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.

 

Nasa Says "No Support" for Claim Of Alien Microbes

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hitoshura
I wonder what U.S. Space Command makes of all this.
What a farce. I'll find my own answers, thanks, NASA.


Why do you think the NAVY sent its own satellite to take color pictures of the Moon?





posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I was going to make a big post with a bunch of the hasty, emotional reactions to the news, but I'd be quoting nearly the whole thread, so I'll pass on that and say this instead:

This exact thing has happened a few different times in the past, and the conclusion has always been the same. I won't lie and say there wasn't a small spark of interest and excitement at the scientist's proposal, but I knew it was just that: A proposal. Hoover himself was quoted in the news story as saying he'd need extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

My bet is he'll still be looking into it. NASA says he's been doing it for years already, so it's likely he'll continue.

As for the claims that this is just NASA trying to shut him up... why is he still employed if that's the case? Why did the news even break before NASA stopped him, if he's been claiming these things for years?

Take a step back, breathe deep, and look at this realistically before jumping on the "I'll just decide what I want to hear and only listen to the people saying that" bandwagon.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
As for the claims that this is just NASA trying to shut him up... why is he still employed if that's the case? Why did the news even break before NASA stopped him, if he's been claiming these things for years?
I don't think it's unusual to hear some claims come out in advance of publication of a paper. Ultimately the paper is supposed to provide the evidence for those claims, and his paper is dated March 2011. Who knows when Hoover first wrote it and started submitting it to journals for publication before it passed peer review and was accepted?

It's been over a decade since the Mars Rock ALH84001 was thought MIGHT contain POSSIBLE evidence of fossilized life, but the wording in that paper
www.sciencemag.org...

Although inorganic formation is possible, formation of the globules by biogenic processes could explain many of the observed features, including the PAHs.


admitted that "inorganic formation is possible", so it was much less certain than the March 2011 paper which made this bold claim:

journalofcosmology.com...

These studies have led to the conclusion that the filaments found in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites are indigenous fossils rather than modern terrestrial biological contaminants that entered the meteorites after arrival on Earth.
I think Hoover should have used wording more conciliatory to other possible explanations like McKay did on the ALH84001 paper.

And I haven't studied the evidence closely enough to determine if Hoover might be right but how can we not agree with him that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" (I can't disagree since that's in my signature!)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   
NASA: It's just a terrestrial microbe people, nothing to see here.

Someone else: So what type of microbe is it then?

NASA: .....................ummm.............



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147


Paul Hertz, chief scientist of NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington, also issued a statement saying NASA did not support Hoover's findings.

"While we value the free exchange of ideas, data and information as part of scientific and technical inquiry, NASA cannot stand behind or support a scientific claim unless it has been peer-reviewed or thoroughly examined by other qualified experts," Hertz said.

Hold on... I thought the paper was being peer-reviewed as we speak, by 100 scientists no less? As far as I can tell Hoover is being completely transparent with his evidence and conclusions, opening the work up for any 'qualified expert' to analyze.

Meh. I guess this is being swept under the rug, as per usual.
Run down the list:
1) The paper was published in a non-peer reviewed journal (online journal at that!)
2) The journal itself has a reputation of publishing these kinds of articles and research results
3) Similar claims have been made in the past based on similar kinds of evidence that were terrestrial(!)
4) Further review from other sources is needed (obviously)
5) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (and so it goes...)

Bottom line, we don't need claims. We need evidence and experiment reproducibility. If researchers across the world can study this meteor and come to the same results then it would be historic.

If we get a bunch of different results, then nothing conclusive can be gained.
edit on 8-3-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Hitoshura
I wonder what U.S. Space Command makes of all this.
What a farce. I'll find my own answers, thanks, NASA.


Why do you think the NAVY sent its own satellite to take color pictures of the Moon?




Not sure, have got a hangover at the moment so I'll need to think about it... You can usually tell when I've been drinking because it involves me giving some organisation or government crap. Glad I don't drink that much because it's almost always bad reading it back the next day...

Not that I think NASA are doing things properly, but at least when sober I don't judge as much.
edit on 8-3-2011 by Hitoshura because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Didn't NASA themselves and various experts including our favourite guy, Dr Michio Kaku, all state over the last decade that if alien life is gonna be found, it'll be in microbe form? And didn't NASA themselves tell us a few years ago that they found fossilised bacteria in a meteorite that proved there can be life out in space?

Why the sudden change now that another of them has found exactly the same thing in 2011?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
I am beginning to think there will be no UFO/Alien disclosure.

