Tunguska.Ru
Добро пожаловать, %1$s. Пожалуйста, войдите или зарегистрируйтесь.
01 Октябрь 2020, 22:59:39

:    
*
+  Tunguska.Ru
|-+  Тунгуска
| |-+  Обсуждение статей (Модераторы: vitrom, obat)
| | |-+  A possible impact crater for the 1908 Tung Event
0 и 2 Гостей просматривают эту тему. « предыдущая тема следующая тема »
: [1]
: A possible impact crater for the 1908 Tung Event  ( 168441 )
vitrom
Moderator
Tunguska.Ru
*****

Карма: Каждому свой досуг +3/-0
Оффлайн Оффлайн

: 1265



« : 26 Июнь 2007, 01:12:20 »

A possible impact crater for the 1908 Tunguska Event
• L. Gasperini1, F. Alvisi1, G. Biasini2, E. Bonatti1, G. Longo3, M. Pipan4, M. Ravaioli1 and R. Serra3
• 1ISMAR-CNR, Sezione di Geologia Marina, Bologna, Italy; 2Communication Technology, Cesena, Italy; 3Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita’ di Bologna; 4Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Universita’ di Trieste
Luca Gasperini, Geologia Marina, Istituto di Scienze Marine, CNR, Via Gobetti 101, Bologna 40129, Italy.
Tel.: +39 051 639 8901; fax: +39 051 639 8901; e-mail: luca.gasperini@ismar.cnr.it Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5, which does not permit commercial exploitation.
Terra Nova, 00, 1–7, 2007
The so-called ‘Tunguska Event’ refers to a major explosion that occurred on 30 June 1908 in the Tunguska region of Siberia, causing the destruction of over 2000 km2 of taiga, globally detected pressure and seismic waves, and bright luminescence in the night skies of Europe and Central Asia, combined with other unusual phenomena. The ‘Tunguska Event’ may be related to the impact with the Earth of a cosmic body that exploded about 5–10 km above ground, releasing in the atmosphere 10–15 Mton of energy. Fragments of the impacting body have never been found, and its nature (comet or asteroid) is still a matter of debate. We report results from the investigation of Lake Cheko, located  8 km NNW of the inferred explosion epicenter. Its funnel-like bottom morphology and the structure of its sedimentary deposits, revealed by acoustic imagery and direct sampling, all suggest that the lake fills an impact crater. Lake Cheko may have formed due to a secondary impact onto alluvial swampy ground; the size and shape of the crater may have been affected by the nature of the ground and by impact-related melting and degassing of a permafrost layer.
Unusual phenomena were detected on 30 June 1908 over Eurasia. They included seismic and pressure waves recorded at several observatories; bright luminescence in the night skies; anomalous optical phenomena in the atmosphere, such as massive glowing silvery clouds and brilliant colorful sunsets (Busch, 1908; Zotkin, 1961; Vasilyev et al., 1965). These phenomena were later interpreted as being caused by the explosion of a cosmic body in a remote region of the Central Siberia, close to the river Podkamennaya Tunguska, where eyewitnesses observed a huge fireball crossing the sky from the SE. This is the so-called ‘Tunguska Event’, an explosion that is thought to have released from 10 to 15 Mton of energy in the atmosphere (Ben-Menahem, 1975) and is a major event of this kind in historical times.
Several expeditions explored the Tunguska site, starting with those led by Leonid Kulik in the late 1920s and 1930s. Kulik identified the epicenter of the explosion in a heavily forested area from the radial distribution of flattened trees, and concluded that he had discovered the remains of a large impact crater now hidden by a swamp (Fig. 1). He also found a number of secondary bowl-shaped holes of different sizes covered by peat bogs possibly caused by a fragmented body that fell in a swarm (Kulik, 1933, 1940). Other authors questioned this interpretation suggesting that the circular features observed in the area of the epicenter were not necessarily related to extraterrestrial impacts, but probably to seasonal thawing and freezing of the ground, characterized by a permafrost layer as thick as  30 m (Krinov, 1949). All attempts at finding macro-remnants of the cosmic body in these circular depressions were unsuccessful; therefore, the hypothesis of an impact with the ground was abandoned. Subsequent expeditions have been devoted mainly to the study of tree patterns in the devastated taiga and to the search for micro-particles of the cosmic body, under the assumption that it exploded 5–10 km above the ground (Florenskij, 1963).
Lake Cheko, a small lake located close to the inferred Tunguska Event epicenter (Fig. 1), was the focus of a geological/geophysical expedition that took place in July 1999 (Longo et al., 2001). The objective of the study was to search the lake deposits for possible geochemical and sedimentological markers of the event. However, as the work progressed, a second objective arose, namely, to find evidence pro or contra the hypothesis that the lake might fill an impact crater.
