It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Any Experts on Meteorites? (thoughts on Ice Meteorites)

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by WretchFossil
 



Ice meteorite contains alien life remains


Figure 1 below is marked for alien life remains of blood vessel and red blood cells found in an ice meteorite discovered by Mr. Duane P. Snyder:


Figure 1:www.wretch.cc...


Photo source and credit: The original micrograph of Figure 1 was bought from Mr. Snyder’s website at www.snydericyrite.com...

Added on Dec. 3, 2010:
Proof of meteorite:



The following link shows Mr. Snyder had the ice meteorite analyzed
for its chemical composition and bio-molecular structures. The
analysis reports show the object contains most of the elements on the
periodic table (90 u). No Earth rocks contain so many elements in a concentrated form.

In short, the object is a meteorite because it contains iron-nickel metal and animal fossils. Listen to the radio talk for details.
www.disclose.tv...

Added on Dec. 4, 2010:

Most elements on the periodic table are
found concentrated in a tiny part of one ice meteorite.

That tiny part contains both iron-nickel metal and animal fossil debris, which ensures that it was extraterrestrial in origin, as no terrestrial artificial/natural objects contain so many elements and fossil debris in just one tiny part of the objects.

Added on Dec. 7, 2010:


Here is the direct link to the radio interview without need for download:

www.blogtalkradio.com...


In the interview, Mr. Snyder actually said the ice meteorite fragment contains "nearly all the elements on the periodic talbe" instead of "most of the elements on the periodic table" as I mentioned in previous posts. That fact alone proves the ice meteorite was extraterrestrial in origin, as no terrestrial objects contain so many elements in a tiny, undifferentiated fragment.


Some people said the thread-like objects in Figure 1 were fibers rather than blood vessel fossil debris.Their claim was incorrect in that no fibers contain round and concave particles of 3-10 micrometers in diameter. Arrow A in my Figure 1 points to such a
particle, a fossilized red blood cell. So, it was not a fiber.




posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Any ice in a meteor would not survive entry into the atmosphere. If it were part of an object large enough to protect the ice locked in it's core, the impact would release enough energy to evaporate the ice as well.

Just no way.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Fiberx
 


Clear proof of Martian life in meteorite ALH84001

Found in Martian meteorite ALH84001 are various fossils, including
fossilized remains of mammalian red blood cell, blood vessel,
Haversian canal, osteons, collagen fibril, and chromatin fibers as
shown in the following figures:

Fig. 1: shows mammalian red blood cell and branching blood vessel
www.wretch.cc...
Photo source:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
Credit: Dr. Allan Treiman

Fig. 2: shows a Haversian canal found in a carbonate globule of
meteorite ALH84001
www.wretch.cc...
Photo source:
brainmind.com...
Credit: NASA

The following figures have been published previously in
wretchfossil.blogspot.com...

Fig. 3: shows a broken,fossilized collagen fibril
www.wretch.cc...

Fig. 4: shows several osteons
www.wretch.cc...

Fig. 5: shows several chromatin fibers
www.wretch.cc...



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by WretchFossil
 


You've been exposed Duane Snyder, ....

Stop trying to drum up business for your bogus meteorite find !!

lowlife



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fiberx
Any ice in a meteor would not survive entry into the atmosphere. If it were part of an object large enough to protect the ice locked in it's core, the impact would release enough energy to evaporate the ice as well.

Just no way.


well aaaactually..

on the NASA.gov (Jet propulsion laboratory) website.. there's a Rueter's news story from 1999 about one that landed in china..

link - www2.jpl.nasa.gov...


