests.

4. The Heliophysical Hypothesis

This section revisits the idea that the Tunguska bolide was a "solar one," a concept initially dismissed but later revived as a scientific hypothesis by A.N.Dmitriev and V.K.Zhuravlev. They proposed that the TSB was a "plasmoid" ejected from the sun, a spindle-like "magnetic bottle" containing plasma and an external magnetosphere. Upon recombination at an altitude of about 6 km, this plasma object generated hard radiation, inducing a space charge in the ionosphere and a system of currents that produced the regional geophysical effect. The energy conservation law is used to estimate the magnetic intensity required for such a plasmoid, yielding values comparable to those of man-made devices.

5. Conclusion

The Tunguska geomagnetic effect is presented as a discovery of fundamental importance, challenging the conventional understanding of meteor phenomena. Attempts to explain the TSB as a natural meteoroid have failed, with its sole analog being artificial magnetic storms triggered by hard radiation reaching the ionosphere. The paper argues that the "cometary" standpoint cannot account for this effect. The difficulty in reconciling the geomagnetic effect with the prevailing astronomical paradigm, which only recognizes meteoroids, asteroids, and comets as solar system bodies, is highlighted. The conclusion suggests that the plasmoid and technogeneous hypotheses, while attempting to fit within natural sciences, require exceptionally high energy densities and magnetic field intensities. The paper calls for a revival of research into this unique effect, advocating for the collection and reprinting of dispersed publications and the study of data from other technogeneous explosions and atmospheric events.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the anomalous nature of the Tunguska event and the inadequacy of conventional scientific explanations (meteorite or comet impact). The editorial stance strongly favors exploring alternative hypotheses, particularly the technogeneous (artificial) and heliophysical (solar-related) origins, based on the evidence of the geomagnetic effect and other anomalous phenomena. There is a clear critique of "disciplinary values" hindering scientific inquiry and a call for open-mindedness and rigorous investigation of facts, even when they challenge established paradigms. The issue champions the idea that the Tunguska event may have been caused by an extraterrestrial or advanced artificial object, supported by geophysical and atmospheric evidence that aligns with phenomena observed after nuclear explosions.

This issue of the RIAP Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 1-2, published in 1998, focuses on the Tunguska Event, featuring articles on thermoluminescence as a method to detect radiation effects and exploring the 'ricochet hypothesis' of the meteorite's trajectory. It also includes a memorial for Alexey V. Zolotov, a significant researcher of the Tunguska problem.

The Thermoluminescent Imprint of the Tunguska Event by B. F. Bidyukov

This article by B. F. Bidyukov investigates the possibility of detecting radiation effects from the Tunguska explosion using thermoluminescence (TL). TL is a phenomenon where minerals, like feldspar and quartz, store energy from radiation in their crystal lattice and release it as light when heated. This property makes them natural radiation monitors. The author draws parallels with studies conducted after the Hiroshima nuclear explosion, where ceramic tiles from buildings were used to reconstruct radiation patterns.

While direct TL monitoring of the Tunguska area was not possible at the time of the event, Bidyukov suggests that natural minerals in the region, such as feldspars and quartz in bedrock and soil, could retain evidence of hard radiation. However, he notes the challenge of distinguishing the 'signal' of the Tunguska event from the 'noise' of natural radioactive elements and environmental factors (water, wind, Earth's heat, UV radiation) that have influenced these minerals over millions of years.

Between the 1960s and 1980s, researchers studied TL properties of minerals from the Tunguska region. Using statistical analysis, they identified anomalies: an increase in TL levels within 10-15 km of the epicenter and a decrease in a smaller zone (5-6 km radius) that aligns with the area of radiant tree burns. These results were consistent across different mineral samples, including plagioclases from traps and quartz/feldspar from soil.

Crucially, the study found that ultraviolet radiation did not affect the thermoluminescence of the Tunguska samples, unlike control samples. This suggests that the Tunguska explosion was likely accompanied by a burst of hard radiation. The author emphasizes the need for further investigation, possibly involving ethnographers and archaeologists, to find and examine ceramic objects that might have survived the event. A piece of a ceramic pot found by Vitaliy Romeyko is mentioned as a potential subject for future study.

Figures 1 and 2 visually represent the TL test results, comparing a Tunguska sample with a control sample from Belyaki. The curves illustrate how UV radiation affects the TL intensity, with the Tunguska sample showing no response, indicating a different radiation history.