Investigation of Lake Cheko
Previous information on Lake Cheko was limited to few soundings and sediment samples collected in 1960 (Koshelev, 1963). However, as the region is remote and uninhabited, there is no reliable evidence even on whether or not the lake existed before 1908. In fact, the presence of the lake was not reported in maps drafted before 1928 and is not mentioned by eyewitness testimonies (Vasilyev et al., 1981). Aerial images and digital terrane models collected during our 1999 expedition show that the lake is located within an alluvial plain covered by sedimentary deposits of the river Kimchu, that flows into the lake on its SW side and outflows  200 m away on the same side (Fig. 2). The eastern shore of the lake is partially bounded by a hill made of igneous rocks, part of the pre-Mesozoic regional basement (Sapronov, 1986). The river, like other rivers in this region, displays wide meanders due to the low topographic gradient.
We studied the lake bottom morphology using a 200 kHz echo-sounder and a side-scan sonar system, while the internal structures of the lake sediments were imaged by mini-seismic reflection profilers, the low-frequency DataSonics ‘Bubble-Pulser’, and the higher frequency (high-resolution) ‘ChirpII’ subbottom profiler. Sediment cores up to 1.8 m long were collected using a gravity corer. In addition, a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) was used in the vicinity of the lakeshores to integrate the seismic grid and to link sub-aerial and sub-lacustrine stratigraphy. Profiles and samples were positioned through a DGPS receiver, with an accuracy of +/−l m.
The lake, if we exclude a shallow (<2 m deep) flat area on its SE side, has a nearly circular shape, slightly elongated in the SE–NW direction (125°), and a funnel-like morphology, with a  50 m maximum water-depth close to its geometrical center (Figs 3 and 4). The slopes are slightly asymmetrical, the northern being a little steeper than the southern and do not show important morphological breaks. The main irregularities are related to sedimentary features and are localized in two areas, the northern slope where a small mound (probably a slump) rises from the lake depocenter, and the SW sector, where the inflowing Kimchu river forms a small lacustrine delta; here, a sharp unconformity marks the onset of lacustrine over older alluvial/fluvial deposits (U1, Fig. 5). Processes causing these two types of features, i.e. sedimentary-wedge progradation and gravity failure, are likely to occur within short time scales, the former within decades or centuries, and the latter within seconds; therefore, their occurrence is compatible with a recent formation of Lake Cheko.
Our seismic-reflection profiles revealed a complex depositional setting within the lake. We observed an irregular pattern, with geometries varying from steeply dipping to chaotic, below a thin (0.5–2 m) finely layered sub-horizontal sequence (Figs 5 and 6). Low-frequency seismic profiles display a single flat strong reflector (reflector-T, Fig. 6) close to the lake center that appears to be produced by a localized discontinuity because it originates from a wide hyperbola visible in the unmigrated section (Fig. 6b). Our single-channel system does not allow to estimate seismic velocities above and below this reflector. However, after time-migration processing, a clear reflector is visible  10 m below the lake bottom, marking the presence of a sharp density/velocity contrast.
GPR profiles collected in the shallow south-eastern sector confirm a recent onset of lacustrine condition (Fig. 7), while side-scan sonar images reveal the presence at the lake bottom of alternate bands of high and low reflectivity that can be due to annular fractures, probably diagnostic of gravity slope-failures and collapse towards the lake center (Fig. 8).
Sediment cores support the geophysical observations in so far as they show the upper portion of the sedimentary column made of dark, well laminated, organic-rich lacustrine mud, overlying massive/chaotic deposits (Fig. 9).
Origin of Lake Cheko
We review some possibilities for the origin of Lake Cheko:
1. In a hypothetical pre-lake scenario, the river Kimchu would have excavated a major meander and the inverted conical depression as it approached the basement relief, continuing then its course on a SE–NW direction, i.e. downstream the present outflowing river (Fig. 2). We find it highly unlikely that the river ‘normal’ erosion/redeposition processes could have created the  50 m deep, inverted/conical depression presently filled by the lake. We find it equally difficult to explain the Cheko depression by limestone karsic chemical erosion, since limestones are absent, or by basement faulting/fissuring, because the lake is within a tectonically stable cratonic region.