Experts are viewing what portends to be the world's first recovery of an ice meteorite with excitement and caution. "According to witnesses, it fell with a 'whooo-ing' sound, with a cloudy streak, then came crashing down into three fields about one km (0.6 miles) apart," Xinhua said. Zhong rushed to the scene, recovered two pieces and sent both to Purple Mountain on March 29 with the aid of a frozen food company, which kept them from melting. The largest chunk, now about the size of a fist, left a crater about one metre (3.3 ft) in diameter and a half metre deep. The second piece was a bit smaller, Xinhua said. Wang, a member of the International Meteorite Council, cited strong evidence that the ice chunks were from a meteor that crashed from space into the earth's atmosphere. "Three pieces of ice falling together trailing a cloudy streak have never been seen before," Xinhua quoted Wang as saying. "They are white, semi-transparent, with an irregular shape and what are apparently air bubbles on both the surface and inside the ice. Unlike man-made ice, the ice has air bubbles, is relatively light and doesn't have the layered structure of hailstones," he said. "Judging from this, they can only be seen to be ice meteorites," he said. Further tests will involve closer inspection of the molecular and atomic structure of the ice. Experts want to analyse the ice for isotopes and cosmic dust, Wang said. Consultations with the International Meteorite Council may also be necessary, he added.


learn a bit more every day now don't we?



-



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by prevenge

Experts want to analyse the ice for isotopes and cosmic dust, Wang said. Consultations with the International Meteorite Council may also be necessary, he added.
-learn a bit more every day now don't we?
What have we learned? That some people jump to the least likely conclusion instead of the most likely conclusion? I already knew that.
Where are the analytical results?
How do we know these chunks of ice didn't fall off a high flying aircraft?
That article says the objects are viewed with "excitement and caution".
Where's the caution in saying we've learned something?
Now if cosmic isotopes were found in the gas pockets of the ice then we might have learned something.
Based on that story I'm quite unconvinced an icy object less than 30m in diameter when it first enters the atmosphere will hit the ground intact, but I'd love to see the confirmation data from that find that happened FIFTEEN YEARS AGO!!

I ran a search and found the same article saying they would check it but no followup article saying they actually confirmed it. See my signature. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The article does not cite extraordinary evidence.

It is intriguing and if they confirmed cosmic isotopes inside the ice then that WOULD be extraordinary and I'd be convinced of the cosmic origin. Without that, I'm not convinced and I think there's adequate reason for skepticism.

So, please post the follow-up article with the stunning results they mentioned. "Further tests will involve closer inspection of the molecular and atomic structure of the ice. Experts want to analyse the ice for isotopes and cosmic dust, Wang said." Yes, good idea, and I want to see the results of this analysis mentioned 15 years ago. Please post it if you got it, thanks.

Here's some food for thought:

Huge chunk of ice falls thousands of feet from plane and smashes into couple's flat


A 2ft block of ice had crashed through the ceiling of the couple's home - leaving a hole in the roof and scattering debris across the spare bedroom.

'We think it could only have come from a transatlantic plane flying very high above us which jettisoned the ice. I am trying hard not to think where the water came from to make the ice - the most likely possibility is the plane's loo.'

But Alexandra Coleman, spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority, said: 'Aircraft have a number of seals, such as around doors. Ice falls off sometimes when one of the seals fails or hasn't been sealed properly.

'It is quite rare, although it isn't nice when it happens. We have an average of two ice falls reported a year nationwide.

'It is not lavatory waste. That is dealt with in a different way.'


Chunk Of Ice Falls From Plane, Smashes Home


A Henderson, Nev., couple is stuck with a hole in their roof, a big repair bill and a bizarre story after a chunk of ice smashed through their garage roof.

"It's like the size of large sofa cushion," said Penny White.

The Whites' neighbor, Roger Snyder, said the situation could have been a lot worse.

"Ten foot in either direction and it would have taken Bill or me out -- because it was that close," said Snyder.

An official with the Federal Aviation Administration told the Whites that the ice almost certainly fell from an airliner, possibly one with a leaky galley. Without the airline finding the problem and admitting their mistake, however, the FAA official said there was little likelihood in finding out from where the ice fell.


It's possible all of these were ice meteorites, but the chances are extremely remote. It's much more likely they came from planes. I don't see how they ruled out that cause in the article about the find in China, they didn't rule it out. The gas bubbles could form in the ice due to air turbulence so they don't prove it wasn't from a plane.

