NASA scientist 'finds alien fossils on meteorite' 3/7/11

The aliens are coming!!!

from Elemental Forums

Remember a while back I mentioned in another post about scientists thinking they found fossilized microscopic bacterial remains in an asteroid? Well, now a NASA scientist is saying he's found some and is asking the rest of the scientific community to confirm his findings. If true, then this proves without the shadow of doubt that life is possible outside of the planet Earth. The article in question is reported on this ABC News website here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/07/3156780.htm

This should be really, Really, Awesome. Unfortunately with all the disasters happening all over the world they have completely over-shadowed this article in the news so I thought I would spread the word. If completely confirmed (which sounds pretty solid already if you ask me) this could be the Biggest News Story in Human History. It proves, that life is possible out there and that as far as being "life forms", we are Not Alone in the universe, even if we do only share it with bacteria, at least it's "life".

Check the link, read the science, talk :). I'm interested in what you all think.

misc
65,110 views 24 replies
Reply #1 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Well I guess you haven't heard about the recent discovery of alien life form then. Apparently we have this guy from mars who...get this...is also a rockstar! I know huh!? Go figure! XD

On a more serious note though...I never thought for one second that life other than what's on this little planet didn't exist elsewhere. I mean seriously...we aren't that smart...so if we can exist there just has to be life out there a hell of a lot smarter than us. Would be cool though to see some rock solid proof of it though. Not that I need it...I'd just like to actually see it. :grin: And I really hope that before I take the big dirt nap that I get to see something bigger than bacteria. *_*

Reply #2 from WinCustomize Forums Top

That there is life elsewhere is pretty much a statistical certainty. This finding hasn't 'proven' it just yet. Simple question: What if this 'unknown' bacterium is just that? Being unknown, being fossilized and being on a meteorite doesn't de fact prove it got on at an extraterrestrial bus station. It would be much more convincing could the dna be sequenced and shown to be dna not in any arrangement (sequence) seen here in current or more primitive bacteria. In fact, it hasn't even been proven to be a bacterium yet although it could be one.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (C. Sagan) sounds correct.

Let's wait to hear what the examiners have to say.

I hope we see more than the cosmic equivalent of 'pond scum' someday, not that we deserve better, but that would be the day.

*edit- Washington Post- source from next reply:

"And while Hoover's paper in the journal lists him as a "Ph.D.," NASA's solar physics website does not mention a doctorate. A colleague of Hoover's said he acknowledges that he doesn't have the advanced degree. Schild said someone at the journal - he doesn't know who - may have inadvertently listed Hoover with the doctorate title."

Starting to unravel even before we get to the supposed 'bacterium' of who knows what origin.

 

Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from Elemental Forums Top

If true, then this proves without the shadow of doubt that life is possible outside of the planet Earth.

It's not true.

It's a sham article in a sham journal. The main writer works for NASA but the article itself isn't supported by NASA at all.

Wait journal... it's not even a journal, it's a website. Well, at least it has the modern geocities standard of web design... with dozen of amazon links to books to buy?

There are questions about the credentials of the study's author, Richard Hoover. And the work appeared in an online journal that raises eyebrows because even its editor acknowledges it may have to shut down in June and that one reason for publishing the controversial claim was to help find a buyer.

Source.

Oh... and that Washington Post article, which btw. is excellent, I've just linked... guess where I got it?

From here. Oh, that's just the astrobiology site of NASA which says the following:

Richard Hoover of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., claims that he found fossils that look like the remnants of bacteria in at least two meteorites. His research paper, published online on March 4 in the Journal of Cosmology, concludes these must have come from outer space. But his claim has been roundly disputed by other scientists.

Which is, for an organization like NASA, one of the stronger rebutals they can say.

Reply #4 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I read that article three days ago and for what its worth the publisher requested a review by his peers because he himself doubted the findings. NASA is already denying the claim and some scientists are simply ignoring it. I'd laugh my butt off if this guy is proven right and tell those others to take a long walk off a short peir.

Reply #5 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Vandenburg, reply 3

If true, then this proves without the shadow of doubt that life is possible outside of the planet Earth.


It's not true.

It's a sham article in a sham journal. The main writer works for NASA but the article itself isn't supported by NASA at all.

Wait journal... it's not even a journal, it's a website. Well, at least it has the modern geocities standard of web design... with dozen of amazon links to books to buy?


There are questions about the credentials of the study's author, Richard Hoover. And the work appeared in an online journal that raises eyebrows because even its editor acknowledges it may have to shut down in June and that one reason for publishing the controversial claim was to help find a buyer.


Source.

Oh... and that Washington Post article, which btw. is excellent, I've just linked... guess where I got it?