2. Another possibility is that the lake filled a volcanic crater intercepted by a river meander during its migration. The region affected by the Tunguska Event is centred on the roots of the lower Triassic Kulikovsky palaeo-volcanic complex, which extends over a 400 km2 wide area displaying numerous, various sized craters (Sapronov, 1986). The Cheko depression, however, stands above the alluvial plain deposits of the Kimchu river, as shown by maps and seismic profiles (Figs 4 and 5). A topographic ‘hole’ such as the Lake Cheko would be completely filled by fluvial sediments in a fraction of the age of the volcanic craters observed in the region. Moreover, the rocks outcropping in the vicinity of the lake are not eruptive, but mostly dolerites and microgabbros.
3. A large number of lakes have been generated in the subarctic region of Siberia by thermokarst, i.e. the process by which permafrost may become unstable and melt, resulting in water-filled depressions of the ground. Thermokarst lakes are characterized by steep slopes and nearly flat floors, quasi-circular shapes, with diameter up to several hundred metres (Czudek and Demek, 1970). The inverted conical morphology of Cheko, with –50 m water-depth near the centre, makes a thermokarst origin unlikely. Topographic profiles of Lake Cheko and of a Siberian thermokarst lake (Lake Nikolaji in the Lena Delta region) compared with a cross-section of a terrestrial impact crater (the Odessa Meteor Crater, in Texas) show that the two lakes are completely different, while the morphology of Cheko resembles that of the Odessa Meteor Crater Is Lake Cheko an impact crater?
Attempts have been made to determine the trajectory of the cosmic body responsible for the Tunguska Event, based on eyewitness accounts, modelling of the ballistic wave and patterns in the devastated forest. Earlier estimates, although differing from each other, are averaged around 110° (Sekanina, 1998), while more recent reconstructions based on eyewitness accounts (Andreev, 1990) and patterns in the devastated forest (Fast et al., 1976; Fast and Golenberg, 1983) led to estimates of 120°±20° and 99°±10° respectively. A new analysis based on tree patterns suggests two azimuths: 110°, for a single explosion scenario, and 135° under the assumption of multiple centers (Longo et al., 2005). These azimuths are close to the 125° orientation of the elliptical Cheko depression (Fig. 4). Moreover, the lake is located along the prolongation from the epicenter of the most probable track of the cosmic body (Fig. 1). Given the above, and given the difficulty to explain the lake by thermokarst or by ‘normal’ river sedimentation/erosion processes, we now discuss a scenario whereby Lake Cheko formed as a result of the impact of a cosmic body in a swampy taiga-covered area, close to a major meander of the Kimchu River.
Several lines of evidence indicate that the Tunguska Event was caused by the explosion of a main body 5–10 km above ground (Florenskij, 1963); one or more fragments of the body may have survived the main explosion and impacted the ground NW of the epicentre (Artemieva and Shuvalov, 2007). Many trustworthy eyewitnesses heard multiple explosions (Kulik, 1927); moreover, fallen trees pattern based on the 1938 aero-photo survey suggested the presence of two to four secondary centres of wave propagation (Kulik, 1940), implying possible multiple centres of explosion (Goldine, 1998).
Small, bowl-shaped impact craters on Earth all have similar geometries, i.e. a deep cavity with a typical depth-to-diameter ratio ( 1:3) and an overturned flap of ejected material around the rim (Melosh, 1989). Lake Cheko fits these proportions, although with a relatively low depth-to-diameter ratio ( 0.16) that suggests a ‘wet’ target (Kenkmann et al., 2007) but lacks an overturned flap of ejecta. Moreover, it is slightly elliptical in shape. Elliptical craters result either from low-velocity (0.5–10 km s 1), moderately oblique (30–60°) impacts, or from extremely oblique (<10°) higher-velocity impacts. In order to form a  300-m diameter crater within the first scenario, scaling laws require an impactor with a 10–50 m diameter (Melosh, 1989). The upper limit is not realistic, being very close to pre-atmospheric entry size estimated for the Tunguska bolide. The low-velocity suggests that the bulk of the impactor may have survived the collision and, if so, should be buried below the lake. Concerning this point, reflector-T observed in profile BP-18 (Fig. 7) is compatible with the presence of a buried object or a compacted sedimentary layer below the centre of the lake.
