Comment: Not the original paper ... (Score 5, Informative) 2008-05-27 19:03
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday May 27, @07:03PM
(#23559811)
Attached to: Details Emerging On Tunguska Impact Crater
Attached to: Details Emerging On Tunguska Impact Crater
The paper in the posting is a reply to a comment with the contrary interpretation (i.e. that Lake Cheko isn't an impact) [Same paper as PDF]. The critical comment should be cited too.
The original paper by Gasperini et al. (2007) is also available as PDF and HTML.
I'm not particularly convinced by the evidence they present. It's quite circumstantial. What they need to find and sample is an ejecta-related layer in the lake stratigraphy or in a lake nearby, and you'd think that if such a large impactor hit the ground there would be plenty of micrometeorite debris in the sediments of the surrounding area. Geomorphological evidence and age just isn't enough.
The original paper by Gasperini et al. (2007) is also available as PDF and HTML.
I'm not particularly convinced by the evidence they present. It's quite circumstantial. What they need to find and sample is an ejecta-related layer in the lake stratigraphy or in a lake nearby, and you'd think that if such a large impactor hit the ground there would be plenty of micrometeorite debris in the sediments of the surrounding area. Geomorphological evidence and age just isn't enough.

