Alien Anomalies

Members Login
Post Info TOPIC: New evidence for lifesigns in meteorites or Who the hell `s turning the tides ( on earth ) ? .


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 305
Date:
RE: New evidence for lifesigns in meteorites or Who the hell `s turning the tides ( on earth ) ? .
Permalink  
 


Well, it has been suggested by some, and EU theory suggests lots of sparks, so you can see where I got that from ;)

By the way, scientists trying to create conditions for life to form artificially use electrical discharges.  So there is a tiny bit of merit to it, but we really need to research it more.  I am just saying, why not jump to a temporary conclusion until something flies in the face of it, when it potentially explains a lot?

1) then it is highly likely they have mastered the art of creating life

The thing is, you are doing the same thing I am, just ascribing an intelligent cause because of lack of understanding.  I ascribe a natural cause with a lack of understanding, so that life somewhere in the universe would exist in the first place.  Of course, neither idea is really better than the other, quite frankly.  I guess I chose the "stylish" one.



__________________
What if Pinnochio says that his nose will grow longer?


Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lets be quite sure about this. The EU theory does not suggest that life was created by an electrical spark - or does it? 

In my opinion, life has always existed in the universe and there have always been some beings with advanced technology. When I say always, I mean for the seeable past. 

Everyone speaks as if there should be one point in time when creation happened, but if you have millions of races of beings spread throughout the universe, then there is no one point in time when life began - unless you mean 'began in a test tube', then yes, it may need an electrical spark to start it off, but I think that things are done with better technology that this.

Basically, we have no idea how life began originally, but if there are ANY beings at all out there, then it is highly likely they have mastered the art of creating life, so ANY speculation of life starting with an electrical spark anywhere near here is, in my opinion, absolute religious/scientific/belief utter belony. 



__________________


 



Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 305
Date:
Permalink  
 

1)In my opinion life is omnipotent in the omniverse.

And the Electric Universe theory would support that, as long as the conditions are right, life will certainly form, as long as the environment isn't too volatile, has the right chemistry, and the right temperatures.  All that is needed is an electrical arc.  It isn't surprising that life could come into existence on a rock in space, but it may also (more likely, given the advanced nature of cellular life) that it was fossilized long before the rock became an asteroid, while it was still rock on a planetary surface.  We can narrow down what surface it came from by studying the composition of the rock.  I would expect either Earth or Mars, but cannot completely rule out other locations.



__________________
What if Pinnochio says that his nose will grow longer?


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 551
Date:
Permalink  
 

... and some of them may be extraterrestrial... .  Finis.

After reading the article I am not quite shure, what the author means... In my opinion life is omnipotent in the omniverse.

Going over and above that, in my opinion, some day it will be obvious, that there is no clear demarcation line between organic and unorganic.

All these academic and nonacademic discussions go round and round and round, always avoiding  the  main point, seems by purpose :

Who or What are We ?



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 134
Date:
Permalink  
 

Here is an article that raises some interesting questions regarding the origins of meterorites and other space debris.  Some of them may be terrestrial...

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/10-03-2011/117140-meteorite_life_form-0/


__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 551
Date:
Permalink  
 




                                                         As Always....

the preparatory work, the hardest struggle, runs unnoticed , sometimes for centuries. 

                                                         
                                                         The Visible....

....  starts with a small crack, just big enough the slightest evidence may pass. A crack just big enough  for microbes  to slip through.

These microbes are working hard on enlarging the crack, which takes some time . As the crack gets bigger it motivates  secondary cracks,  bigger evidences  appear, bigger evidences are allowed to pass, unless the cracks  surpass the walls and a  picture  unveils. A natural painful process with painful consequences for some of us and some of them.

Hoover - cosmic life.jpg

Product Details

  • Hardcover: 350 pages
  • Publisher: Cosmology Science Publishers (April 15, 2011)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0982955294
  • ISBN-13: 978-0982955291



Perceiption.jpg



__________________


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 399
Date:
Permalink  
 

seems like if there is bacteria around, there are also higher organisms somewhere.




