GHOST PARTICLE: The picture proof that shows aliens ARE out there

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

“This finding shows that DNA and viruses can survive the rigours of space travel – escape at high speed through the atmosphere of one planet and land in tact on another.

I am sorry but I am still laughing at that statement. I do not believe any scientist anymore since most of them still believe in Darwinism with not one shred of proof outside a microorganism mutating which is essential for all life to keep functioning here on earth. They more than likely did not clean their craft properly and its just finding what was already stuck to the instrument.

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

It's completely off topic but the simple fact that you refer to evolutionary theory in anachronistic terms such as Darwinism shows you don't have the foggiest clue as to what anyone in the biological sciences thinks let alone anything to do with evolutionary theory. The evidence in favor of evolution is, despite your protestations, copious and spanning multiple scientific disciplines from chemistry to biology to genetics. The only possible way to deny the truth of evolution is to close your eyes and plug your ears and pretend it's not there. Anyone willing to do their due diligence will see exactly what the evidence is and that evolution is indeed a fact.

a reply to: gortex

I'm not saying it's not possible but I think it unlikely.

I'll say it. It's not possible. This didn't come from outer space, it came out of the rear end of a cow.

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

Looks like a strand of DNA

IMO, life is everywhere in the universe. I think even Jupiter has life on it within its cloud layers. Some levels lay within the Goldy Locks Zone and surely have life. We have discovered life living under sheets of ice, no oxygen, no light. It life and exist there, it can exist in space too.

Whenever an article starts with "proof of aliens" it needs to be taken with a grain of salt, And there is clearly too much salt in this article.

How do they know for sure that this...thing is an organism, let alone an extraterrestrial organism? if this is true than it would be one of the greatest (if not the greatest) scientific discovery of all time. But forget peer reviews and expert scrutiny, the proof is right here on your screen!

Let the experts look at it-either way someone is going to look like an idiot.

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

Looks like a strand of DNA

THAT part was part of the "infographic" that the publication tacked on. It's not a picture of what they found. That's something I was mentioning on the first page - it didn't look like much so they made a sort of meme-ish photo montage of other things to convey the idea without showing the thing itself, which ACTUALLY looks like this:



Doesn't look like that graphic, now does it?

eta: here's the other thing they found...



And tha..tha...that's all folks!

A somewhat less restrained reply to Wainwright than Phil Plait's which I excerpted upthread:

I had read their paper and decided it was more of the same ol’, same ol’ and hadn’t said anything then, but I’m willing to summarize it.

It’s crap.

The data collection is fine. They’re lofting balloons into the stratosphere, and at a designated altitude, are opening a trap that allows dust, debris, small organisms, and so forth to settle and adhere to EM stubs. Then the trap is closed, the balloon descends, and they put the stubs on the electron microscope and see what is floating around in the atmosphere.

So far, so good. The problem lies in the interpretation. They’re then sorting the material observed into known vs. unknown, where “known” is clearly material from earth, and “unknown” is immediately categorized as Possible Signs of Extraterrestrial Life. The logic doesn’t work. It makes no sense. You’re looking at low density airborne particles in the atmosphere of a planet; it’s not as if we’ve come even close to categorizing all the particles of terrestrial origin, so you can’t play this game of assigning subsets to some other source outside our world.

The authors also have a bad case of apophenia. Almost every bit of unrecognizable garbage they spot is called “life”.

Source

originally posted by: MKMoniker
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

"Microbes In Spaaaaaace!" (Sounds like something Netflix or SyFy should pick up.)

But seriously, this is a fascinating subject, so thanks for starting this thread.

I've been following this topic on the European Space Agency (ESA) for awhile, which has more studies and results on this topic than we get from NASA and JPL:

www.esa.int...
(2001) WE ARE NOT ALONE IN SPACE; TYING IT ALL UP
1) Detection of organic molecules in space.
2) Finding planets orbiting exo-suns, with the possibility some harbor Life.
3) Finding exo-phile organisms thriving in extremely hostile conditions on Earth, thus Life on "hostile" planets may not be that difficult to find.

www.esa.int... e_Development
(Aug. 2012) ISS PLAYS ROLE IN VACCINE DEVELOPMENT
(Space changes microbes, and this is directly related to Earthly disease and vaccines.)

www.esa.int...
MICROBIOLOGY: STUDYING MICROBES
(Studying how microbes grow in space - E. Coli bacteria can grow in space inside a test tube - and how this relates to keeping the astronauts healthy in the ISS.)

www.esa.int...
VIDEO: CHARLES COCKELL DISCUSSES POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF "BIOMINING" ON OTHER ORBS

www.esa.int...
ESA ARTICLES UNDER MY SEARCH: MICROBES FROM SPACE ARE ALIVE

Thanks for the great links I am gonna start wading through them now

I will raise one point about below re:

3) Finding exo-phile organisms thriving in extremely hostile conditions on Earth, thus Life on "hostile" planets may not be that difficult to find.