And here's an analysis on why ice meteorites are so unlikely:

The Problem of Ice Meteorites Martin Beech Campion College, The University of Regina, Regina, SK.


That large blocks of ice fall to the ground is evident enough; they are observed to fall and they are collected, but the central question here is did they enter the Earth’s atmosphere from interplanetary space? Indeed, it is this latter requirement that must be satisfied, by definition, for such ice remnants to be considered meteorites.

“can water-ice meteoroids survive passage through the Earth’s atmosphere”?

When the initial velocity is 15 km/s, however, even a 1,000,000-kg (diameter ≈ 15-m) ice-meteoroid will only produce an ice meteorite of a few grams mass on the ground. Several points must be immediately made. It is clear that no τ-Herculid meteoroid has ever produced an ice-meteorite: Indeed, if the Earth did encounter a τ-Herculid fragment of several tens of meters in diameter it would probably produce an air-burst explosion similar to that of the 1908 Tunguska impact.

Two main factors argue against ice meteorites. Firstly the velocity restriction requires that the meteoroids must encounter the Earth with very low velocities - certainly less than 12 - 13 km/s. No currently known cometary meteoroid stream, therefore, can produce ice-meteorites. This effectively removes from consideration what might otherwise be considered a good source of material for producing ice-meteorites. Indeed, for an ice-meteoroid belonging to a typical short-period cometary stream, initial sizes in excess of 20 to 50-m across are required to produce an ice-meteorite, and no such objects have been observed.

The second reason why ice meteorites must, at best, be exceptionally rare relates to their survival lifetime in space. To get close to the Earth means that an ice-meteoroid must become heated, and once this happens lifetimes against mass-loss by sublimation are typically just a few tens of years. In other words an ice-meteoroid is ‘destroyed’ in space long before it might encounter the Earth to produce an ice-meteorite.

In conclusion, from an atmospheric interaction and a solar system dynamics perspective, I would argue that it is not prudent to accept the idea that ice-meteorites exist. The origin of the large ice chunks that have fallen to the ground must lie somewhere within and not beyond the Earth’s atmosphere.


Now I hope what we have learned is not to jump to unlikely conclusions! If we are going to jump to any conclusion at all, at least jump to the most likely conclusion (that it fell from a plane) instead of the least likely conclusion (That it survived an atmospheric entry from space). I think the author of that paper, Martin Beech, is correct. I believe ice meteorites are possible but probably a once in 400 year event and would produce a Tunguska-like explosion on atmospheric entry (in that case the explosion was about 1000 times as powerful as the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima), with some chunks surviving the explosion and hitting the ground. In fact my guess is the last Ice meteorite to hit the Earth probably was in Tunguska, in 1908, but anyone close enough to see it fall to the ground would probably have been killed.

I would be glad to be proven wrong if the object that fell in China was finally found to have cosmic dust inside. It's not 100% impossible, only 99.9999% unlikely IMO. But without such evidence of cosmic dust actually being found, the article is totally unconvincing that it was an ice meteorite. Nice try though.


edit on 8-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


from the same article you quote - Article from Meteorite Quarterly: November 2006, 12(4), 17 – 19
-The Problem of Ice Meteorites Martin Beech Campion College, The University of Regina, Regina, SK.