The effect of permafrost melting and H2O release at impact
The morphology of the lake floor and subbottom images of the sedimentary sequence are compatible with the hypothesis of a 10-m diameter stony object impacting the ground with relatively low velocity (1–10 km s 1), and impact angle (≤45° over the horizontal). A probable scenario implies that a single fragment survived the airburst, continued along its trajectory and impacted down range of the air blast epicentre.
Estimates of the size of the impacting body derived from the size of the crater are affected by the nature of the ground where the impact took place. In the Lake Cheko case, it consisted of a H2O-logged, swampy and forested taiga underlained by a layer of permafrost ranging up to 25 m in thickness. In addition to its mechanical effect, the impact must have caused a strong thermal effect that may have melted the permafrost layer in the vicinity of the impact, with a volume reduction of the ground material mainly due to evaporation and/or drainage of interstitial H2O, and degassing of CH4. Subarctic Siberian permafrost stores large quantities not only of H2O-ice, but also of CH4, partly derived from the decay of ancient Pleistocene organic matter; Siberian lakes are a major source of CH4 to the atmosphere (Zimov et al., 1997, 2006; Walter et al., 2006). Assuming a 10-m diameter stony object (density 3000 kg m 3) impacting the ground with a speed of 10 km s 1, we obtain 0.8 × 1014 J of kinetic energy released by the impact. It has been estimated that, in an average impact case,  1/2 of the kinetic energy is transferred to the ground (Melosh, 1989). This amount depends on several parameters, including the strength and the nature of the target. Due to the soft nature of the swampy taiga we expect an efficient energy transfer to the ground. However, assuming conservatively that 0.4 × 1014 J were transferred to the ground,  25% of the total crater volume may have melted, thus enhancing significantly its final dimensions.
This scenario, i.e. the formation of a crater due to the ‘soft’ impact of a small body, subsequently enlarged by the expulsion of H2O and gas from the ground, would explain the unusual morphological/stratigraphical features observed in the lake. It would also explain the limited air-blast effects in the lake surroundings, and the absence of a rim that, if formed during the impact would have been rapidly obliterated by collapse and gravity-failures during the subsequent degassing phase. Moreover, it would explain the presence in the bottom of the lake of a chaotic/massive sediment unit below a well-layered ‘normal’ fine grained lacustrine sedimentary sequence. Our cores (max 1.80 m) did not reach the impact level and the pre-impact sediments, and do not allow us to confirm or reject our hypothesis. Obtaining longer cores of the lake sediments will be crucial to verify our reconstruction.
Cheko, a small lake located 8 km from the alleged epicentre of the 1908 Tunguska Event, has an unusual funnel-like bottom morphology, with  50 m maximum water-depth near the center and a 0.16 depth-to-diameter ratio. This morphology is different from that of subarctic Siberian thermokarst lakes, and is also hard to be accounted for other ‘normal’ Earth-surface tectonic or erosion/deposition processes, but is compatible with the impact of a cosmic body. Based on diameter, depth and morphology of the lake crater, and assuming that the impacting object was an asteroid, a mass of 1.5 × 106 kg ( 10 m diameter) was estimated for the projectile. However, this estimate is probably too large, because the crater was enlarged by permafrost melting and release of H2O, CH4 and other volatiles induced by the impact into a soggy ground. The projectile that formed Lake Cheko might have been a fragment of the main body that exploded in the atmosphere 5–10 km above ground. A prominent reflector observed in seismic reflection profiles  10 m below the bottom at the center of the lake indicates a sharp density/velocity contrast, compatible with either the presence of a fragment of the body, or of material compacted by the impact. Drilling could solve this dilemma.
We are grateful to the Tunguska99 Team, and in particular to G. Andreev, M. Di Martino, M.Sacchi, L. Vigliotti and P. Zucchini for their help during the different stages of the present research. We gratefully acknowledge Dr Dallas Abbot and two anonymous referees who provided useful comments and suggestions for improving the paper. Most figures were generated using the GMT software (Wessel and Smith, 1991).
Andreev, G.A., 1990. Was the Tunguska 1908 Event caused by an Apollo asteroid? In: Asteroids, Comets, Meteors III (C.I. Lagerkvist, H. Rickman, B.A. Lindblad and M. Lindgren, eds), 489 pp. Uppsala Astronomical Observatory,
Uppsala
.