I am a big believer that life will always finds a way , however i disagree that finding them here in extreme conditions defiantly means they must exist in extreme conditions elsewhere.

You have to take in to consideration that Extremophiles found on Earth are surrounded by an absolute abundance of life that has managed to work itself into and survive extreme environments. this may not be the case elsewhere unless an abundance of life existed in the past on potential planets, looking at barren planetary bodies and hoping to find life in the cracks may be a fools errand.. we must target things that look habitable also ( or at least used to look habitable).

Just my random thoughts .. right too those links!

Q

a reply to: Bedlam

This comments are from a Blog in 2013? ,

I’m not the troll, but I think they caught one in their sample
I got a strange email the other day.

Dear Troller

Dear Dr Myers, I note that you are trolling our work Please find attached a copy of our SPIE paper which we gave in San Diego. I would welcome the opportunity to give a talk at you Institution so that you, with all your infinite wisdom, could shoot me down in flames and make a fool of me. However, I doubt that you have the balls ! Professor Milton Wainwright

Who is accused of trolling, and after reading the whole blog, he just calls them liars, calling any old crap ..

Everyone is entitled to their opinion , I get it you think they are either lying , or just misguided and too wrapped up in their own Hype, is their any part of you that thinks the theory could have some truth to it? as these guys are actually running something to do with the theory we are discussing , i would like to hear their views without relying on Dr's blogging. i'd like to see all the evidence..

Also the Balloon you posted looks very much like the info-graphic used?!? i think they call it an artists impression but seems pretty close to one of the images you posted.

not trying to be confrontational you could be 100% correct , i just don't want to flog the same dead horse over and over when i would rather move forward with the OP and discussion

PEACE!

Q

originally posted by: Quantum_Squirrel
Who is accused of trolling, and after reading the whole blog, he just calls them liars, calling any old crap ..

Accused Myers of trolling, with him not having said anything about their stuff whatever...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion , I get it you think they are either lying , or just misguided and too wrapped up in their own Hype, is their any part of you that thinks the theory could have some truth to it? as these guys are actually running something to do with the theory we are discussing , i would like to hear their views without relying on Dr's blogging. i'd like to see all the evidence..

You can read their papers, they're online. And basically, no, they're not doing the followup they ought to. Any amino assay? No. Any x-ray spectroscopy to see if there are unusual element ratios? No. Look, if you find a diatom, the first thing ought not be a Tsoukalos jump to "Must be aliens".

Also the Balloon you posted looks very much like the info-graphic used?!? i think they call it an artists impression but seems pretty close to one of the images you posted.

See anything that looks like DNA?

Look, I'm all for doing sampling in the upper atmosphere. The military's been doing it forever (Crichton didn't come up with the idea) and I could easily see there being upper atmo only lifeforms, the way you find some only at the bottom of deep sea trenches near vents. But if I found life there, unless I found something really oddball that had some non-Terrestrial feature to it, I wouldn't then immediately jump to "must be aliens". In fact, that would be pretty much one of the last things I'd conclude in any situation.

Now, if you came up with some life that had something really odd, and wasn't obviously some form of Archaea, let's say it had different codons, or used some other large molecule than RNA or DNA, or used left-handed sugars, or something similar, THEN you might say hey, this is looking a lot less terrestrial.

a reply to: Bedlam

I thought they said that they can prove it originated from space due to the speed it hits the sensor rather than stuff buzzing around the stratosphere?

or did i get this wrong?

why couldn't life originating from elsewhere be based on exactly the same structures as here on Earth? for me it does not have to be different, you just have to prove it originated from outer space.

Q

originally posted by: Quantum_Squirrel
a reply to: Bedlam

I thought they said that they can prove it originated from space due to the speed it hits the sensor rather than stuff buzzing around the stratosphere?

or did i get this wrong?

It's what they say, but. This is from an in-atmosphere sampler. The material that's supposed to be causing these dents is of very low density. You have to ask yourself, what's the terminal velocity of something of this density at that height? COULD it leave dents? And you'll note that diatom isn't the dusty unidentifiable remains of one, but is quite intact. If it hit hard enough to dent, why is it intact?

why couldn't life originating from elsewhere be based on exactly the same structures as here on Earth? for me it does not have to be different, you just have to prove it originated from outer space.

