Retired Astrobiologist to present evidence of extraterrestrial life at ufo conference

smurfy

JimOberg
The problems people hve with his claims isn't the nature of the claim themselves -- the idea of organic, even fossil-like stuff in meteorites isn't heretical -- but apparently his disregard for the problem of containation post landing. And the NASA center at Marshall [Huntsville] doesn't HAVE an astrobiology department, it's his personal hobby. doesn't the posted video look like it's in his kitchen at home? Was he wearing a NASA badge?

The picture at the link is interesting though, as were other pictures. There is also an attitude problem with certain science spokespersons who have just said garbage to Hoover's claims without so much input, why would they say that except in a oppositional mindset when as you say, the actual idea is not so out there. Thing is, how do you escort a pristine example of anything like this from out there to mother Earth without contamination so that you can say, and unequivically, this is the real deal, say like NASA now going to bonk the asteroids

Because he's just making stuff up.

As Mr. Oberg said, there is no Astrobiology department at Huntsville. There is one at NASA Ames though. I know about it, I'm just an undergrad but I've dealt worked with them.....



If one makes stuff up about their background, creating places which don't, in reality exist, then they rightfully lose all credibility and should be ignored as a big waste of time.

Here's more useful background reading:


nasawatch.com...

www.wired.com...

Interesting history of debate over Orgueil meteorite:
www.daviddarling.info...

reply to post by JimOberg

the NASA center at Marshall [Huntsville] doesn't HAVE an astrobiology department,

reply to post by JadeStar

As Mr. Oberg said, there is no Astrobiology department at Huntsville.

Maybe you guys should tell NASA that so they can correct the information on their website.

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. -- Richard B. Hoover, Astrobiology Group Leader at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., is the 2009 recipient of the Gold Medal of SPIE,

nasa.gov

Devino
Maybe you guys should tell NASA that so they can correct the information on their website.

Good point, I was passing along words of astrobiologists I know. Apparently, while there is no department per se, there is a space science department and several of the scientists with astrobiology interests once considered themselves an ad hoc [and part time] 'group. Hoover is no longer there, and I can't determine if the 'group' is still active nowadays as NASA continues to centralize specialties at single sites. Ames is the only official department of astrobiology.

Thanks for forcing clarification all around.

Klassified
reply to post by Blue Shift

 

Now, to be fair, give me a list of the people the scientific community called quacks who actually were quacks. I'm guessing that list is a lot longer.

A bunch. The list would be endless, I'm sure. But it's that small percentage that weren't quacks, that should remind us that no one should be dismissed without a fair examination of their hypothesis, just because it goes against our current understanding.

I don't think the label came from proposing something that goes against our current understanding so much as making premature assumptions based on sloppy science, a la Chandra Wickramasinghe.

But I'll agree, the boundary pushers sometimes breathe new life into a stagnant field... several examples in cosmological circles come to mind.

JadeStar

smurfy

JimOberg
The problems people hve with his claims isn't the nature of the claim themselves -- the idea of organic, even fossil-like stuff in meteorites isn't heretical -- but apparently his disregard for the problem of containation post landing. And the NASA center at Marshall [Huntsville] doesn't HAVE an astrobiology department, it's his personal hobby. doesn't the posted video look like it's in his kitchen at home? Was he wearing a NASA badge?

The picture at the link is interesting though, as were other pictures. There is also an attitude problem with certain science spokespersons who have just said garbage to Hoover's claims without so much input, why would they say that except in a oppositional mindset when as you say, the actual idea is not so out there. Thing is, how do you escort a pristine example of anything like this from out there to mother Earth without contamination so that you can say, and unequivically, this is the real deal, say like NASA now going to bonk the asteroids

Because he's just making stuff up.

As Mr. Oberg said, there is no Astrobiology department at Huntsville. There is one at NASA Ames though. I know about it, I'm just an undergrad but I've dealt worked with them.....

If one makes stuff up about their background, creating places which don't, in reality exist, then they rightfully lose all credibility and should be ignored as a big waste of time.

On that one point alone. Why does NASA themselves say they have an astrobiology group at Huntsville, and seemingly he was the group leader, he even got a gong for something back in 2009,

www.nasa.gov...

The man may be controversial, he may be mistaken, and in the video shown, he emphasizes that much more work needs to be done. There is no sign that he is inventing something, or making up a background. He's worked there since the mid 60's ??
In fact he is quite the kid. In edit, Ironically I missed the fact that he is also an inventor, NASA inventor of the year!

Devino


Maybe you guys should tell NASA that so they can correct the information on their website.

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. -- Richard B. Hoover, Astrobiology Group Leader at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., is the 2009 recipient of the Gold Medal of SPIE,

nasa.gov

Good work, I'm only seeing jadestar's reply a short while ago, and went on with my reply. I do so hate these hatchet jobs.

draknoir2
But I'll agree, the boundary pushers sometimes breathe new life into a stagnant field... several examples in cosmological circles come to mind.

I also agree that a good percentage of scientists are not in their chosen field because they want to grind away at mundane work confirming the research done by others. They start out wanting to make some mind-blowing, paradigm shattering discovery that propels them into everlasting fame and fortune. The mathematicians want to be Einstein; the archeologists want to be Heinrich Schliemann; the chemists want to be Jonas Salk.