So, can an ice-meteoroid survive atmospheric passage to hit the ground? Well, the answer is perhaps yes – just maybe! If the encounter velocity is not much greater than the Earth’s escape velocity then a 5 to 10-m diameter ice-meteoroid might just produce a 1 to 10-kg ice-meteorite at the Earth’s surface (provided that the tensile strength of the ice- meteoroid is greater than ~107 Pa). Are there ice meteorites? With all of the above in place, an attempt to answer John Saul’s suggestion, that it might be “more prudent to assume that ice meteorites do exist than that they do not”, can be made. I see no reason to doubt the fact that large chunks of ice do fall to the ground under both stormy and clear sky conditions. However, I see every reason to argue that they are not meteorites. Two main factors argue against ice meteorites. Firstly the velocity restriction requires that the meteoroids must encounter the Earth with very low velocities – certainly less than 12 – 13 km/s. No currently known cometary meteoroid stream, therefore, can produce ice-meteorites. This effectively removes from consideration what might otherwise be considered a good source of material for producing ice-meteorites. Indeed, for an ice-meteoroid belonging to a typical short-period cometary stream, initial sizes in excess of 20 to 50-m across are required to produce an ice-meteorite, and no such objects have been observed. A recent telescopic survey by myself, Peter Brown (University of Western Ontario) and University of Regina undergraduate student Alison Illingworth found no evidence, for example, to support the existence of meteoroids larger than a few tens of centimeters across within the Perseid meteoroid stream [Beech, Brown and Illingworth, 2004]. The second reason why ice meteorites must, at best, be exceptionally rare relates to their survival lifetime in space. To get close to the Earth means that an ice-meteoroid must become heated, and once this happens lifetimes against mass-loss by sublimation are typically just a few tens of years. In other words an ice-meteoroid is ‘destroyed’ in space long before it might encounter the Earth to produce an ice-meteorite. In conclusion, from an atmospheric interaction and a solar system dynamics perspective, I would argue that it is not prudent to accept the idea that ice-meteorites exist. The origin of the large ice chunks that have fallen to the ground must lie somewhere within and not beyond the Earth’s atmosphere.



I deeply understand how much you want to believe in the idea that it is 100% completely impossible, in the entire history of eternity, for frozen H2O from extraterrestrial origin to land on our planet still in solid form. You've made your argument for that premise very evident.

I'm just not throwing it out as an.. um.. yeah possibility

kthnx.

-


edit on 12/10/2010 by prevenge because: formatting



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by prevenge
I deeply understand how much you want to believe in the idea that it is 100% completely impossible, in the entire history of eternity, for frozen H2O from extraterrestrial origin to land on our planet still in solid form.
What?

Please reread my post:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I believe ice meteorites are possible but probably a once in 400 year event and would produce a Tunguska-like explosion on atmospheric entry (in that case the explosion was about 1000 times as powerful as the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima), with some chunks surviving the explosion and hitting the ground. In fact my guess is the last Ice meteorite to hit the Earth probably was in Tunguska, in 1908, but anyone close enough to see it fall to the ground would probably have been killed.


So I think it is quite possible that an ice meteorite hit the ground in 1908, as a remnant of the perhaps 50 meter icy body impact explosion was about 1000 times as powerful as the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. For an ice meteorite to hit the ground in the absence of such an explosion, while not impossible, is what we would call an "extraordinary claim" for which we have no extraordinary evidence, and the paper we both cited is quite explicit about the reasons why that is so extremely unlikely (though not impossible). It's difficult to estimate the frequency at which that might happen but if someone guessed it could happen once in a million years, I wouldn't argue with that guess.

Representing my position as saying they are completely impossible shows you didn't read my post very carefully since I said I thought there's a good chance 1908 is the last time one hit the earth.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
My original point is that even the idea of "ice meteorites" is still pretty debatable, but then he goes even further and claims not only to have found this rare and maybe unreal thing, but he's also found ET life in it?

Isn't this a bit like finding a gold nugget with a winning lotto ticket inside? That's all I'm saying folks...



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Press release on ice meteorite at
www.snydericyrite.com...

The press release article re-iterates that 90 naturally occurring chemical elements were found in particles contained in one ice meteorite. They were found in four tests done with Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (ToF SIMS).

However, I don’t think the alien life was microbe. I identified them as fossilized debris of blood vessels and red blood cells.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by WretchFossil
However, I don’t think the alien life was microbe. I identified them as fossilized debris of blood vessels and red blood cells.
I don't see how this helps, in fact finding fossilized blood vessels seems many times less likely than finding microbes.




top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join