Close Encounters in Siberia

Comments

1. Whats the point of having 4OD if it doesn`t repeat More 4 programmes which has more of a need as its a more difficult to access the digital channel? I therefore haven`t seen it ("Siberia Close Encounter") but perhaps I didn`t miss much as other comments seem to agree that it was a half hearted and badly judged at best attempt to get to the bottom of the Tunguska mystery. Your website introduction implies competing theories but they could be the same thing. The term "UFO" recently has been used to imply "flying saucer" but in fact a "UFO" meaning UNidentified aerial phenomena could also be a meteorite, which overwhelmingly eye witness evidence obtained from the Kulik report (1920s) agrees it was. The question is the biggest explosion in history deserves a proper explanation following up available evidence. Normally meteorites burn up quietly in the earths atmosphere so what was involved with this one whose blast wave apparently was so violent it went around the world twice. It was beyond our technology in 1908 to track and destroy such objects in the atmosphere. Who chose such an ill-prepared person for such an important story? Please send someone else with appropriate Scientific qualifications to do the job properly. They should engage with Bologna University who have done the most recent Tunguska research although their theory was incorrect. But chiefly be directed by Prof. Uvarov who can apparently direct them to getting film of the appropriate sites and doing follow up tests on the sole surviving relevant artifacts, which is fundamental to any credible scientific investigation. Evidence which Mr. Carey should have acted on rather than waste such a golden opportunity and blunder aimlessly up a blind alley. Hope you get it right in 2010. Philip Rayner Bfd.

   Posted by Philip Rayner on 02/10/2009 15:34:58

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
2. i think it's all a big conspiracy, siberia is obvs not a real place in reality. much prefer big brother cus theys well clever. :-)

   Posted by Dan Starky on 12/09/2009 22:21:38

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
3. As you will see (or not) that I am one of many that wished to watch the program stated and was unable. cant find the link to view??

   Posted by Andrew Hardy on 29/08/2009 19:02:40

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
4. What is the point of putting this up if we can't play it?

   Posted by ChrisClark on 16/08/2009 23:27:13

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
5. Just wanted to add another voice that half the things I've tried to watch are seemingly not viewable?

   Posted by IvanFoul on 15/08/2009 23:27:30

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
6. Why is this listed if can't we watch it, please? Ditto for, seemingly, 90% of your other listings. I'm giving up now.

   Posted by Mark on 29/07/2009 17:03:39

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
7. Would comment if I could download it.

   Posted by John Brandom on 24/07/2009 22:25:51

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
8. I would comment on the programme if i could watch it. Everytime I try to watch something on here I'm just led round and round in circles without actually seeing a programme. It would be nice if you could sort this out for me.

   Posted by EXPLORER on 11/07/2009 19:24:55

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
9. I don't think the documentary was as bad as people are making out. I can however see that George Carey's style clashed a bit with a 'serious' take on the topic - not that he made light of it, more that he seemed to mistake keeping a cynical distance for some kind of objective reporting. What was great was the coverage of the 'space ship' and extra-terrestrial theories when the crew went to see the museum academic. Despite what the majority would have you believe - some sort of ET involvement is actually supported by a major researcher for the Russian govt - Valery Uvarov who claims to have found an ET created defence system in the region against celestial bodies. Even when the museum professor showed Carey a lot of evidence and ended with footage of a UFO over the Tunguska area, he still refused to engage with this idea and preferred to comment on how strange it felt to be being told about this with the local Russian official being present. I found this a problematic approach - Tunguska is a weird, contradictory event and thus all ideas have to be valid for consideration. A lot more time was spent on the meteor theories and I liked the way it was pointed out that each time scientists found themselves on the way to 'proof' something happened to stop their research dead. The problems others have with Carey focusing more on the weird people in the region than "the science" - i don't see as a major issue - both for the reason above and because this wasn't billed as a formal science documentary. The people he met mirrored the 1908 event in many ways. It should be noted there is another theory that Carey didn't locate. It involved the finding of Tibetan scripts by a British explorer [who did exist] and subsequent trip to the remote region with this information by a European group who were said to have set off a nuclear event with the scroll information. This was for a pole-shift. If you want more details read my article in the Exopolitics Journal. -

   Posted by David Griffin on 21/06/2009 11:02:32

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
10. I have to agree with the other posters, just another waste of time for anyone looking for a serious documentary on an interesting subject. Why has every programme, be it serious or light entertainment, have to include 'quirky' people and stage managed 'tension' - it's almost as if everyone in TV production these days can only make 'reality/soaps'. Very boring!

    Posted by Ed on 17/06/2009 14:58:54

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
11. I agree with previous commentator (LES). This is greatest atmospheric explosion ever and desrved a serious documentary to explore what happened. I was extremely disappointed with the programme and particularly with the presenter who seemed the least likely person to choose to present it as he appeared to have no knowledge of the subject and certainly no passion for finding out about it. Next time give it to the BBC for Horizon to put out a proper investigative programme.

    Posted by Jeff on 17/06/2009 10:45:13

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
12. Surely a prerequisite for someone reporting on the Tunguska phenomenon would be an open mind about the competing theories as to its cause but George Carey deliberately pooh-poohed anything he, as a rather disinterested spectator, found not to his liking. If this unique opportunity was to be seized, a decent treatment of the scientific evidence was a minimum requirement. After all, that is the only reason you are sending a team to the wilds of Siberia. Why turn it into some sort of human interest documentary with helpings of local colour and quirky red herrings, together with the modern fad of making the story into the making of the story and what befalls our intrepid reporter. It must have been a hell of a lot of Channel 4 cash you wasted in that way. Principally on a reporter who doesn't seem to want to be there. There is an almost moral responsibility to cover the story sensibly for viewers who will never have the chance to be there - or to give it to someone who will.

    Posted by Les on 17/06/2009 00:07:08

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment