Extraterrestrial (microbial) life found in meteorite

reply to post by Argyll


Yes, that is the obvious question here.
Time will tell, but like I said, the sample itself seems to be biological. If this holds up, it is SO huge!

reply to post by Phage


I think a word of caution, as Phage has mentioned is quite right.

The Journal of Cosmology does have some credibility issues: As an example an almost identical fossil and its' composite was declared by NASA scientist Richard B. Hoover in 2011. He published pictures which look very similar to what is stated in this case.

NASA rebukes Hoover

Also this article specifically questions the Journal credibility:
EDIT ADDED:

What about the "Journal of Cosmology", where this supposedly groundbreaking paper is published? No matter the fancy affiliations of its editorial staff, it's a pretty janky operation. The website looks like it was designed by a New Age music retailer in 1997, and the "about us" page brags about how many hits it gets.

Discovery, maybe not
Similar to what is described above:

Richard B. Hoover: Fossils of cyanobacteria found in meteorites, disproved

Comment: I am by no means trying to "shoot the messenger". If turns into fact, it will be an incredible discovery, we just need some more analysis and 'peer' confirmation.

So is the fabric of society going to crumble? will we have riots in the streets? Is the world going to grind to a halt like so many people have been claiming will be the case if we ever discover life anywhere else other than the earth?

It's great news if it is confirmed,but I'm with Phage on this in that seems to have been rushed out there.

That for example the meteorite "black beauty"
www.sciencemag.org...

We report data on the martian meteorite, Northwest Africa (NWA) 7034, which shares some petrologic and geochemical characteristics with known martian (SNC, i.e., Shergottite, Nakhlite, and Chassignite) meteorites, but also possesses some unique characteristics that would exclude it from the current SNC grouping. NWA 7034 is a geochemically enriched crustal rock compositionally similar to basalts and average martian crust measured by recent rover and orbiter missions. It formed 2.089 ± 0.081 Ga, during the early Amazonian epoch in Mars' geologic history. NWA 7034 has an order of magnitude more indigenous water than most SNC meteorites, with up to 6000 ppm extraterrestrial H2O released during stepped heating. It also has bulk oxygen isotope values of Δ17O = 0.58 ± 0.05‰ and a heat-released water oxygen isotope average value of Δ17O = 0.330 ± 0.011‰, suggesting the existence of multiple oxygen reservoirs on Mars.

They went through the proper channels and it took months to be confirmed.

Someone send the astrobioloy dept at NASA a link and see what they say.
astrobiology.nasa.gov...

Am I the only person who thinks it is ridiculous to confuse FOSSILIZED bacteria with Earthly contamination of a rock being looked at?

Originally posted by JayinAR
Am I the only person who thinks it is ridiculous to confuse FOSSILIZED bacteria with Earthly contamination of a rock being looked at?

edit on 13-1-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)

No,you are not alone.

No where in that white paper was certification that this meteorite fragment was professionally classified a carbonaceous chondrite meteorite, and there was no official lithology of this rock as well that has peer review, approval and official certification. That is the starting point. Proof that it is not a terrestrial specimen. Only then, can you go further.

reply to post by charlyv


OK. And who exactly states that only carbonaceous chondrite meteorites are candidates for ET life??

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by charlyv

 

OK. And who exactly states that only carbonaceous chondrite meteorites are candidates for ET life??

Please, the white paper suggested that it was a carbonaceous chondrite, read it.
It could be a regular chondrite, achondrite (angrite, howardite) or just a plain rock. Science is your friend.

reply to post by charlyv


OK. Good call. Haha

It does kinda suck that they don't go to the basic lengths required to cover their own behinds within the Scientific Community.
I guess you make more money being a psuedo organization promoting stories on the fringe.

However, the point remains that you cannot simply dismiss them

Wickramasinghe is an Executive Editor in Astrobiology for The Journal of Cosmology
Isn’t this a bit of a conflict?

The Journal of Cosmology

N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Ph.D.
Executive Editor, Astrobiology
Cometary Panspermia
Director, Buckingham Centre for Astrobiology, Buckingham University
Cardiff University, United Kingdom


CHANDRA WICKRAMASINGHE DISMISSED FROM CARDIFF UNIVERSITY IN WALES
Posted on March 19th, 2011

Professor Wickramasinghe, a long time collaborator with renown astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle was recently drawn into controversy when he supported , NASA scientist Richard Hoover who claimed he found fossilized evidence of life in three meteorites.

A conflict?
How so?

reply to post by Pauligirl

Thus the dogma for a real scientist. You must have no bias, and you must not "believe" in anything.

Goes without saying that this is worth keeping an eye on. The red rain aspect is very intriguing...

Originally posted by JayinAR
A conflict?
How so?

Do you think he could have gotten this published as fast in another journal?
Is it a conflict to use his status as editor?

reply to post by Pauligirl


I dunno. Probably a little disenginous. But I wouldn't say an outright conflict.
There isn't enough data.
Character assassination?
Please let's not degrade people until a proper vetting process has had time to run its course.

Very interesting. Would be monumental if true but as has been said previously it all seems too early to tell.
Star and Flag for this one.
But on the basis that it might be proven true, I ask ATS to indulge me in a small smile and simply say....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



We may have taken our first step into a larger intellectual universe.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Pauligirl

 

I dunno. Probably a little disenginous. But I wouldn't say an outright conflict.
There isn't enough data.
Character assassination?
Please let's not degrade people until a proper vetting process has had time to run its course.

A conflict of interest does not necessitate wrongdoing. The fact you say it is disingenuous means you believe it is a conflict of interest, you just dont understand what the term means. You also like throwing around the term character assassination, you clearly do not understand what that means either. This is a clear conflict of interest, something REAL science tries to avoid. In science the evidence can speak for itself, it does not require one to be the editor of the journal.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Excuse me?
No, conflict of interest does not necessitate wrong doing. I didn't use the term.

Is this article disengenious? As I said, perhaps.

I like to "throw around" the term character assassination? Why? Because I have used it twice?