On a Possible Ricochet of the Tunguska Meteorite by G.F.Plekhanov, L.G.Plekhanova

This article by G.F.Plekhanov and L.G.Plekhanova addresses the persistent lack of significant meteorite fragments found from the Tunguska event, leading to various exotic hypotheses about its origin, such as ET spaceships or nuclear explosions. The authors argue that the most plausible explanation remains that the Tunguska body was a natural minor body from the Solar System, a meteorite.

They propose the 'ricochet hypothesis,' suggesting that the meteorite, or a part of it, might have ricocheted from the lower atmosphere. This hypothesis is supported by several pieces of evidence:

1. Local Earthquake: Information about a local earthquake at the Greater Pit river on June 30, 1908, located west and south of the Tunguska epicenter, is presented as a potential consequence of the meteorite's fall.
2. Eyewitness Accounts: Unpublished reports of a bolide seen flying westward from Baykit on the morning of June 30, 1908, are cited, which would be consistent with an ascending trajectory after a ricochet.
3. Tree Leveling Patterns: Analysis of the field of deviations of leveled trees from a radial pattern (Figure 1) reveals intriguing regularities. Positive deviations (trees leaning away from the epicenter) are prevalent in the NW and SE quadrants, while negative deviations (trees leaning towards the epicenter) are in the SW and NE quadrants. Demarcation lines are nearly N-S and E-W, intersecting near the epicenter. The deviations are more pronounced in the NW and SE quadrants (up to 18°-20°) compared to the NE and SW (8°-12°).

Further analysis, considering a clockwise twist of the tree leveling vectors by 3.3°, enhances the distinction between positive and negative deviations, strengthening the evidence for axially symmetric deviations in the western part of the leveled forest area.

The authors suggest that these deviations, especially in the western part, could be a trace of the ballistic shock wave from an ascending branch of the meteorite's trajectory, implying a ricochet. The possibility of the meteorite falling in the region of the Greater Pit river is supported by the earthquake data, and some eyewitness accounts align with this scenario.

However, verifying this hypothesis presents significant challenges. The region has no native population, making it difficult to find eyewitnesses or their descendants. Detailed aerial photography and on-site exploration would be time- and money-consuming. Despite these difficulties, the analysis of the forest leveling map strongly suggests an ascending branch of the Tunguska meteorite's trajectory to the west of the epicenter, supporting the ricochet theory.

Alexey V. Zolotov: In Memoriam

This section is a tribute to Alexey V. Zolotov, who passed away on October 6, 1995. Born in 1929, Zolotov was an eminent geophysicist and a dedicated researcher of the Tunguska problem. He gained prominence in 1959 when he openly supported the technogeneous hypothesis of the Tunguska space body (TSB) origin, a controversial stance at the time.

Zolotov is credited with scientifically substantiating this hypothesis, which had been proposed earlier by A.P.Kazantsev. His monograph, "The Tunguska Catastrophe of 1908," published in 1970, is considered a seminal work that advanced the understanding of the event. Despite opposition from some authorities, the book was published with the backing of B.P.Konstantinov, then Vice-President of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Zolotov's ideas were ahead of their time and played a crucial role in determining the probable direction of the TSB flight, the magnitude of the explosion, and the relationship between blast and ballistic shock waves.

Beyond theoretical work, Zolotov conducted regular field investigations in the Tunguska region from 1959 onwards. He is described as a scientist with profound intuition who embraced the complexity of the Tunguska problem. His approach, differing from classical meteorite studies, was highly productive and contributed significantly to solving many questions related to the event.

The memorial highlights Zolotov's courage, certitude, and scholarly integrity in dealing with criticism. His life path was challenging, and he did not live to see the full triumph of his scientific conceptions. The origin of the Tunguska space body remains obscure, but Zolotov's contributions are acknowledged as having left a lasting legacy and good memories among his colleagues.

The section also includes contact information for the editor, Vladimir V. Rubtsov, and the RIAP (Russian Inter-disciplinary Association of Physicists) organization.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the scientific investigation of the Tunguska Event, emphasizing the search for physical evidence and the development of plausible hypotheses. The articles highlight the use of scientific methods, such as thermoluminescence and detailed analysis of environmental data (tree leveling), to understand the nature and effects of the event. The editorial stance appears to be one of rigorous scientific inquiry, exploring unconventional ideas like the ricochet hypothesis while acknowledging the challenges and the need for further empirical evidence. The memorial to Alexey V. Zolotov underscores the importance of dedicated, long-term research in unraveling complex scientific mysteries, even in the face of adversity.