NASA Scientist Claims Evidence of Alien Life on Meteorite

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...est=latestnews

Cliff notes:
Sceintist find metorite, takes it back to the lab. Cracks it open in a sterile environment and examines the newly exposed surface with electron microscope. finds a structure that looks like this:

Spoiler:

Quote:

Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5,000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis," Schild wrote in an editor's note along with the article. "No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough vetting, and never before in the history of science has the scientific community been given the opportunity to critically analyze an important research paper before it is published, he wrote

Last edited by Stu Pidasso; 03-05-2011 at 01:11 PM.

Quote

03-05-2011 , 01:03 PM

etothemc2

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,317

What an incredible discovery if this is indeed true.

We are not alone in the universe -- and alien life forms may have a lot more in common with life on Earth than we had previously thought.

That's the stunning conclusion one NASA scientist has come to, releasing his groundbreaking revelations in a new study in the March edition of the Journal of Cosmology.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-alien-life-meteorite/#ixzz1FkHbw8mz

Quote

03-05-2011 , 01:23 PM

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html

Quote:

Dr. Hoover has discovered evidence of microfossils similar to Cyanobacteria, in freshly fractured slices of the interior surfaces of the Alais, Ivuna, and Orgueil CI1 carbonaceous meteorites.

Looks like the journal has actual pictures up of the microfossils.

Quote

03-05-2011 , 01:51 PM

DDNK

veteran

Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,591

Less trumped up conclusions and more 'what did they actually find', please.

Quote

03-05-2011 , 02:25 PM

plaaynde

Poker Historian

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 20,058

I could find something like this if I searched in non-life material of earth, for example volcanic stone, eagerly enough. Selection bias, once again.

Last edited by plaaynde; 03-05-2011 at 02:31 PM.

Quote

03-05-2011 , 03:24 PM

ctyri

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,488

As potentially one of the most important papers in recent scientific history (if findings are valid), it would have been nice to see it published in something other than a newcomer online-only journal catering to enthusiasts of this science. Interesting story, perhaps... but disappointed when I clicked on link and it wasn't to Nature or something of much higher distinction.

Quote

03-05-2011 , 03:25 PM

WAtR

veteran

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 2,386

I believe worm like structures have been found before that have subsequently found to have been the result of the way the samples were prepared for use with the electron microscope. Has that been considered here?

Quote

03-05-2011 , 03:55 PM

PairTheBoard

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 10,037

Didn't they (NASA?) think they discovered something similar to this back in the late 90's in a meteorite from Mars found in Antarctica? Turned out to be an inorganic crystal formation or something?

PairTheBoard

Quote

03-05-2011 , 04:38 PM

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by PairTheBoard

Yep, that meteorite was from mars. I would think that all that was taken into consideration before this paper was published.

Quote

03-05-2011 , 04:57 PM

#10

LondonBroil

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 4,937

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

Cliff notes:
Sceintist find metorite, takes it back to the lab. Cracks it open in a sterile environment and examines the newly exposed surface with electron microscope. finds a structure that looks like this:

Spoiler:

I'd be a lot more excited if the little S was originally there when they looked at it.

Quote

03-05-2011 , 06:09 PM

#11

chasern1

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,223

foxnews really?
I'm very skeptical about this , we've been there already a couple of times ...

Quote

03-05-2011 , 06:31 PM

#12

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by chasern1

foxnews really?
I'm very skeptical about this , we've been there already a couple of times ...

This story although it shares some similiarity to preveious stories has a new twist. If true, this is way bigger than anything that has preceeded it.

Quote

03-05-2011 , 06:32 PM

#13

plaaynde

Poker Historian

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 20,058

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonBroil

I'd be a lot more excited if the little S was originally there when they looked at it.

That would really have been something, if it was real! Then I even might have given religion a shot, or maybe not, as the sceptic I am.

Quote

03-05-2011 , 09:07 PM

#14

chasern1

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,223

are there any other sources for this?
I googled, but couldn't find anything else than foxnews and the examiner...

Quote:

This story although it shares some similiarity to preveious stories has a new twist. If true, this is way bigger than anything that has preceeded it.

Yea well, I'm very skeptical about this, things like these have been announced repeatedly.
The same scientist made similar claims a couple of years ago and the Journal of Cosmology is known for releasing sketchy articles, at least they asked some other experts to review it.

Last edited by chasern1; 03-05-2011 at 09:24 PM.