Everybody's looking for something groundbreaking that shakes up the world, because after a while, the world starts to look pretty dull. That's why this site exists. We're all looking for somebody to provide the proof and supply us all with pudding.

As best I can tell, the reason Hoover's work is held in low esteem by other astrobiologists is NOT the nature of the claim -- biological material in meteorites -- but the apparent sloppiness of his anti-contamination approach, especially with Orgueile. As a whole, astrobiologists WANT to find such evidence and realize that false claims that are easily debunked discredit everybody else's claims. They are not -- as some posts here suggest -- closed-mindedly hostile to the CLAIM, which they are in general, sympathetic to.

While getting tripped up by words and dates, it now seems there was a self-styled 'group' working on astrobiology issues part time at Huntsville in the 2006-8 period that no longer exists and never had its own 'department'. I apologize for the confusion I contributed to.

JimOberg
As best I can tell, the reason Hoover's work is held in low esteem by other astrobiologists is NOT the nature of the claim -- biological material in meteorites -- but the apparent sloppiness of his anti-contamination approach, especially with Orgueile.

Thats a pretty good reason to not take his work seriously ... thats a schoolboy error right there ...

johnrobca

JimOberg
As best I can tell, the reason Hoover's work is held in low esteem by other astrobiologists is NOT the nature of the claim -- biological material in meteorites -- but the apparent sloppiness of his anti-contamination approach, especially with Orgueile.

Thats a pretty good reason to not take his work seriously ... thats a schoolboy error right there ...

True, but if you go back to the OP's link you will that at least one scientist/peer made the 'statement', "Garbage" why would he say that about a respected fellow scientist? It's not exactly a peer review is it? More than that, my understanding is that NASA distanced itself only in his last paper,(there were others) seemingly because there was 'lack of peer review'.
At least that is being polite, much more civilised than the rabid "garbage" remark, which tends to allow others to make more rabid remarks, like he is 'George Adamski' of astrobiology, etc, etc, while knowing feck all about him. So you can see how someone can become demonised so quickly.

Maybe this "retired" astroguy is trying to make a comeback to his name and wants a job because he is bored sitting at home watching Maury.

Astrobiology is a weird gig. They're still looking for one single example of life not on Earth. Otherwise, their primary job is speculation. That can't pay very good, can it? White collar welfare at its finest.

Blue Shift
Astrobiology is a weird gig. They're still looking for one single example of life not on Earth. Otherwise, their primary job is speculation. That can't pay very good, can it? White collar welfare at its finest.

There again, you go into an area of character assassination by using the singularity of astrobiology, which is in fact a serious scientific preposition, it has to be. This man is a member of SPIE, the society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers. a fellow of the same organisation, and recent president, and foreby a recipient of that organisations highest award, look them up here, with links there also to other recipients of that award, and links also to Richard Hoover's bio.

en.wikipedia.org...
He is also an inventor with a dozen patents in fields related to the above, the man is now 70 years old, he worked for NASA for 44 years whatever in his role as an astrobioligist, perhaps more fields than that, I don't know. But it behoves you to look him up at the very least online. Then you can speak, then I will listen.

Hoover's wiki bio,

en.wikipedia.org...

smurfywhich tends to allow others to make more rabid remarks, like he is 'George Adamski' of astrobiology, etc, etc, while knowing feck all about him. So you can see how someone can become demonised so quickly.

Because he ignores contamination as the reason for his results. That's not proper science if one only accepts data which supports their hypothesis but rejects valid criticism from distinguished astrobiologists who brought up a more likely explanation.

The burden is on Hoover to answer his critics with better data, instead he just keeps repeating his claims based on sloppy science. It makes sense that people might lose patience and grow tired of him doing this, using their discipline specifically to do it.

Blue Shift
Astrobiology is a weird gig. They're still looking for one single example of life not on Earth. Otherwise, their primary job is speculation. That can't pay very good, can it? White collar welfare at its finest.

One could have said the same thing about exoplanet research prior to 1992.

reply to post by JadeStar

How does one go about looking for extraterrestrial life on rocks found on Earth?

This guy might very well do sloppy work, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to the other astrobiologists to make such accusations.

So what would be a fool proof manner to collect evidence that has not been contaminated by Earth bound organisms?
It seems to me that he is doing what he has done for most of his career. Study, and sometimes discover, micro-organisms. I think his method is a good one. Look for small examples of ET life by the means you have available.

JadeStar
One could have said the same thing about exoplanet research prior to 1992.

Fortunately for them, something showed up. And I'll have a lot more respect for the exobiology field (and they'll really start earning their pay) if or when we ever find such a thing. There are also people out there who are recognized experts on angels.

Blue Shift

JadeStar
One could have said the same thing about exoplanet research prior to 1992.

Fortunately for them, something showed up. And I'll have a lot more respect for the exobiology field (and they'll really start earning their pay) if or when we ever find such a thing. There are also people out there who are recognized experts on angels.

edit on 6-2-2014 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)

Your point has no validity unless you can physically model an angel based on the laws of physics and chemistry.