Artemieva, N. and Shuvalov, V., 2007. 3D effects of Tunguska Event on the ground and in the atmosphere. Lunar Planet. Sci., XXXVIII (Abstracts) p. 1537.

Ben-Menahem, A., 1975. Source parameters of the Siberian explosion of June 30, 1908, from analysis and synthesis of seismic signals at four stations. Phys. Earth Planet. In., 11, 1–35.
CrossRef

Busch, F., 1908. Uber die Lichterscheinung in den Nachten vom 30 Juni bis zum 2 Juli 1908, On the light shining in the nights from 30 June to 2 July 1908 (in German), Mitt. Verein Freuden Astron. u. Kosmisch. Phys., 18 Jahrgang, 85. Journal Meteorologische Zeitung, 25, p. 314.

Czudek, T. and Demek, J., 1970. Thermokarst in Siberia and its influence on the development of lowland relief. Quatern. Res., 1, 103–120.
CrossRef

Fast, V.G. and Golenberg, N.A., 1983. Katalog povala lesa, vyzvannogo Tungusskim meteoritom, Catalogue of the tree fall caused by the Tunguska meteorite (in Russian). Meteoritnyje i meteornyje issledovanija, Nauka, Novosibirsk, 24–74.

Fast, V.G., Barannik, A.P. and Razin, S.A., 1976. O pole napravlenij povala derevjev v rajone padenija Tungusskogo meteorita, On the field of the fallen tree directions in the Tunguska meteorite site (in Russian). In: Voprosy meteoritiki, Izdatelstvo Tomskogo Universiteta,
Tomsk
, pp. 39–52.

Florenskij, K.P., 1963. Predvaritelnyje rezultaty Tungusskoj meteoritnoj kompleksnoj ekspeditsii 1961 g, Preliminary results of the 1961 complex Tunguska meteorite expedition (in Russian). Meteoritika, 23, 3–29.

