Hi, Vince

A couple of points: I didn't have any "ground based hypothesis", I'm just wondering about some of the big holes in the space-based hypothesis. I think we have to be open-minded (though not empty-headed) about alternate proposals, as long as they have some reasonable scientific merit. Just because the consensus is in one direction doesn't make it right.

I realize the eye-witness accounts are old and not made by scientifically trained observers, however there were apparently a large number of acccounts, with two or three seemingly common patterns indicating different trajectories. Even though these people weren't scientists, they did live out in nature and paid close attention to the sky and weather, etc.

I had thought of the cometary possibility to explain the preceding atmospheric phenomena, that seems a real possibility if it was a comet.

Don't know about the magnetized comet, as far as I know it would have to be an iron meteorite to have any significant magnetization, in which case it almost certainly would have survived to make a large impact. I'm not really clear on the magnetic storm information, it's just another factor that needs explanation.

Some really strange things happen that have earth-based explanations. Look up Barisal Guns or ball lightning or methane outgassing.

I think the Tunguska event, whatever it's origin, was an important occurrence and we need to learn even more about it in order to better understand our world and solar system.