[Observer (OP)]

Anybody have a viable explanation for that tremendous explosion?

[Bored chemist]

There are several here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
 by far the most widely accepted is that it was a meteor/ commet strike.
That wiki site also lists some of the less viable explanations.

[Observer (OP)]

That is what I don't understand. The comet or meteor theory breaks down when even after drilling 35 meters into the "impact" area, no nickel, iron or stone fragments that are typical of comets or meteors could be found. There are a lot of theories even that of a mini black hole. Unfortunately the most widely accepted explanations don't make much sense at all. We tend to grasp that which we know but in this case there is no reason to believe it was a "known" object from our solar system entering the atmosphere.   

[Bored chemist]

From that article.
"Although the cause of the explosion is the subject of debate, it is commonly believed to have been caused by the air burst of a large meteoroid or comet fragment at an altitude of 5–10 kilometres (3–6 miles) above the Earth's surface."
Also, when you say "no nickel, iron or stone fragments that are typical of comets or meteors could be found."
Are you aware of the description of commets as "dirty snowballs"?
The tail of a commet shows that it is volatile.  A commet hitting the earths atmosphere at something like escape velocity wouldn't leave any bits big enough to find.

Why don't you accept this nice simple (not to mention widely held)theory?
"in this case there is no reason to believe it was a "known" object from our solar system entering the atmosphere.   "
True, there's also no reason to believe it wasn't one.
There's also no proof that it wasn't an enormously large glass of martini; but that's not a valid reason to go looking for a huge cherry stone.

[LeeE]

There's also no proof that it wasn't an enormously large glass of martini; but that's not a valid reason to go looking for a huge cherry stone.

Nicely put []

[Observer (OP)]

Quote from Dr. Soderblom, the leader of Deep Space 1's imaging team, and a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz.:
"These pictures have told us that comet nuclei are far more complex than we ever imagined. They have rugged terrain, smooth rolling plains, deep fractures and very, very dark material."

Sounds like a tweak more than a dirty snowball which by the way was/is speculation.

[Observer (OP)]

Bored Chemist:
"There's also no proof that it wasn't an enormously large glass of martini; but that's not a valid reason to go looking for a huge cherry stone."

So it is you again with the ridiculous comparisons. I thought this time you might be capable of coherent logical statements but I guess science is not really your cup of tea.

There is also no proof that an almighty being created the universe...
There is also no proof that the universe was created in a big bang...
There is also no proof that material is solid or that an electron is a wave or a particle...

but still scientists look to find conclusive answers. Maybe with a Martini at hand.

[LeeE]

There is also no proof that an almighty being created the universe...
There is also no proof that the universe was created in a big bang...
There is also no proof that material is solid or that an electron is a wave or a particle...

And you appear to have nothing to offer...

So it is you again with the ridiculous comparisons. I thought this time you might be capable of coherent logical statements but I guess science is not really your cup of tea.

...but insults.

The comparison wasn't ridiculous at all, just humorously worded.

[Observer (OP)]

Nor do you other than jumping on the things been said []

[Bored chemist]

"There is also no proof that an almighty being created the universe...
There is also no proof that the universe was created in a big bang...
There is also no proof that material is solid or that an electron is a wave or a particle..."

No, but there is evidence  for all those things.
Do you understand how that is significant?

Also, do you understand that I made a ridiculous  comparison deliberately? I was pointing out that it was as well evinced as yours.

While I'm at it, did you understand the bit where I wrote "The tail of a commet shows that it is volatile.  "

The answer to your original question is yes. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation of the Tunguska event.
Unfortunately there is no way to get you to accept it.
This is because you are being unreasonable.
I'm not in a position to do anything about that. Are you?

[LeeE]

Nor do you other than jumping on the things been said []

Lol

[JimBob]

I sense that there is an observer of this forum that has a HUGLY inflated opinion of their logical processes and when challenge they insult - but I have no proof. It must not be true then.

Or is the last statement false?

I can't help but think of the wizard in the cartoon "Wizard of Id" (Id - the uncoordinated instinctual trends of the psychic apparatus.) It is obviously not the intellectual part of the psyche being displayed.

[Mr. Scientist]

Anybody have a viable explanation for that tremendous explosion?

There are many expanations, but the one that seems most possible is the explosion of space debris just over the tree's themselves.