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 tluna1
not to derail or diminish this post. i just have to laugh becasue astrobiologists and microbiologist find tiny little microbes in far fetched places and claim life.. which is cool and interesting that life lives there. However scientists cannot agree that a fetus is a living thing before its born? Really? Just thought that was ironic.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Aside from traditional scientific skepticism over any extraordinary claim, what's the agenda? Follow what "money"? Where? What do you even mean putting "money" in quotes?
Originally posted by InnerPeace2012
The problem with "peer" reviews is that it get's PTB attention. And if you follow the "money", this can be easily written off as just space rocks. This is basically agenda driven.
I didn't see any particular agenda by those who reviewed the initial claims by McKay that Mars rock ALH84001 might show evidence of life forms, except to bring other scientific views to the table. I think if someone really found incontrovertible evidence of ET life, like maybe a fossilized skeleton of a vertebrate for example, even the peer reviewers would be excited about it. Who wouldn't be?
In October 2011 it was reported that isotopic analysis indicated that the carbonates in ALH 84001 were precipitated at a temperature of 18°C with water and carbon dioxide from the Martian atmosphere. The carbonate carbon and oxygen isotope ratios imply deposition of the carbonates from a gradually evaporating subsurface water body, probably a shallow aquifer meters or tens of meters below the surface.
Originally posted by charlyv
The fact that it is a witnessed fall, and pristine pieces are being examined ...
During the days and weeks that followed the initial collection of material in Polonnaruwa by local police officials, large quantities of stone artifacts were recovered from the rice fields in the vicinity of Aralaganwila and submitted for analysis.
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?
Originally posted by Phage
The "discovery" has been roundly critized as lacking scientific rigor.
Originally posted by shearder
The ONLY thing surprising here, and I am NO authority on this, is that we are still trying to convince people OR ourselves, in some cases, that there is life on other planets. HELL there is probably some variant of life on the moon, on meteorites, on Venus, on Neptune etc etc...
We just need to get away from the "we are so special" syndrome.
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?
reply to post by goou111
This is the strongest evidence yet of cometary panspermia — that life on Earth began when a meteorite containing simple organisms landed here
life on Earth began when a meteorite containing simple organisms landed here, billions of years ago
No, Sri Lankan researchers from Sri Lankan Medical Research Institute of the Ministry of Health in Colombo discovered the 'curious features' within the meteorites.
Who then called in Sri Lankan Geologists who agreed there were several 'curious features' worthy of further study, who then prepared and sent samples to Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe at Buckingham Center for Astrobiology at the University of Buckingham, England.
Professor Wickramasinghe performed an initial microscopic analysis and detected what he saw as diatoms, or microscopic algae.
After publishing his findings, and the resulting and expected firestorm of controversy, THEN the samples were sent to the team at Cardiff, Wales.