That's it, I have officially come to the decision, in light of a different thread, that the powers that be are aliens.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneEleven

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Top NASA scientists said Monday there was no scientific evidence to support a colleague's claim that fossils of alien microbes born in outer space had been found in meteorites on Earth. The US space agency formally distanced itself from the paper by NASA scientist Richard Hoover, whose findings were published Friday in the peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmology, which is available free online. "That is a claim that Mr Hoover has been making for some years," said Carl Pilcher, director of NASA's Astrobiology Institute.

www.yahoo.com

Well that was quick....


In the article, a senior NASA scientist goes on to state that the microbes are indeed terrestrial in origin.

He claims that the fact that the meteor struck the earth means that the microbes are in fact 'contamination' from the earth itself.

If this is the case, why are we looking for life on meteors at all?...After all, i'm pretty sure every meteor in our possession has struck the earth.

Maybe there are a few that were caught with a cosmic butterfly net before the moment of impact or even the moment of entry, but i'm not aware of such a butterfly net. Dosn't mean it dosn't exist.

Another thing that bothers me is, the senior scientist claims that Mr. Richard Hoover has been making these 'meteor microbe' claims for years. Has he been asked to keep quiet? And why?

To save NASA the embarrassment of one of its own scientists taking the crazy train?

Or to hide something from the rest of us?

thoughts please.
edit on 7-3-2011 by OneEleven because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2011 by OneEleven because: (no reason given)


does not sound right, i will agree with you there, personally i figured this my happen if mr.richard hoover went to far. And suddenly they are rejecting his claim, saying he is mad, and other things about him to weaken his credibility, i wouldnt be surprised is in the next week or two, some annonomyous person posts information that may discredit Mr.Richard Hoover's claims, by prying into his life. personaly I think know why they did this.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147


Paul Hertz, chief scientist of NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington, also issued a statement saying NASA did not support Hoover's findings.

"While we value the free exchange of ideas, data and information as part of scientific and technical inquiry, NASA cannot stand behind or support a scientific claim unless it has been peer-reviewed or thoroughly examined by other qualified experts," Hertz said.

Hold on... I thought the paper was being peer-reviewed as we speak, by 100 scientists no less? As far as I can tell Hoover is being completely transparent with his evidence and conclusions, opening the work up for any 'qualified expert' to analyze.

Meh. I guess this is being swept under the rug, as per usual.
Run down the list:
1) The paper was published in a non-peer reviewed journal (online journal at that!)

How is it not "peer-reviewed"..? Here they are (still coming in)

journalofcosmology.com...



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
why dont they ever comment on the numerous alien implants people have had removed containing minerals unknown to earth and unable to be created without the vacuum of space itself?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
what would be so alien about those microbes?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
One reason why NASA is having a hard to accepting what this scientist found is because they have been covering up extraterrestrial life all along. All it takes is for some kind of life out there to be found whether its fossilized microbes or advanced life and it will have a profound affect on religion. If its proven to be a fossilized microbe it would prove the theory of pansperrnia. That would mean all life on earth originated from somewhere else and came to earth via meteorite or astroid. How could you explain to the people that we are all of extraterrestrial origin? This changes the story line in the Bible a bit. Confirmation of life would also make extraterrestrial visitation more believable. Anyway expect to see Richard Hoagland chime in very soon on this!!

N ever
A
S traight
A nswer

edit on 8-3-2011 by Greensboro1978 because: edit text



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Meh. I guess this is being swept under the rug, as per usual.


No worries... now you know why I was less than enthusiastic at Never A Straight Answer's news release. Well won't say I told ya so...

oh wait...




You mean that agency that is AKA:

N ever
A bout
S aying
A nything


edit on 3/8/2011 by manta78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147


Paul Hertz, chief scientist of NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington, also issued a statement saying NASA did not support Hoover's findings.

"While we value the free exchange of ideas, data and information as part of scientific and technical inquiry, NASA cannot stand behind or support a scientific claim unless it has been peer-reviewed or thoroughly examined by other qualified experts," Hertz said.

Hold on... I thought the paper was being peer-reviewed as we speak, by 100 scientists no less? As far as I can tell Hoover is being completely transparent with his evidence and conclusions, opening the work up for any 'qualified expert' to analyze.

Meh. I guess this is being swept under the rug, as per usual.
Run down the list:
1) The paper was published in a non-peer reviewed journal (online journal at that!)
2) The journal itself has a reputation of publishing these kinds of articles and research results
3) Similar claims have been made in the past based on similar kinds of evidence that were terrestrial(!)
4) Further review from other sources is needed (obviously)
5) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (and so it goes...)

