by Dave Conklin

from EarthLink Website
1993-2004

 

Out of all the folklore that exists concerning UFOs to date, some of the most interesting stories to me have always been ones involving the high Arctic. This would include supposed photos of "discs" appearing from under the Arctic Ice Cap taken by military recon planes back in the 1940s, and the supposed crash of an object and sightings of UFOs near the island of Spitsbergen along the Arctic Circle. The Arctic Ocean is without question the Earthís ultimate hiding place if technology permitted. A large deep cold ocean with relatively shallow peaks and ridges with the added bonus of a permanent covering of ice and an unforgiving surface climate. If the Arctic Ocean is being used as some sort of alien outpost, there is one geographic point I would like to make.

That - unlike Antarctica, which is of course a continent almost completely surrounded by ocean, the Arctic ocean is almost completely surrounded by land. I would think it likely then that any aliens venturing out from their arctic base - if they wanted to avoid being noticed, would tend to choose a high altitude course over the most sparsely populated terrain. I may have stumbled across some previously overlooked evidence that would support the use of a particular "corridor" and also demonstrates a possible connection between UFOs and whatís come to be known as the Tunguska explosion.

I was reading a well regarded book one day on the subject of UFOs entitled UFO Exist! copyright 1976 Paris Flammonde - third printing 1987. On page 132 is an excerpt from a 1929 travel diary written by a Russian explorer while on an exploratory expedition through Mongolia. The passage describes his caravans encounter with an unusual object in the sky and the general location of the caravan. I remembered reading an article about the Tunguska explosion several years before and having some vague geographical knowledge I knew Mongolia was directly south of Siberia. So, with the help of an old National Geographic world atlas, I located the area described by the Russian explorer and the location of the Tunguska explosion, and this is what I found.

On the morning of June 30th, 1908 at 7:17 am at an altitude of about 25,000 feet, an explosion took place over Siberia that equaled the explosive force of a large hydrogen bomb. About 30 megatons by some estimates. The general theory among the scientific community is that the blast was caused by the mid air explosion of a large meteor. However, I donít think any scientist would disagree that a powerful fusion explosion would have caused a virtually identical amount of destruction. Russian scientists did not manage to begin visiting the site until 19 years after the event, but managed to put together a rough idea for the trajectory of the object by interviews with the local population, which went through further refinements as more expeditions to the remote area were undertaken.

The following is the excerpt from the 1929 travel diary Altai-Himalaya written by the Russian explorer Nicholas Roerich after his expedition through Mongolia, which I am assuming was published not too long afterwards, it pertains to an area about one thousand four hundred and fifty miles south of the Tungus crash site ....

On August fifth - something remarkable! We were in our camp in the Kukunor district, not far from the Humboldt chain. In the morning about half - past nine some of our caravaneers noticed a remarkably big black eagle flying above us. Seven of us began to watch this unusual bird. At the same moment another of our caravaneers remarked: "there is something far above the bird." And he shouted in astonishment. We all saw in a direction from north to south, something big and shiny reflecting sun, like a huge oval moving at great speed. Crossing our camp this thing changed in itís direction from south to southwest. And we saw how it disappeared in the intense blue sky. We even had time to take our field glasses and saw quite distinctly the oval form with shiny surface, one side which was brilliant from the sun.

Here is the interesting part: As shown in the diagram below, if the course of the Tungus object is extended south about eight hundred and fifty miles it passes directly over the area described by Mr Roerich and parallels the course of the object he describes.
 

May 2001.

For those not familiar with the Tungus explosion and its history: The map I used for the course trajectory was one proposed by Tungus explosion researcher Felix Zigel. The "zig" and "zag" at the top represents an attempt to explain discrepancies in eyewitness information generally between two groups of people - those people that were south of ground zero and those that were east of ground zero. Interestingly - although the east to west trajectory coincides more closely with the blast pattern, the eyewitnesses apparently all agreed they saw the object in the afternoon. And the witnesses to the south agree it was early morning which coincides with the known time of the explosion.

