Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Scientists claim to have found evidence of ALIEN LIFE

page: 1
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+19 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Balloon sent to edge of atmosphere picks up organisms ‘that can only have come from space’
British scientists believe they have found evidence alien life after sending a balloon to the edge of space.

The team of scientists sent a balloon 27km into the stratosphere and captured small biological organisms they say can only have come from space.

The group, headed up by astrobiologist Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe, claims the 'seeds of life' have been transported between planets by passing meteors.

...Professor Wickramasinghe, 74, and his team from the University of Sheffield sent a specially designed balloon into the atmosphere above Chester during the annual Perseid meteor shower.


www.dailymail.co.uk... ml

Hmm, sent it during the meteor shower. That's curious. A meteor shower might bring in a whole bunch of particles into our atmosphere. Link has pics of unidentified organism.


Sceptics believe 'biological entities' captured in the stratosphere could have been carried high into the atmosphere from Earth - and not from space.

But Prof Wickramasinghe said: 'The biological entities found are particles of relatively large size and mass.

'By our current understanding of the means by which such particles can be transferred from Earth to the stratosphere they could not - in the absence of a violent volcanic eruption occurring within a day of the sampling event - make such a journey.


If true, could this be the smoking gun that life on earth came from outer space? I have always suspected this, as a much more viable solution to the ever present question.

Very interesting story, worthy of a read. If they can't identify that thing with anything else, still, does it necessarily mean that it came from beyond? No, but gotta admit... Food for thought. Panspermia. Uh huh. Could be. Could be.
edit on Wed Sep 11th 2013 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Im a firm believer of life out there the universe is just to damn big for any other conclusion to be made , as for intelligent life I'd like to think that is in abundance out there as well because theres not a lot of it down here atm


+7 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 04:39 AM
link   
I believe life is everywhere. Not as the way most people would think it.

Its just we have to look in ways we never thought before.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Great find and thanks for posting S&F...

I also posted a few days ago about a related story where they have found some new and interesting precursors (chemicals) in the Meteorite (Sutter's Mill) which ties in nicely with your post....www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 04:40 AM
link   
I've never understood why life most likely came from outer space, why does it have to come from another planet? why not earth?

I really don't get why its more plausible that it started on another planet and then came here via a meteor surely it according to occam's razor it more likely started here...



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   

roughycannon
I've never understood why life most likely came from outer space, why does it have to come from another planet? why not earth?

I really don't get why its more plausible that it started on another planet and then came here via a meteor surely it according to occam's razor it more likely started here...


Well, I suppose the next time earth starts shooting off meteors, and they find these or other organisms, then maybe your theory might have some merit. But as it stands, it appears these came along with the INCOMING meteor shower.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   

TheLotLizard
I believe life is everywhere. Not as the way most people would think it.

Its just we have to look in ways we never thought before.


THAT... TheLotLizard is a very logical way of putting it
(blummin hate these new Emoticons) *hint hint again to SO!?)

This is called denying ignorance and taking the blinkers of ones eyes.

By the way, any chance of you changing your avatar as the one you currently has makes me (and probably others too...) go weak at the knees and i cannot concentrate on my posting or work!


Kindest respects

Rodinus



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I'm not talking about the organisms in the article, I'm talking about life in general, scientists say that life on our planet more than likely came on a meteor or similar and was seeded here in the past because life from nothing doesn't make sense...

My point is that the life came from nothing at one point in the past anyway so why not earth?



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Well folks, if this is true, a whole crapstorm of questions will follow. And one of them I have with this, is why then some of the spacecraft that have been sent- have they not detected anything like this on the space shuttle? Well, maybe they never looked? Huh. Or maybe, because of extreme heat on re-entry, most anything that goes up and comes down in that way gets burned up? Note that this was different: balloon.

Or well, what about if they HAVE detected things like this before, and have known about it all along?

!

That would sure tie in neatly with the supposed conspiracy of governmental secrecy on the matter, pacts with aliens, and the whole bit. Maybe it just took a more private organization finding out the truth for themselves. And finally sharing it. Dunno. Bizarre.
edit on Wed Sep 11th 2013 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   

roughycannon
I've never understood why life most likely came from outer space, why does it have to come from another planet? why not earth?

I really don't get why its more plausible that it started on another planet and then came here via a meteor surely it according to occam's razor it more likely started here...


Actually if the universe is 13.7 billion years old and our little old home world is only 4.5 billion it would stand to reason that life could have gotten a start much earlier than just 4.5B years ago. With the universe being such a violent entity, things are being knocked about with worlds and suns being destroyed on a seemingly regular basis, boom and walla next thing you know there is dust and debris collecting anyplace there is gravity or an static electric force..
edit on 11-9-2013 by 727Sky because: ...



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   
I tend to take what Chandra Wickramasinghe has to say with a pinch of salt these days as he has a habit of making claims before the evidence is authenticated .
Here's one from last year ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   

TrueAmerican
The group, headed up by astrobiologist Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe...



Well, there's your problem.
Wickramasinghe has made his whole career claiming to have discovered alien life all over the place. Pretty much every second week he comes out with a new claim.

It would be more convincing if an independent third party was to have made this announcement.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   

TrueAmerican
Well folks, if this is true, a whole crapstorm of questions will follow. And one of them I have with this, is why then some of the spacecraft that have been sent- have they not detected anything like this on the space shuttle? Well, maybe they never looked? Huh. Or maybe, because of extreme heat on re-entry, most anything that goes up and comes down in that way gets burned up? Note that this was different: balloon.

Or well, what about if they HAVE detected things like this before, and have known about it all along?

!