From here. Oh, that's just the astrobiology site of NASA which says the following:


Richard Hoover of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., claims that he found fossils that look like the remnants of bacteria in at least two meteorites. His research paper, published online on March 4 in the Journal of Cosmology, concludes these must have come from outer space. But his claim has been roundly disputed by other scientists.


Which is, for an organization like NASA, one of the stronger rebutals they can say.

Ahh, see what you're saying. I didn't see that yet.

I saw ABCNews logo at the top and I assumed it was somehow affiliated with ABC, which I prefer their news (local and world) over the big 3 stations outside of CNN. I also didn't pay attention or even see the buying book thing nor the book was related to the article. It looks like a legitimate news article to me.

Also didn't know it had been disputed yet. I just read he was wanting the opinion of the rest of the scientific community so they could back him up. If it's disputed then there must be doubt. Either that or they just don't want us to know as a lot of people would "put 2+2 together" in their minds and make the leap that if that's out there, the chances of intelligent life out there some where far, far, far away, might actually exist. Seeing what you posted there makes me feel kinda dumb for getting my hopes up..LoL.

Part of me honestly believes that somewhere up in "the powers that be" they simply wouldn't want that kind of information given to the general public just yet. Maybe I might also just be paranoid..lol. The guy does work at NASA though, which to me gives him a little bit of credit. Plus there are totally different dudes from my UFO article that found microfossils in meteorites in Antarctica, so this isn't the first time a accredited scientists has made this claim. Add that with me seeing it on ABCNews and I thought it was completely legit.

Thanks for pointing all that out.

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

Interestingly enough, I found some "drama" following some of those book links there. Check this out:

Journal of Cosmology, 2011, Vol 13,
JournalofCosmology.com March, 2011

Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites
Richard B. Hoover, Ph.D. NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center

Synopsis

Richard 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. Based on Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) and other measures, Richard Hoover has concluded they are indigenous to these meteors and are similar to trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as filamentous sulfur bacteria. He concludes these fossilized bacteria are not Earthly contaminants but are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies. Coupled with a wealth of date published elsewhere and in previous editions of the Journal of Cosmology, and as presented in the edited text, "The Biological Big Bang", the implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets.

Members of the Scientific community were invited to analyze the results and to write critical commentaries or to speculate about the implications. With one exception as it was off topic, all commentaries received were published on March 7 through March 10, 2011 and can be accessed at this link: Commentaries

Official Statement from Dr. Rudy Schild,
Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian,
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Cosmology.

Richard Hoover is a highly respected scientist and astrobiologist with a prestigious record of accomplishment at NASA. Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis. Our intention is to publish the commentaries, both pro and con, alongside Hoover's paper. In this way, the paper will have received a thorough vetting, and all points of view can be presented. No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough analysis, and no other scientific journal in the history of science has made such a profoundly important paper available to the scientific community, for comment, before it is published. We believe the best way to advance science, is to promote debate and discussion.

 

 

Official Statement The Journal of Cosmology,

The Journal of Cosmology is free, online, open access. Free means = No money.

Our intention has always been to promote science and this means, particularly in this case, stepping on the toes of the "status quo" who have responded with a barrage of slanderous attacks. The statements issued by NASA are especially disappointing as they are not true.

The Journal of Cosmology is a Prestigious Scientific Journal Two of NASA Senior Scientists Science Directorates have published in the Journal of Cosmology (JOC). A NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate served as a "guest" Executive editor and repeatedly referred to the Journal as "prestigious." Four astronauts, two who walked on the Moon have published with JOC. Over 30 top NASA scientists have published in JOC.

Top scientists from prestigious universities from around the world have published in the Journal of Cosmology, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, and so on. Sir Roger Penrose of Oxford and who shared the "Wolf Prize" in physics with Stephen Hawking is Guest editing the April edition.

Peer Review NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate Joel Levine, while participating in a NASA press conference, remarked about how his papers were peer reviewed and he was required to revise all of them, even though he was the editor for that edition of JOC!

As every editor, and guest editor will attest, all articles are subjected to peer review. We reject over 30% of invited papers and over 70% of those which are not invited. Over 90% of all papers are sent back for revision following peer review. Every editor, and Guest editor, has had their work subjected to peer review, and every editor has been required to revise their articles after peer review. Even the executive editors have been required to revise their papers after peer review. We believe in peer review. Peer review provides wonderful feedback which can help make a paper better, or which can explain why the paper is hopeless and must be rejected. However, we do not reject great papers because we disagree with them as is the habit of other periodicals.

Richard Hoover's paper was received in November. It was subjected to repeated reviews and underwent one significant revision.

The Journal of Cosmology is Not For Sale & Will Continue Publishing The Journal of Cosmology has no income, a small staff, and is overwhelmed with submissions from scientists around the world.

We were well aware we would suffer profound, slanderous, attacks by those who would do anything to destroy our reputation. It took tremendous courage to publish this paper, and despite its lack of funds, the Journal will continue publishing great ideas and great research.