I also found an interesting eyewitness account I had not heard of before in some documents written by Tungus explosion researcher Nickolai Vasilyev (pronounced Va-si-ly). To summarize: A Tungus named Ivan Ivanovich Aksenov claimed that while camped at the mouth of the Yakuta river - a tributary of the Chamba, in the afternoon after the explosion a "devil" shaped like a Billet - a rectangular object - flew southward along the Chamba river faster than an airplane. He also describes the object as being light in color, two eyes in front, fire behind, and making a quiet "troo-troo" sound. I am not sure at present as to when the man was first interviewed whether it was by the first expeditions or much later but keep in mind the Tungus people in 1908 were still very isolated and superstitious.

Dec 2002.

The N.V. Vasilyev link has been broken and it looks like all of his web pages have been removed from the web. I have learned from the web that he passed away as of Febuary 15th of last year. And his wife - Dr. Titiana Kolyada, is finishing a book Nickolai was working on at the time of his death.

Iíve pieced together a brief overview of some of the arguments that have been made in support of the exploding spacecraft theory as well as a few against it.

 

FOR

1 According to the exploding meteor theory the object would have had to enter the atmosphere at a speed no less than 60,000 mph. And at just the right angle (45 degrees) to avoid skipping back into space or hitting the ground prematurely. Even though 60,000 mph is at the slow end of the spectrum for meteors, the object should have been fleeting. As far as calculating the exact time the object should have been visible, the math is a bit beyond me. However, I can offer these facts for comparison. The average speed of a meteor is about 100,000 mph with fast ones moving about 125,000 mph. They begin to noticeably glow at about 80 miles high. The Space Shuttle, upon re-entry, begins to glow at the same altitude at a speed of 15,000 mph and crosses from horizon to horizon in about three minutes. Based on these facts Iím guessing that, even at a shallow angle, the Tunguska object would have crossed from horizon to horizon in no more than about 40 seconds at 60,000 mph. At a 45 degree angle the meteor becomes even more fleeting; passing through the atmosphere in only 6 to 7 seconds. Yet witnesses describe the object as moving slow, some watching it for a full 10 minutes. (More than one study of the eyewitness accounts has also suggested a slow moving object).


2  The axis of the blast pattern, probably caused by the objects ballistic wave (in conjunction with the blast wave), is different than the "best" eyewitness trajectory.


3  The locals reported sicknesses among people who had experienced the heat of the explosion or had visited the blast area; along with unusual scabs or sores developing on reindeer herds that survived the explosion. Loose-knit evidence to be sure, but consistent with radiation poisoning.


4  If the object were indeed a large meteor traveling at 60,000 mph, its surface should have been heated to temperatures comparable to the surface of the sun - about 7,000 degrees F; causing material to melt off and burn away right up until impact. Yet there is no mention by witnesses of the object leaving the thick billowing smoke trail typically associated with large burning meteors, but rather broad, whispy, multi-colored streaks.


5
 The object, estimated at about 150 feet in length, all but vaporized leaving not a single trace of any appreciable size / the exploding meteor theory has not been proven.


6  People received mild flash burns some 40 miles from the blast suggesting the heat of the blast was in the millions of degrees. Or they were also hit by ionizing radiation - (gamma rays).


7  If there was no significant amount of material burning away from the object, the object should have been bright right up until impact due to its intense heat and a surrounding layer of superheated ionized air. Yet some witnesses describe the object as only luminous or "black".


8  The eyewitness accounts suggest a shallow angle of entry of 5 to 17 degrees, while the blast pattern suggests a steeper angle of 30 to 40 degrees.

