EGAHD!

My apologies to the forum, if I had known this was going to stir up such a firestorm I would not have even started the thread. I was under the impression that I was bringing a discussion before learned men and women, scientists, people of reason and sound principals of debate. I expect threads in a place like prisonplanet or the daily kos to devolve in to something like this....but here? I am not going to name drop, point blame or even conteplate who "started it" or who went wrong where, it's unimportant to the original topic and would only lend credibility to what amounts to an intellectual bar room brawl over someone elses date. Please, ladies and gentleman, not in my thread....please. Now lets forget everything that has happened so far that is irelevent to the original topic and continue this as if nothing happened.

Now with that out of the way, I first want to take a moment and thank those who have responded and apologize for not getting back to the thread sooner.
I also want to take a moment to state agine that this is not a theory I subscribe to or advocate. In my opinion and the opinion of sound science and reason, it is absolute nonsense and not even good enough for a bad sci-fi movie.
SOmeone had asked how I came to the size of the object. SInce i do not remember the article I linked in the original post, I got my information from a number of stories about the incident over the years, and confirmed it with a few articles before I posted this. One was a recent revising of the original size of 60 meters down to 40 meters. the premise of the article was that the blast may not quite have been of the magnitude originaly believed and that the size of the object may have been smaller. With reguards to the general topic of object size, I was under the impression it was common knowlege and accepted theory among the various astronomical circles, if I am incorrect, than by all means say so. Also, if it is important enough in this case that I get a source for the size, that I will by all means do so and I apologize for not doing so in the original post.
What I was trying to get at with my issue of density, is that it seemed to me that the article claiming the UFO theory was fundamentaly flawed because it made what seemed to be a claim of an object of extremely unlikely desntiy for an object entering the earths atmosphere, even with out understanding the details or the math involved, it seemed to me blatent enough to be obvious to even a layman as myself it was a major flaw in the Russian scientists claim, or atl least the articles account of the scientist's claim.
As to the issue of the mysterious element mentioned. It wasn't anything I rememebr seeing in highschool chemistry, but I guess that may not account for much since that was *mumble mumble* years ago. But the concesnus I am seeing here among you folks is also that it is bunk, so I will at least for now consider it another hole in the theory.
Someone mentioned that aliens must be proven to exist before the claim can be even considered any further. You are correct. But lets remember we are dealing in woo woo land in the very premise of this whole thing to begin with.
Again, I want to thank all those who responded.