Life being seeded from space? Video and more.

DarwinsMyth
reply to post by Soapusmaximus

 

News Flash!.... Star Trek isn't real.
People will deny an Intelligent Designer or God, until they have used up every profane word and personal insult they've ever learned, but then, those same people will quickly accept fairy tales that have space aliens seeding Earth with life. Anti-theist, Richard Dawkins is such a person, and evidently, there are many more... all in the name of so-called science.

Did you read the paper linked in the OP or are you just spouting off with an obvious agenda?
I didn't watch the video, but I highly doubt they even use the term space alien. Finding biological spheres in the upper atmosphere doesn't mean aliens put them there and I think its unwise to speculate intelligent aliens DID put them there.

reply to post by DarwinsMyth


DNA it's self proves Creation . Now science implies visitation from aliens . Duhhh That would be God and his angels . Maybe even Satan can appear to be an alien .

Zorgon used to post here. He has a forum somewhere...i haven't really talked to him a whole lot lately (due to time constraints on my life). But he used to tell me that early Shuttle missions detected silicone based life, and was the seed for the burgeoning nanotech industry.

Consequently, the properties of some nano items made in space make it the perfect environment for making the super secret ingredient in stealth paint (that is supposed to cost upwards of $50k/gallon to manufacture).

Life exists in space. If energy exists, there is life around to feed off of it. That's the nature of the universe.

reply to post by JayinAR


Yes I read the paper, don't use a condescending tone with me, I didn't claim they said this -they most definitely imply it is an alien material and Chandra most definitely considers directed panspermia a possibility as do lots of sane people.

This site is all about the speculation , I didn't make any wild claims.

reply to post by SimonPeter


In fact Satan , or Ea (Enki) was the one who tried to free us of ignorance of our origins , its claimed his brother corrupted the groups tasked with holding this sacred knowledge and now they are used to dominate us entirely.

reply to post by DexterRiley


Well I understand certain pundits and celebrity scientists might try to discredit  Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe , I assume the Chandra xray observatory is named after him? So he can't be considered a kook everywhere.

The bbc has a nice old documentary about red rain in india , with the view it may have been space organism's, Wickramasinghe was interviewed for that film.

reply to post by DarwinsMyth


Life is not only stranger than we suppose, it is stranger than we can suppose.

Newsflash I don't love darwin anymore than I love manmade religion.

I know there are many truths in the biblical texts, its just a pity they tried to destroy and hide from the faithful the majority of books that were considered cannon in the past - the parts we may have a technological context to compare to in the present.

You also assume I don't believe in a god? I believe even if your view of god is accurate he could have made more beings than just us.

But all of the storys found in the bible come from ancient sumeria and babylon , so I will follow their god as they were the source rather than relying on your twisted fourth hand version of religion.

Thankyou.

DexterRiley
Dr. Wainwright is an associate of Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe.

Dex

Some related discussions:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Soapusmaximus

Well I understand certain pundits and celebrity scientists might try to discredit Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe , I assume the Chandra xray observatory is named after him? So he can't be considered a kook everywhere.

Well, actually, pretty much all mainstream scientists consider him a kook.
And the Chandra x-ray observatory is actually named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, not Chandra Wickramasinghe. That's a common misconception.

The bbc has a nice old documentary about red rain in india , with the view it may have been space organism's, Wickramasinghe was interviewed for that film.

I remember doing some research in this area. If I recall correctly, he speculated that the red particles in the red rain were actually biological organisms. He claims to have grown the organisms in the lab, but apparently he won't provide proof.

I think the final accepted theory for the "red rain" was a massive influx of red spores from some neighboring country blown in by some uncommon wind. These spores were captured by the rain and deposited en masse.

What I found interesting was that Wickramasinghe, et al. wrote an entire paper presenting their findings and theories. IIRC, this theory was presented in some weatherman's blog. That doesn't demonstrate much respect for Dr. Wickramasinghe's theories.

On the other hand, I recall doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations that made me question the accepted theory. I don't think that theory accounts for the sheer volume of spores necessary to produce the observed effect within the time-frame of the event.

I've read a lot of the criticisms of Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, his methods, his theories, and his attitude. Some are valid, but I find a lot of them to be "cheap shots." He doesn't play nice with the establishment, and they rake him over the coals every chance they get.

I've also read several of his papers which are available on the web. It's pretty dense material, and there are lots of references. Assuming the images and test results are not fraudulent, the theories presented seem plausible. I try to keep an open mind.

Dex

reply to post by draknoir2


Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe is an interesting character. He's colorful and elusive. He's intelligent, but he's also a bit egotistical.

His theories are somewhat unorthodox, and he seems to forget about the "reproducibility" part of the process. That's kind of a necessary evil if you're going to get any traction in the conventional scientific community.

That makes him an easy target. But, that's also what keeps him in the news.

On the other hand, if his data are real, he does propose some tantalizing theories.

For whatever reason, his theories certainly capture my imagination. And, his lack of adherence to the "process" notwithstanding, I think his theories pass the "smell" test.


Dex

reply to post by Soapusmaximus


God made us in his Image . So there is no missing link ! We don't know where God came from or how he came to be . The only thing we must know is that he is God . The Bible says there is nothing new under the sun so you may be right . He may have created endless worlds . The scientist are looking at man being visited by extraterrestrials and being helped along through time . That would be God ! how is it now that they came to this conclusion when it has been written for so long .

DexterRiley

For whatever reason, his theories certainly capture my imagination. And, his lack of adherence to the "process" notwithstanding, I think his theories pass the "smell" test.


Dex

The proof of that pudding would lie in the review by his peers, and that would require him to venture out of the safe haven that is The Journal of Cosmology.

Smelly pudding is unappetizing.

To clarify, I acknowledge panspermia as a valid theory... I just don't view Chandra's [or his cohorts'] premature claims and sloppy science as proof.

reply to post by draknoir2


Interesting find (assuming that they are telling the truth). I do get suspicious whenever someone finds something the do not understand and immediately jumps to "aliens did it" though.

Right now (assuming true) all we have is evidence of something of unknown origin and purpose, and one cannot say that this is either proof of aliens or alien seeding.

A few technical questions arise: why where the balls not destroyed or sterilized by the great heat and velocity of entry into the atmosphere? Is there evidence of re-entry. Why aliens? Couldn't some government be seeding them up there for some as of yet unknown purpose?