Q

Why should it be the same? It's not even the same HERE. Evolution tries a lot of different approaches to things.There's no reason to expect that extra-terrestrial life would be anything LIKE what you have here on any level. Also, it's sort of mind-boggling to expect a friggin' diatom to be space life. It's the end of a longish chain of evolution you can document here. And they're all over the place here. And if I find a diatom from Earth on a sampler, MY first reaction would be to look for other contamination. Not to assume it's an alien life form.

However, astrobiologist Dirk Schulze-Makuch of Washington State University thinks the study team should have performed such follow-up analyses, and consulted diatom experts, before publishing its provocative claim.

"Perhaps the fragment came actually from the stratosphere and is not contamination, but basing this conclusion only on one particle and very limited analysis seems quite odd to me and inferring an extraterrestrial origin completely off-base," Schulze-Makuch told SPACE.com via email.

Schulze-Makuch also thinks comets are unlikely incubators for life, suspecting that life first arose on a planetary body. And the presence of a diatom on a comet would be especially surprising, he said.

"Diatoms are actually relatively advanced life forms on Earth and developed most likely sometime at the beginning of the Mesozoic (probably Jurassic time period), thus very late during evolution (probably at least 3 billion years after the origin of life on Earth)," Schulze-Makuch said, adding that diatoms are typically aquatic and there is no liquid water on a comet, except during the brief periods when the icy objects approach the sun.

linky

Look at all the life forms on Earth, past and present. From mammals including human beings, reptiles, insects to Dinosaurs, and everything in The Oceans ect. We can't even comprehend what most likely is out there. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: Bedlam

It is very much the same here , i am talking about the basic building blocks , due to no small part of the distribution of certain matter throughout the universe. Carbon based etc.

I am not talking about the many paths life might take to fit into its new or hostile surroundings. I am talking about the very basics , whats observed..

Q

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

Cool pic and great post!!! I would S&F if my tab would allow. I know nothing about this, so sorry that I've even intruded on your thread.... Again, pics are REALLY COOL!!!

With all the man-made garbage raining down on us every day from space it seems much more likely that these "particles" came from the earth. They are going to have to get a lot further away from earth and its atmosphere to claim to have captured pristine particles of truly cosmic origins.

It is estimated that hundreds of millions of pieces of space trash are now floating through our region of the solar system. Some of them are as large as trucks while others are smaller than a flake of paint.

starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: Bedlam

Why should it be the same? It's not even the same HERE. Evolution tries a lot of different approaches to things.There's no reason to expect that extra-terrestrial life would be anything LIKE what you have here on any level. Also, it's sort of mind-boggling to expect a friggin' diatom to be space life. It's the end of a longish chain of evolution you can document here. And they're all over the place here. And if I find a diatom from Earth on a sampler, MY first reaction would be to look for other contamination. Not to assume it's an alien life form.

The reason it would be the same is that the fundamental building blocks and the requirements for such do not change. Carbon is still going to be the most abundant element in the known universe, its 4 valence electrons allow for it to easily bond with other elements, most especially oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. It's rather light in weight and fairly small making it pretty easy for enzymes to manipulate the carbon molecules. In addition to the 4 valence bonds, carbon also contains the requisite amount of energy necessary for building and sustaining bonds that are reactive. This allows carbon to build long chains of complex molecules and polymers.

Sure, there are a couple of other elements that come close to being as structurally stable as carbon atoms but even the most likely candidate for a different type of atomic based life has it's limitations. Silicon doesn't create long chains of polymers like carbon. Instead it forms crystal lattices. Crystal lattices, while as stable as carbon chains, doesn't easily re-combine in different permutations allowing for a plausible life form to exist. However, that statement is based on the chemistry we know on Earth. It is entirely possible that somewhere else, conditions are different enough to allow for atoms like Silicon to effectively recombine in a manner able to support lifelike processes.

originally posted by: peter vlar

The reason it would be the same is that the fundamental building blocks and the requirements for such do not change.

But we're not talking carbon vs osmium or something. There is absolutely no reason to choose one chirality over another, but once a biome chooses, it has to pretty much go that way. There's no reason to use DNA as an encoding molecule, and at different times Earth's biology has used RNA instead, but it could be any other long chain molecule that can carry some sort of encoding.

There's no reason to choose the codon mapping we have. But it's something that was locked in early. RNA and DNA don't use the same ones - why would an alien organism?

There are so very very many pretty much random choices that happen in evolution that the possibility of a totally alien organism looking JUST LIKE an Earth diatom is nil.

If you read the papers these guys put out, you will find them admitting they didn't do very basic testing to determine if this was contamination or a known Earth organism. Or if there was anything different about the element ratios, or chirality. But, sorta like Greer, we swear we'll look NEXT time!