AGAINST

1   The objectís trajectory was actually a curving one, curving from a west to a north one; hence the differing eyewitness testimony. [This theory does not explain the time difference between the witnesses. And I, for one, simply can not visualize how how a potato shaped meteor traveling at 60,000mph, that was by all accounts not even spinning, could seemingly defy the laws of physics and change course parallel to the Earth.]

2   A drawing of the object, by a local, looks like a small asteroid. [I donít have much of a rebuttal for this one - his drawing does look like an asteroid. However, if it was a large spacecraft of some kind that began to burn up on re-entry, it might have resembled an elliptical shaped asteroid.]


3   Other witnesses report the object as being very bright.


4   Absence of radioactive fallout or radioisotopes such as carbon 14. [Elevated amounts of Carbon 14 have been found, but not nearly what should have been left by a fusion or anti-matter explosion.]


5   There is no scientific proof of the existence of extraterrestrial vehicles.

The eyewitness drawing by T.N. Naumenko from Kezma, June 30, 1908. Mr. Naumenko described the object as "a luminous moon sized cloud."

April 2003

Olaf Jansenís story written in....1908. An encounter with an alien transportation device ie; stargate? Or just a fairy tale? Entertaining whatever the case. The Smoky God, Or A Voyage to the Inner World.

May 2003

I did some surfing to see if there were any more stories on the net concerning UFOs in the polar regions. I didnít find much. The most interesting item I found was a reference to a statement supposedly made to a Chilean newspaper by Admiral Richard E. Byrd on March 5th, 1947 during his participation in Operation Highjump. Operation Highjump being a late forties Antarctic military operation. His statement was to the effect that [he did not want to frighten anyone unduly but it was a bitter reality that in case of a new war the continental United States would be attacked by flying objects which could fly from pole to pole at incredible speeds.] Make of it what you will. Other than that I ran across a couple of short undated stories about UFOs breaking through pack ice on a website entitled Water UFO Research.

Oct 2003

If you have previously visited this web site you will notice that a lot of stuff is missing. I decided that, unlike my JFK page, the UFO page had become bloated with information that was generally useless and off subject, starting in July 02 with a Chinese news release about a pyramid discovered in Tibet that was no doubt a fabrication. I have decided to archive some of the entries (trim the fat so to speak) and refocus on evidence that supports (or does not support) the exploding spacecraft theory.

The Roerich sighting took place August 5, 1927. Two months and one week after Leonid Kulik first arrived at the epicenter of the Tunguska explosion on May 30, 1927.

 

Addition to arguments against an exploding spacecraft #3

As far as the "no radioactive fallout" argument is concerned it looks as though it is pretty much a non-argument. This is due to two things, the high altitude of the explosion and the time interval between the explosion and the first radiation tests. Common sense would say that if an explosion a few thousand feet in the air (Hiroshima) sent most of the fallout into the stratosphere, then an explosion five miles up would certainly deposit even the heaviest fallout particles far downwind from ground zero. Add that to the fact that fifty years had elapsed between the explosion and the first radiation tests and the no radioactive fallout argument doesnít hold up. The carbon 14 argument is somewhat stronger though. Carbon 14 is a "long lived" radioactive isotope that occurs when neutrons freed by an atomic reaction interact with nitrogen. If I understand correctly, this can take place in the atmosphere, in the trees and soil directly, and can also be absorbed by trees and other vegetation from the atmosphere. Scientists have only found evidence of a slight increase in worldwide carbon 14 levels from the year after the explosion. No elevated levels of carbon 14 have been found near the epicenter of the explosion despite a Russian scientists initial claims to the contrary.

The paragraph below is from page 251 of Col. Philip J. Corsoís book The Day After Roswell paperback edition June 1998.

During the years I was at the White House, the UFO working group had consistently pushed President Eisenhower to establish a string of formal listening posts - electronic pickets staffed by army and air force observers at the most remote parts of the planet - to report on any UFO activity. General Twiningís group had argued that if the EBEs had any plans to establish semi permanent Earth bases, it wouldnít be in a populated area or an area where our military forces could monitor. It would be at the poles, in the middle of the most desolate surroundings they could find, or even underneath the ocean.