Goldine, V.D., 1998. Search for the local centres of the Tunguska explosions. In: "Tunguska 96" special issue (M. Di Martino, P. Farinella and G. Longo, eds) Planet. Space Sci., 46,151–154.

Kenkmann, T., Patzschke, M., Thoma, K., Schäfer, F., Wünnemann, K., Deutsch, A. and MEMIN Team, 2007. Deformation of sandstone in meso-scale hypervelocity cratering experiments. Lunar Planet. Sci., XXXVIII (Abstracts) p. 1527.

Koshelev, V.A., 1963. Raboty na ozere Cheko i ih predvaritel’nye rezul’taty, The researches on the lake Cheko and their preliminary results (in Russian). In: Problema Tungusskogo meteorita, Izdatelstvo Tomskogo Universiteta,
Tomsk
, pp. 168–170.

Krinov, E.L., 1949. Tungusskiy Meteorit, The Tunguska meteorite (in Russian), 196 pp. Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR,
Moscow-Leningrad
.

Kulik, L.A., 1927. K istorii bolida 30/VI 1908 g, To the history of the 30 June 1908 bolide (in Russian). Doklady AN SSSR, A, 23, 393–398.

Kulik, L.A., 1933. Predvaritelnye itogi meteoritnyh ekspeditsij 1921-1931 gg., Preliminary conclusions of the 1921-1931 meteorite expeditions (in Russian). Trudy Lomonossovskogo instituta geokhimii, kristallografii i mineralogii Akad. Nauk SSSR, 2, 73–81.

Kulik, L.A., 1940. Meteoritnaja ekspeditsija na Podkamennuju Tungusku v 1939 g., The 1939 meteorite expedition to the Podkamennaya Tunguska (in Russian). Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR, 28, 7.

Longo, G., Bonatti, E., Di Martino, M., Foschini, L. and Gasperini, L., 2001. Exploring the site of the Tunguska impact. Abstr. Proc. Norweg. Geol. Soc., 1, 48–50.

Longo, G., Di Martino, M., Andreev, G., Anfinogenov, J., Budaeva, L. and Kovrigin, E., 2005. 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, (M. Smelror, H. Dypvik and F. Tsikalas, eds) pp. 222–225. Institute of Applied Astronomy of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
St Petersburg
.

Maysell, M., 2004. What Hit Odessa? UT Researcher Computes the Origin of the Odessa Crater. Texas Advanced Computing Center, University of Texas at Austin, Research Feature, May 11, 2004

Melosh, H.J., 1989. Impact cratering a geologic process. Oxford Monogr. Geol. Geophys., 11, 245.

Sapronov, N.L., 1986. Drevnye vulkanicheskie struktury na yuge tungusskoj sineklizy, Ancient volcanic structures on the south of the Tunguska synclinal (in Russian). Nauka,
Novosibirsk
.

Schwamborn, G.J., Dix, J.K., Bull2, J.M. and Rachold, V., 1998. High-resolution seismic and ground penetrating radar–geophysical profiling of a Thermokarst Lake in the Western Lena Delta, Northern Siberia. Permafrost Periglac. Process.. 13: 259–269, DOI: 10.1002/ppp.430.

Sekanina, Z., 1998. Evidence for asteroidal origin of the Tunguska object. Planet Space Sci., 46, 191–204.
CrossRef, ISI

Vasilyev, N.V, Zhuravlev, V.K., Zhuravleva, R.K., Kovalevskij, A.F. and Plekhanov, G.F., 1965. Nochnye svetyashiesya oblaka i opticheskie anomalii, svyazannye s padeniem Tungusskogo meteorita, The noctilucent clouds and the optical anomalies connected to the Tunguska meteorite fall (in Russian), 112 pp. Nauka,
Moscow
.

