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.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by goou111
The researchers at Cardiff are now reporting that they’re sure that these fragments come from an extraterrestrial meteorite
The trouble is, those are the same researchers. There has been no independent verification and still no peer review.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by goou111
The trouble is, those are the same researchers. There has been no independent verification and still no peer review.
The authors think it was a piece of a comet, nothing to do with the asteroid belt.
Brilliant thread, the asteroid belt is the most likely origin of this object but every fifty thousand year's or so the solar system passed through the galactic plane, a bit like a needle on a wonky record,
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by goou111
The researchers at Cardiff are now reporting that they’re sure that these fragments come from an extraterrestrial meteorite
The trouble is, those are the same researchers. There has been no independent verification and still no peer review.
The NASA team's report says that magnetite fossils "with unusual chemical and physical properties" in the meteorite are "intimately associated within and throughout these carbonate disks".
They believe this is clear evidence that the fossils are microbes from Mars and not bugs from Earth that contaminated the rock in the last few thousand years. The new findings appear in a 46-page scientific paper being published this month in the respected journal of the Geochemical and Meteoritic Society
Actually, they are the same researchers. They aren't the ones who found the "meteorite" but they are the same ones who made the original claim. Take a look at the names.
Actually they're not the same researchers, they're not the discoverers.
Now, apparently due to advances in microscopy (or advances in policy - you decide) the scientific consensus is that ALH84001 does contain strong evidence of ancient fossil, non-terrestrial microbes.
It is concluded that morphology cannot be used unambiguously as a tool for primitive life detection.
Originally posted by Vasa Croe
Originally posted by Chrysalis
Originally posted by Vasa Croe
Very interesting. I wonder what the chances are that this meteorite was ejecta from an older impact of the Earth that finally made it's way back with fossils that were originally of Earthly origin?
What are the chances ? Something like the quality of this comment : near ZERO.
They said they ruled out the meteorite being of earth origin. Did you actually read what it said of you just distort things to suit your vision.
Here it is again for you.
the researchers found very low levels of nitrogen (which is nearly always present in modern-Earth organisms), and their oxygen isotope analysis “shows [that the samples] are unequivocally meteorites.” The meteorite’s atomic makeup, coupled with the fossils being fused with the rock matrix, is a strong indicator that the organisms aren’t terrestrial in origin.
Yes I did read it....thanks for posting it again and contributing so much to the thread. Maybe you should focus on contributing? My reasoning is if an impactor initially struck Earth a VERY long time ago and sent ejecta into space with pieces of the original impactor combined with pieces of the Earth and microbial life, could it be possible that it has made it's way back around after travelling in space for a while.
Glad you are here to be the post police though...without you we might not survive. I thank you for being on ATS to make sure we all uphold your standards.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MysterX
Actually, they are the same researchers. They aren't the ones who found the "meteorite" but they are the same ones who made the original claim. Take a look at the names.
Actually they're not the same researchers, they're not the discoverers.
The first paper:
N. C. Wickramasinghe, J. Wallis D.H. Wallis, Anil Samaranayake
The second paper.
N. C. Wickramasinghe, Jamie Wallis, Anil Samaranayake
They need to allow others to analyze the "meteorite". They need to allow others to review their work. So far that has not been done.
Now, apparently due to advances in microscopy (or advances in policy - you decide) the scientific consensus is that ALH84001 does contain strong evidence of ancient fossil, non-terrestrial microbes.
No. Again, that article was from the original group members (including McKay) that thought they had found evidence of extraterrestrial life. There is no consensus that ALH84001 contains evidence of life. On the contrary, the consensus is more this:
It is concluded that morphology cannot be used unambiguously as a tool for primitive life detection.
proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org...
And that's the problem, just because something looks like a fossil, doesn't mean it is.
edit on 3/11/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by zilebeliveunknown
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by goou111
The researchers at Cardiff are now reporting that they’re sure that these fragments come from an extraterrestrial meteorite
The trouble is, those are the same researchers. There has been no independent verification and still no peer review.
The trouble for sceptics is that with this announcement odds are droping really fast that there's life out there.
I know you've been cautious Phage, like always, but come on, don't you want this results to be positive?
These findings aren’t a slam dunk, though. According to our in-house biologist John Hewitt, there’s a strong possibility that the fossils aren’t actually biological in nature — they simply look biological.