Bottom line, we don't need claims. We need evidence and experiment reproducibility. If researchers across the world can study this meteor and come to the same results then it would be historic.

If we get a bunch of different results, then nothing conclusive can be gained.
edit on 8-3-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)


1) Attack the evidence itself, not the company that published it. Regardless the 2011 edition of his paper was peer-reviewed.
2) See above.
3) Yes these claims have been made since 1961. This excerpt from the third commentary on his paper explains why Hoover's 2011 paper is significant:
"And so too the experts, for whom this information is not new, who have been monitoring the accounts of fossils in these same meteorites since 1961 have something to get excited about (Claus & Nagy, 1961). This is because, while the elemental and mineral composition data remains identical to prior accepted reports, the morphological data far exceeds anything yet shown on the subject."
4) Yes of course, that's how science works, we would need to reproduce the results before it is scientificially accepted as fact. The fossils he found in the Orguie meteor, which is much older than Earth, makes it extremely likely they are of alien origin. Now we need to find the origin of that meteor, whether it was from a planet or a moon or any other celestial body, and see if it has organisms or fossils of them on it.
5) Some scientists say he has provided the extraordinary evidence, particularly from the Orguie meteor.

Don't know if you've already read them but I found the scientific commentaries about his paper interesting:
journalofcosmology.com...

More commentaries will be posted through the 10th.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Someone asked about the lack of nitrogen in the alleged fossil bacteria. Dr. Hoover, in his new paper, has this issue covered. He notes that remains of living things from millions of years ago have been found to have lost all detectable traces of nitrogen. This helps his case greatly, by ruling out Earthly contamination. We know that the meteorites examined have been on Earth for only a relatively short time. Any contaminating microbes would still have nitrogen. I can't imagine what NASA is playing at, taking such a conclusive and negative stance on this. Dr. Hoover's results and conclusions will need thorough confirmation by other scientists before they are accepted, of course. Given the evidence he has amassed, however, it in not reasonable to summarily dismiss the possibility that he may be right. NASA is supposed to be on pursuing the search for extraterrestrial life, not thwarting it. Ross



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
So this microbe, is it common to 100 million year old rocks which are inherently Earthly? Can NASA tell us why this microbe is missing a key ingredient? If the meteor is older than Earth it would stand to reason any infestation of Earthly microbes would be already seen previously in other rock formations and alien microbes would be different. So without any other peer reviewing, we can safely say this microbe is alien.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
]reply to post by Greensboro1978
 



All it takes is for some kind of life out there to be found whether its fossilized microbes or advanced life and it will have a profound affect on religion


where do you get this from? becuase the Vatican disagrees with you.

In any case nasa couldn't give a flying fig about religion never mind it stopping them from progressing their work and collecting nobel prizes.And if nasa did care what religion thought why the frick are they looking for life and finding ways to look for life? your theory makes no sense at all.
edit on 8-3-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I await Nasa's next press conference when they unveil the possibility that the moon is actually made of cheese..

Also their next space program to send a goldfish to Mars so it can find the water!



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ross 54
Someone asked about the lack of nitrogen in the alleged fossil bacteria. Dr. Hoover, in his new paper, has this issue covered. He notes that remains of living things from millions of years ago have been found to have lost all detectable traces of nitrogen.

Whether an organism retains or loses it's nitrogen and phosphorus completely depends on the environment in which it died. In light of this, time-scales are irrelevent. Recently-dead bacteria can pass their N and P onto smaller organisms who feed on it, as explained in one of the commentaries:


The relatively low abundance of N and P in some of the fossils (both in meteorites and terrestrial material) (Figure 6a) is easily explained; these elements are generally in relatively low abundance and therefore in high demand by other microorganisms. Following the death of sheathed biota their cytoplasm is rapidly devoured by smaller bacteria leaving a highly-N/P-depleted skeleton.

Unfortunately the low N/P content of the filaments or sheaths reported in the study do not convinced me that these sheaths are the remains of life-forms that existed before Earth-contact (as claimed in the Results and Conclusion), because if they represent contaminants, then they too would have suffered N/P-depletion following their death. The continuing presence of N in mammoth and mummified hair do not provide a counter argument, they simply show that the environments in which these hairs existed were not conducive to microbial mineralization.

M.A. Line, Ph.D.,
Honorary Research Associate, School of Agricultural Science, University of Tasmania



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join