Makes me wonder if this has any real validity to it at all or if he's just in this to make cash since to the general non-scientist public his book are 50 bucks a pop.

Reply #7 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Makes me wonder if you'll be nice and change that white print to black. Pretty please?  :grin:

Reply #8 from Elemental Forums Top

Cosmology? That's your answer right there.

Reply #9 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Makes me wonder if you'll be nice and change that white print to black. Pretty please?

You have to send off for his decoder ring to read that. *_*

Reply #10 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 7
Makes me wonder if you'll be nice and change that white print to black. Pretty please? 

Sorry, Doc. If I make it black it won't show up on the Elemental forums here, at least not easily. For some reason when I copied it last night it messed up and I tried to make it as close as I could to the normal colors here on this forum.

Quoting Heavenfall, reply 8
Cosmology? That's your answer right there.

lol no, cosmology isn't my answer. What does cosmology have to do with it though aside from being the name of the journal?

Reply #11 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Upper half of Reply #6:

Interestingly enough, I found some "drama" following some of those book links there. Check this out:

Journal of Cosmology, 2011, Vol 13,
JournalofCosmology.com March, 2011

Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites
Richard B. Hoover, Ph.D. NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center

Synopsis

 

Richard 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. Based on Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) and other measures, Richard Hoover has concluded they are indigenous to these meteors and are similar to trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as filamentous sulfur bacteria. He concludes these fossilized bacteria are not Earthly contaminants but are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies. Coupled with a wealth of date published elsewhere and in previous editions of the Journal of Cosmology, and as presented in the edited text, "The Biological Big Bang", the implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets.

Members of the Scientific community were invited to analyze the results and to write critical commentaries or to speculate about the implications. With one exception as it was off topic, all commentaries received were published on March 7 through March 10, 2011 and can be accessed at this link: Commentaries

 

Official Statement from Dr. Rudy Schild,
Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian,
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Cosmology.

Richard Hoover is a highly respected scientist and astrobiologist with a prestigious record of accomplishment at NASA. Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis. Our intention is to publish the commentaries, both pro and con, alongside Hoover's paper. In this way, the paper will have received a thorough vetting, and all points of view can be presented. No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough analysis, and no other scientific journal in the history of science has made such a profoundly important paper available to the scientific community, for comment, before it is published. We believe the best way to advance science, is to promote debate and discussion.

 

 

Official Statement The Journal of Cosmology,

 

The Journal of Cosmology is free, online, open access. Free means = No money.

Our intention has always been to promote science and this means, particularly in this case, stepping on the toes of the "status quo" who have responded with a barrage of slanderous attacks. The statements issued by NASA are especially disappointing as they are not true.

The Journal of Cosmology is a Prestigious Scientific Journal Two of NASA Senior Scientists Science Directorates have published in the Journal of Cosmology (JOC). A NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate served as a "guest" Executive editor and repeatedly referred to the Journal as "prestigious." Four astronauts, two who walked on the Moon have published with JOC. Over 30 top NASA scientists have published in JOC.

Top scientists from prestigious universities from around the world have published in the Journal of Cosmology, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, and so on. Sir Roger Penrose of Oxford and who shared the "Wolf Prize" in physics with Stephen Hawking is Guest editing the April edition.

Peer Review NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate Joel Levine, while participating in a NASA press conference, remarked about how his papers were peer reviewed and he was required to revise all of them, even though he was the editor for that edition of JOC!

As every editor, and guest editor will attest, all articles are subjected to peer review. We reject over 30% of invited papers and over 70% of those which are not invited. Over 90% of all papers are sent back for revision following peer review. Every editor, and Guest editor, has had their work subjected to peer review, and every editor has been required to revise their articles after peer review. Even the executive editors have been required to revise their papers after peer review. We believe in peer review. Peer review provides wonderful feedback which can help make a paper better, or which can explain why the paper is hopeless and must be rejected. However, we do not reject great papers because we disagree with them as is the habit of other periodicals.

Richard Hoover's paper was received in November. It was subjected to repeated reviews and underwent one significant revision.

The Journal of Cosmology is Not For Sale & Will Continue Publishing The Journal of Cosmology has no income, a small staff, and is overwhelmed with submissions from scientists around the world.

We were well aware we would suffer profound, slanderous, attacks by those who would do anything to destroy our reputation. It took tremendous courage to publish this paper, and despite its lack of funds, the Journal will continue publishing great ideas and great research.

Makes me wonder if this has any real validity to it at all or if he's just in this to make cash since to the general non-scientist public his book are 50 bucks a pop.

 

  ;)   XD

Reply #12 from WinCustomize Forums Top

That cat will sleep soundly tonight. Good article Doc. I wonder if a really 'prestigious' Journal would present itself the same way.