Quote

03-05-2011 , 09:51 PM

#15

csull23

journeyman

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 374

Quote:

Originally Posted by chasern1

are there any other sources for this?
I googled, but couldn't find anything else than foxnews and the examiner...

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...y-stirs-debate

Haven't read it yet so it could just be more of the same, but at least it's not only foxnews. There's an update at the end from a microbiologist who is skeptical.

Quote

03-05-2011 , 10:23 PM

#16

Conz

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 6,919

how i this not huge news?

Quote

03-05-2011 , 10:40 PM

#17

blutarski

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,436

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conz

how i this not huge news?

i think other scientists are going to try to replicate the findings. even then, there will be skeptical people. if this is finding is accurate, i'm betting there will be a gradual acceptance of the fact, never a huge announcement and a ticker tape parade.

and that makes me kinda sad.

Quote

03-06-2011 , 03:35 AM

#18

atakdog

addicted

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 50,136

That journal looks pretty flaky to my non-expert eyes — thoughts from someone more familiar with these things?

Is it normal to charge authors a "publication fee"? Looks to me like it's a vanity press devoted primarily to silly stuff.

Quote

03-06-2011 , 03:39 AM

#19

atakdog

addicted

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 50,136

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conz

how i this not huge news?

My guess: because it isn't news at all, else it actually would be huge. They didn't find life — they found inanimate shapes that look a lot like certain kinds of known life. It's quiet a leap from that to fossils. And note that it isn't NASA saying it, it's one NASA scientist.

I'd love for it to be real, but I'll give long odds it isn't.

Quote

03-06-2011 , 03:41 AM

#20

atakdog

addicted

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 50,136

Do the creationists and other evolution deniers want this to be real (so life didn't arise here, but rather was seeded by comets and stuff — that's how they could spin it) or not?

Quote

03-06-2011 , 03:46 AM

#21

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by atakdog

That journal looks pretty flaky to my non-expert eyes — thoughts from someone more familiar with these things?

I had a similar reaction. The website looks very unprofessional, and it's not a very old journal. I can understand that new journals take time to establish themselves, and I think online-only formats still tend to be viewed with a certain level of skepticism. So I'm not sure how flaky/solid it really is.

While I was looking around, I found this:

http://daviddobbs.**************/jour...-with-big-bang

Quote:

Feb 14, 2011

Journal of Cosmology To Stop Publishing--Killed by Thieves and Crooks
JOC will publish its last edition in May of 2011.

The Journal of Cosmology (JOC) was founded in the summer of 2009, published its first edition in October, and immediately became a success. Within one year it was receiving nearly 1 million hits a month and dozens of news articles were appearing regularly about its content--a phenomenal achievement for a scientific journal.

Naturally, JOC's success posed a direct threat to traditional subscription based science periodicals, such as "science" magazine; just as online news killed many newspapers. Not surprisingly, JOC was targeted by science magazine and others who engaged in illegal, criminal, anti-competitive acts to prevent JOC from distributing news about its online editions and books.

I'm having trouble finding a verification of this (and of the accusations in the article itself), but I have to admit that I didn't try very hard.

Quote

03-06-2011 , 04:37 AM

#22

atakdog

addicted

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 50,136

The rest of that blog article has a tone of shrillness and paranoia to it, and a general approach, that strike me as almost certain indicia of propaganda.

I don't think we're dealing with an above-board approach to science here. And that, in turn, is why I think it's not huge news: Because it's ********.

Last edited by atakdog; 03-06-2011 at 04:38 AM. Reason: lol at that whole thing being censored. Should just have said "bull".

Quote

03-06-2011 , 09:37 AM

#23

Wamy Einehouse

rack 'em

Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,653

lol faux news

Quote

03-06-2011 , 12:19 PM

#24

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wamy Einehouse

lol faux news

http://news.google.com/news/story?pz...SBBhseyKyHkNUM

The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...rrestrial-life

CNet: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20039647-71.html

CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_1...58-501465.html

Discovery News: http://news.discovery.com/space/has-...nd-110305.html

The Examiner: http://www.examiner.com/technology-i...ent-meteorites

And there are many others.

Quote

03-06-2011 , 12:26 PM

#25

Ryanb9

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 7,459

Guys I found the real picture. The one in OP is doctored. Plz dont look at this if you are just some skeptic scum "blah blah we landed on the moon blah blah" gfy.

Spoiler:

Quote

Page 1 of 2

First

1 2

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 1 of 2

First

1 2

Last