 

The polar caps seemed like the most obvious choices because during the 1950s we had no surveillance satellites that could spot alien activity from orbit, nor did we have a permanent presence at the two poles. It was thought that we wouldnít be able to put any sophisticated devices at the poles, either, because doing so would require more power than we could transport. However, the armyís Nuclear Power Program, developed in the 1950s at Fort Belvoir, provided us with the ability to install a nuclear-powered base anywhere on the planet.

Copyright 1997 Rosewood Wood Productions, Inc.

Addition to arguments for the exploding spacecraft theory #6
Proponents of the meteor theory have speculated that the mild flash burns received by people many miles south-southeast of the epicenter, at the trading post of Vanavara, were actually caused by the radiant heat of the object as it passed overhead. This is a good argument for the meteor theory. But again, it ignores the eyewitness accounts from south-southwest of the epicenter and assumes the object was moving at a great speed. According to one translation I have of S. B. Semenovís description from Vanavara, the heat blast came from the north. Itís unfortunate that those witnesses that described a large blast of heat were all to the south or southeast of the explosion. As far as I know, the area to the north and northwest of the epicenter (completely away from any possible trajectory) was unpopulated at the time of the explosion.

After casually studying the Tunguska explosion for some 25 years, I am going to put forth a theory that attempts to explain a lot of the discrepancies concerning the Tunguska explosion. It moves away somewhat from the traditional "accidental" explosion idea and is entirely speculative, but right or wrong, at least it does not completely ignore the eyewitness testimony that does not support a high speed meteor strike. Call it - a modern theory for an old mystery. The suggestion is - the Tunguska explosion involved not one, but two objects.

  • The first object resembled a large black meteor surrounded by a reddish cloud, but was not moving faster than about 2500 mph at the time of the explosion, possibly much slower. It traveled from south to north and had a long, bright, bluish white tail, which was apparently visible right up until the explosion.

     

    The object was nothing short of a disguised missile or large lifting body-like vehicle. Whatever substance was used to fuel or disguise the vehicle burned away so completely that only a whispy contrail was left behind. The vehicle was intercepted at a predetermined location by a second object traveling from the southeast to northwest.

     

  • The second object was traveling much faster; entered the atmosphere at a steeper angle; produced a powerful ballistic wave; and might even have been some type of particle weapon. The first object was all but vaporized in a tremendously hot explosion that did not produce the neutron radiation associated with atomic explosions. The explosion was detonated over a patch of forest to leave a temporary record of the event. And detonated over an unpopulated region to avoid civilian casualties.

Later on that afternoon the area was visited by whoever caused the explosion.

SIDE NOTE: I am presenting this theory without having personally reviewed all of the eyewitness accounts, which have been cataloged in Russian, but have not (to my knowledge) been completely translated into English. The exact number of eyewitness or witness accounts is a bit hard to judge because some of the accounts collected in the 60s and 70s could have been other events. Roughly speaking there are about 500. (Info provided by Andrei Olíkhovatov)

A good site that presents some interesting ideas and contains more than the usual bit of information about the eyewitness accounts. Tunguska event of 1908 was to be of geophysical origin!
 

March 2004

The main question I seem to be getting since posting my theory is - why would someone deliberately attack a forest? Who knows for certain? But, here is some food for thought; Obviously, anyone who could strike targets on Earth at will or moving targets in Earthís atmosphere from space with such precision and force would have a tremendous strategic advantage. And therefore the ultimate bargaining chip to say - recover downed reconnaissance vehicles, or defend an Earth base. Remember Reaganís "Star Wars" program back in the early eighties? But again, I am delving into areas of complete speculation. Or perhaps there was no other reason then to make us think that a natural event occurred over Central Siberia. After all, the scientific community and "anti-nuke" people, of which I am one, constantly refer to the Tunguska explosion and its remarkable similarity with an atmospheric nuclear explosion, in reminding us that an "accident" could happen. A foresighted gesture to save us from ourselves? Perhaps we all should just embrace the asteroid theory for the common good, but then again; there may be no proof that the Tunguska object was a meteor, but there is also no proof the object was anything other. Cíest la vie.