Vasilyev, N.V., Kovalevskij, A.F., Razin, S.A. and Epitektova, L.E., 1981. Pokazaniya ochevidcev Tungusskogo padeniya, Testimonies of the Tunguska fall eyewitnesses (in Russian). N. 10350-81, 304 pp.

Walter, K.M., Zimov, S.A., Chanton, J.P., Verbyla, D. and F.S., Chapin, 2006. Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming. Nature, 443, 71–75.
CrossRef, ISI, Chemport

Wessel, P. and Smith, W.H.F., 1991. Free software helps map and display data. EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 72, 445–446.
CrossRef

Zimov, S.A., Voropalv, Y.V., Semiletov, I.P., Davidiv, S.P., Prosiannikov, S.F., Chapin, F.S., Chapin, M.C., Trumbore, S. and Tyler, S., 1997. North Siberian lakes: a methane source of fueled by Pleistocene carbon. Science, 277, 800–802.
CrossRef, ISI, Chemport, CSA

Zimov, S.A., Schuurr, E.A. and Chapin, F.S., 2006. Permafrost and the global carbon budget. Science, 312, 1612–1613.
CrossRef, ISI, Chemport

Zotkin, I.T., 1961. Ob anomal’nyh optichekih yavleniah v atmosfere svyazannyh s padeniem tungusskogo meteorita, On the atmospheric anomalous optical phenomena connected to the Tunguska meteorite fall (in Russian). Meteoritika, 20, 40–53.

Виталий Ромейко
obat
Administrator
Tunguska.Ru
*****

Карма: Каждому свой досуг +0/-0
Оффлайн Оффлайн

: 66



« #1 : 26 Июнь 2007, 15:00:16 »

Краткий перевод
Здесь
vitrom
Moderator
Tunguska.Ru
*****

Карма: Каждому свой досуг +3/-0
Оффлайн Оффлайн

: 1265



« #2 : 26 Июнь 2007, 19:36:25 »

Нет. Это совсем другое. Скорее от совдеповских журналистов. Я знаком с автором статьи профессором Джузеппе Лонго. Он такого бреда себе не позволит.
Очевидно, что озеро Чеко не может быть метеоритным кратером по следующим причинам:
1. Само озеро находится в геологическом разломе. Из этого следует, что оно образовалось не 100 лет назад, а значительно раньше.
2. Как известно, озеро Чеко  находится за пределами эпицентра взрыва, приблизительно в 8 км к СВ.
3. Если метеорит (комета) был кратерообразующим, то где же остальные воронки? К настоящему времени нам известно 3 недоказанных (их ударное происхождение) воронки - Сусловская, Клюквенная и кратер Ромейко.
4. Аргумент, что озера не было на картах до 1928 года - более чем странный. До появления экспедиции Кулика (1927-30 гг.) в этом районе не было ни одного цивилизованного человека. Все первые картографические работы проводила именно экспедиция Кулика.
5. Раз был взрыв, то после прохождения ударной волны должен появиться собственный радиальный повал деревьев вокруг озера. А его, как мы знаем, там нет. Более того, к югу от озера, он ориентирован в сторону к настоящему эпицентру т.е. вершинами к озеру.
6. Более всего меня смущает, что об открытии сделанном итальянской экспедицией в 1999 г. сообщается 8 лет спустя, перед 100-летием ТМ. Все это смахивает на хорошую пиарную компанию…





Виталий Ромейко
vitrom
Moderator
Tunguska.Ru
*****

Карма: Каждому свой досуг +3/-0
Оффлайн Оффлайн

: 1265



« #3 : 27 Июнь 2007, 23:09:46 »

Озеро Чеко.


* _________.jpg (66.73 КБ, 575x370 - просмотрено 2872 раз.)

Виталий Ромейко
novicoff
Гость


« #4 : 28 Июнь 2007, 17:00:15 »

Ещё один из переводов, на этот раз на Мембране
: [1]  
« предыдущая тема следующая тема »
:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
0.13499