Reply #13 from Elemental Forums Top

lol nice reposting, Doc :). Any "Raven" I know though would peck the eyes out of any cat, even a tiger :P

Seriously though, I keep forgetting you win-customize forums users don't see the same colors we do here on Elemental. My bad.

Quoting Uvah, reply 12
  Good article Doc.

Hey, that's my article :P Doc just put it in a better color for his stomping grounds ;)

Reply #14 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Uvah, reply 12
That cat will sleep soundly tonight. Good article Doc. I wonder if a really 'prestigious' Journal would present itself the same way.

So I'm guessing "The Journal of Cosmology" isn't really a scientifically prestigious journal?

Reply #15 from WinCustomize Forums Top

No, RavenX. It's an endeavor that promotes fringe thinking that all life on Earth has its origins "elsewhere" (Panspermia), and really is pretty much "out there".

For a prestigious Journal, try "Science" and "Nature".

Reply #16 from Elemental Forums Top

But DrJBHL, without fringe thinking we would not have psychotherapy. Which is based on the ramblings of a coke addict with a rotted jaw from too many cigars. I argue psudo science at best, horrid way to label people and remove them from society at the worst. Either way not based on hard measurable fact.

 

 

 

 

You got me JAFO, not too proud to admit that I forgot an "a". Thank God for small victories.

Reply #17 from WinCustomize Forums Top

What's "psychotherpy"?

A nutter with an STD? ..... JAFOCHECK

Reply #18 from Elemental Forums Top

Most of the news we get these days is cut and pasted from press releases with no followup and no real analysis. It's cheap and easy. Remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Remember the silliness regarding a so-called breakthrough in British science regarding chocolate that induced orgasms - yeah, right.

Reply #19 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Remember the silliness regarding a so-called breakthrough in British science regarding chocolate that induced orgasms - yeah, right.

Ah maaaan! You mean I wasted all that money! X| I knew she was lying...what a cheap way to get chocolate! XO Oh well....the jokes on her...I was faking all mine! Yeah, right! XD

Oh...and I like fringe thinking! Outside the box is a good thiing! :thumbsup: It's the ones that "think" they know it all that bug me. *_*

Reply #20 from Elemental Forums Top
There is no alien fossil, actually this is an article from a week ago but it's an old story that the NASA guys made fools out of themselves about this or other alien fossil samples: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/07/scitech/main20040304.shtml
Reply #21 from Elemental Forums Top

This guy's hypothesis needs to be judged on its own merits and either validated or debunked. Ad hominem attacks should be avoided. A broken clock is right twice a day after all. Maybe I'm missing it but I haven't seen anything debunking his hypothesis - just attacks on his credibility, the journal's credibility, the fact NASA isn't standing behind him, or elitist scientists dismissing the hypothesis of someone unworthy of their time. I've got Algore and his ilk telling me every change in the weather is caused by AGW and anyone who disagrees is on par with Nazis - forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of elite science.

Reply #22 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting AlLanMandragoran, reply 21
This guy's hypothesis needs to be judged on its own merits and either validated or debunked. Ad hominem attacks should be avoided. A broken clock is right twice a day after all. Maybe I'm missing it but I haven't seen anything debunking his hypothesis - just attacks on his credibility, the journal's credibility, the fact NASA isn't standing behind him, or elitist scientists dismissing the hypothesis of someone unworthy of their time. I've got Algore and his ilk telling me every change in the weather is caused by AGW and anyone who disagrees is on par with Nazis - forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of elite science.

I think you're forgetting the 100s of "elite" scientists who have agreed to do just that for the special issue. Just saying.

Reply #23 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting LightofAbraxas, reply 22



Quoting AlLanMandragoran,
reply 21
This guy's hypothesis needs to be judged on its own merits and either validated or debunked. Ad hominem attacks should be avoided. A broken clock is right twice a day after all. Maybe I'm missing it but I haven't seen anything debunking his hypothesis - just attacks on his credibility, the journal's credibility, the fact NASA isn't standing behind him, or elitist scientists dismissing the hypothesis of someone unworthy of their time. I've got Algore and his ilk telling me every change in the weather is caused by AGW and anyone who disagrees is on par with Nazis - forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of elite science.



I think you're forgetting the 100s of "elite" scientists who have agreed to do just that for the special issue. Just saying.

I hear ya. This whole thing could be bs but there is a chance it may not be.

Reply #24 from Elemental Forums Top

So, just a quick update. It was ALL OVER the news the other day that scientists have found the building blocks of DNA out in space. No "maybes" this time. It's confirmed. The chemicals needed to form are DNA ARE FOUND in space and in comets and meteors. I'm too tired to post links right this second (going to bed), but if I remember I'll get around to posting some real links tonight if you guys don't find it before me before I wake up this afternoon.