August 2004

Nickolai Vasilyevís book entitled The Tunguska Meteorite has been published posthumously in Russia.

Here is a strange statement that I have not been able to substantiate. It appears on page 79 of The Fire Came By 1976 Baxter/Atkins.... Although some Tungus had reported finding unusual bits of shiny metal "brighter than the blade of a knife and resembling in color a silver coin," Kulikís sensitive instruments detected nothing.

To elaborate a little more on my inspiration for the particle weapon; The eyewitness accounts, although open to some interpretation, seem to suggest that during, or immediately after the object flattened into a saucer shaped black cloud, a peculiar "shaft" of light or flame shot from the cloud. Described thusly:

  • Kirensk -                                 "A fiery pillar in the form of a spear"

  • Nizhne Karelinsk -                  "Turned into a fiery pillar and disappeared in a moment"

                                                   "A forked tongue of flame broke through the cloud"

  • Krasnoyarsk newspaper 1908 - "A huge flame shot up and cut the sky into"

  • Vanavera -                              "The sky was split into"

Herein lies the problem; If the strange shaft of light they are describing was an actual flame, it would suggest a slow burn. And that, of course, doesnít fit the picture that has been put forth of an exploding meteor. The only thing that I could imagine personally that could cause such an instantaneous pillar of flame is a jet of highly flammable, lighter than air gas; Hydrogen being the best candidate. But you still have a blast pattern that does not line up with the best eyewitness trajectory. Reading these descriptions out of the context, one might think that the witnesses were actually attempting to describe the mushroom cloud. However, most of the witnesses go on to quite accurately describe the mushroom cloud.

Who knows what to make of this. I myself remain quite skeptical, especially since the report came from Pravda. Explorers find fragments in Tunguska meteorite

Just some items from my "Tunguska library" I decided to post that I have not seen on any other website. The photo below is a micro-barograph recording of the Tunguska explosion. A barograph is an instrument that records changes in air pressure, not to be confused with a seismograph, which, of course, measures earthquake magnitude. As you can see, the Tunguska explosion appears to be separated by two distinct events. A low frequency event followed by a high frequency event more similar to a nuclear explosion.

Right (click image) is the first trajectory map created from eyewitness accounts. It was put together by A.V. Voznesensky, former head of the Irkutsk Observatory, in the mid 1920s and used by Kulik in his search for the epicenter.

 

Sept 2004,

In light of the recent "hoopla"; Some more info for the Tunguska surfer that I havenít seen on the web.

Addition to arguments for the exploding spacecraft theory #1

To elaborate a bit further on the studies of the eyewitness testimony that suggests a slow moving object; Felix Zigel, the Russian aerodynamics professor mentioned earlier, pointed out that because some witnesses saw the object and heard the sonic boom simultaneously, the object could only have been traveling at a speed somewhere between the speed of sound (750mph) and a few miles per second (about 10,000mph). If the eyewitness accounts support his claim, he is indeed correct. If the object were travelling anywhere close to 60,000mph as the meteor theory predicts, no-one should have heard the sonic boom from the object until it had past by, and was on the far horizon.

The second study was done by A.Y. Monoskov, an aircraft designer with the Antonov group. He composed a map with the time the object had been spotted by different witnesses superimposed along the trajectory, and came to the conclusion the object slowed along its trajectory to a speed of only 1,500mph.

Yet another Soviet geophysicist named Aleksey V. Zolotov set the speed of the object at 7,000mph based on the effects of the ballistic wave on the trees in the destroyed area.