That would sure tie in neatly with the supposed conspiracy of governmental secrecy on the matter, pacts with aliens, and the whole bit. Maybe it just took a more private organization finding out the truth for themselves. And finally sharing it. Dunno. Bizarre.
edit on Wed Sep 11th 2013 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)


Hi TrueAmerican,

I hate to say this but you do know that although the ATS motto is "Deny Ignorance" most people here will try their best to debunk this topic? (including armchair specialists and U.S. Gvt Shills and those basically looking for an argument for arguments sake!)

Personally i believe that "something" other than life that has been detected on earth has been detected elsewhere out of our own atmosphere, but the issue is how do we "really" learn or gain the truth?

Kindest respects

Rod



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 06:22 AM
link   

TrueAmerican


Sceptics believe 'biological entities' captured in the stratosphere could have been carried high into the atmosphere from Earth - and not from space.

But Prof Wickramasinghe said: 'The biological entities found are particles of relatively large size and mass.

'By our current understanding of the means by which such particles can be transferred from Earth to the stratosphere they could not - in the absence of a violent volcanic eruption occurring within a day of the sampling event - make such a journey.


Actually this is likely to be the correct explanation.

Stating that because the life forms were of reasonable size as a reason why they could not of originated from earth is just plain wrong.

Here is an example of how large objects (in this case frogs) can be carried of and upwards to be deposited else where...

Can it really rain frogs?


Of course, you probably haven't woken up to such a grisly scene. You probably haven't been driving around in a storm and had your car pelted with what you thought was hail but turned out to be frozen frogs. But other people have. While it's not the most common weather phenomenon in the world, it's not as rare as you might think. It happens all over the world, at least since the first century A.D. -- when the Roman naturalist known as Pliny the Elder described the event -- and as recently as 2005 in Serbia.


It then goes on to explain..


A small tornado forms over a body of water. This type of tornado is called a waterspout, and it's usually sparked by the high-pressure system preceding a severe thunderstorm.­

As with a land-based tornado, the center of the waterspout is a low-pressure tunnel within a high-pressure cone. This is why it picks up the relatively low-weight items in its path -- cows,­ trailer homes and cars get sucked up into the vacuum of the vortex. But since a waterspout is over water and not land, it's not automobiles that end up caught in its swirling winds: it's water and sea creatures. ­

The waterspout sucks up the lower-weight items in the body of water as it m­oves across it. Frogs are fairly lightweight. They end up in the vortex, which continues to move across the water with the high-pressure storm clouds. When a particularly powerful storm hits land, the waterspout might go with it.
When the storm hits land, it loses some of its energy and slows down. The pressure drops. Eventually, the clouds release the water they're carrying. As the rain falls, the vortex eventually loses all the pressure that's keeping it going, and it releases whatever it has picked up in its travels. Sometimes, this cargo includes frogs.

The end result is frog rain. Sometimes it's a few dozen frogs -- or a couple hundred or even thousands. And usually, it's not just frogs. Frogs get top billing because of their role in Exodus, but waterspouts can carry all sorts of items. So what's the strangest thing that can fall from the sky? Find out next.


And that is Frogs...

If the life form were single cellular or very small multi cellular then it is conceivable that they could be carried up further into the stratosphere.

So I say Terrestrial origin not not of this earth.

Peace,

Korg.

edit on 11-9-2013 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLotLizard
 


indeed and for that you earn a star

but i think you should keep your avatar as is please



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 



I'm not talking about the organisms in the article, I'm talking about life in general, scientists say that life on our planet more than likely came on a meteor or similar and was seeded here in the past because life from nothing doesn't make sense...

My point is that the life came from nothing at one point in the past anyway so why not earth?

Well, the issue is the complexity of DNA. Many have pointed out that amino acids could have spontaneously been created here on earth. But DNA is nearly impossible to have accidentally come about.

The question is, what does the DNA look like in this sample?
edit on 11-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Rodinus
 





I hate to say this but you do know that although the ATS motto is "Deny Ignorance" most people here will try their best to debunk this topic?

Since when is wanting independent scrutiny of his findings considered debunking ?



including armchair specialists and U.S. Gvt Shills and those basically looking for an argument for arguments sake!

That seems like bait for an argument to me , it never ceases to amaze me that when the name calling starts it normally comes from those who want to believe any claims made without scrutiny of the evidence provided ...deny ignorance indeed




but the issue is how do we "really" learn or gain the truth?

Independent scientific review .



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   

roughycannon
I've never understood why life most likely came from outer space, why does it have to come from another planet? why not earth?

I really don't get why its more plausible that it started on another planet and then came here via a meteor surely it according to occam's razor it more likely started here...


Correct. If life came from elsewhere, then that means it started on another planet or planets (i.e., that life needed to start somewhere ). If life could have started on those other planets, then why not on Earth? What would make Earth so different than those other planets that life could not have started here?

I'm not saying it is 100% impossible for life to be transferred via panspermia (frankly, we don't know enough to say it can or can't happen), but why are people so keen to believe life on Earth is necessarily the result of panspermia?

edit on 9/11/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Chandra Wickramasinghe, eh?


Not the most objective of sources with regards to the topic of panspermia. I suggest you take a closer look at his controversial background and somewhat shoddy contributions to the supposedly scientific "Journal of Cosmology", of which he is the "Astrobiology editor". His home University of Cardiff saw fit to defund his department and dismiss him from his post.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I am pretty sure I saw a thread on high atmosphere dwelling microbial life, that was studied by some big fancy pants scientists a month or two ago.

However due to the unique way that search works, I cant find the bloody thing for the life of me. I do wonder however, if these two things could be related to one another. Although I would love to take on face value, the claim that the organisms found by this recent study, might be from space, there is every chance that they could also be part of that newly discovered element of the biosphere. I wonder if the leaders of this recent project took into account the findings of previous high atmosphere studies into biological proliferation of the high atmosphere?





new topics

top topics



 
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join