__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 551
Date:
Permalink  
 


"They are afraid. They are terrified ..."

Fortunately there are cracks starting running through the scientific community, which are separating the honest ones from those, who whilst lacking intellectual capacities and holding on their "hidden" agendas, decided   to fight progress in a way , which is unmasking themselves. Those who are in the dark, believe to be invisible. This is a fallacy.
Now seems to rise  the time to speak out what is kept under pressure for so long. Now is the time to discuss the most important question our species has to ask. The one and only important question: Who, or What  are we ? 
All facettes should be on the table. It is time to leave a testimony for the truth. Now is the  chance for brave men and women, who cannot stand any longer the injustice. It is time for the revolt of the conscience. Go on !

 
http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html



CarbonaceousCyanobacteriaSpiral030711.jpg



Orgueil - 1hooverfigure2a-igs.jpg

Journal of Cosmology, 2011, Vol 13,
JournalofCosmology.com March, 2011
Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites Richard B. Hoover, Ph.D. NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center Synopsis  

Richard Hoover has discovered evidence of microfossils similar to Cyanobacteria, in freshly fractured slices of the interior surfaces of the Alais, Ivuna, and Orgueil CI1 carbonaceous meteorites. Based on Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) and other measures, Richard Hoover has concluded they are indigenous to these meteors and are similar to trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as filamentous sulfur bacteria. He concludes these fossilized bacteria are not Earthly contaminants but are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies. Coupled with a wealth of date published elsewhere and in previous editions of the Journal of Cosmology, and as presented in the edited text, "The Biological Big Bang", the implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets. Members of the Scientific community were invited to analyze the results and to write critical commentaries or to speculate about the implications. These commentaries will be published on March 7 through March 10, 2011 and can be accessed at this link: Commentaries Official Statement from Dr. Rudy Schild, Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Cosmology.

Richard Hoover is a highly respected scientist and astrobiologist with a prestigious record of accomplishment at NASA. Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis. Our intention is to publish the commentaries, both pro and con, alongside Hoover's paper. In this way, the paper will have received a thorough vetting, and all points of view can be presented. No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough analysis, and no other scientific journal in the history of science has made such a profoundly important paper available to the scientific community, for comment, before it is published. We believe the best way to advance science, is to promote debate and discussion.


Official Statement The Journal of Cosmology,
Have the Terrorists Won?

The Journal of Cosmology is free, online, open access. Free means = No money.

Our intention has always been to promote science and this means, particularly in this case, stepping on the toes of the "status quo" who have responded with a barrage of slanderous attacks. They are lying to you.

The Journal of Cosmology is a Prestigious Scientific Journal Two of NASA Senior Scientists Science Directorates have published in the Journal of Cosmology (JOC). A NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate served as a "guest" Executive editor and repeatedly referred to the Journal as "prestigious." Four astronauts, two who walked on the Moon have published with JOC. Over 30 top NASA scientists have published in JOC.

Top scientists from prestigious universities from around the world have published in the Journal of Cosmology, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, and so on. Sir Roger Penrose of Oxford and who shared the "Wolf Prize" in physics with Stephen Hawking is Guest editing the April edition.

Peer Review NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate Joel Levine, while participating in a NASA press conference, remarked about how his papers were peer reviewed and he was required to revise all of them, even though he was the editor for that edition of JOC!

As every editor, and guest editor will attest, all articles are subjected to peer review. We reject over 30% of invited papers and over 70% of those which are not invited. Over 90% of all papers are sent back for revision following peer review. Every editor, and Guest editor, has had their work subjected to peer review, and every editor has been required to revise their articles after peer review. Even the executive editors have been required to revise their papers after peer review. We believe in peer review. Peer review provides wonderful feedback which can help make a paper better, or which can explain why the paper is hopeless and must be rejected. However, we do not reject great papers because we disagree with them as is the habit of other periodicals.

Richard Hoover's paper was received in November. It was subjected to repeated reviews and underwent one significant revision.

Selling JOC The Journal of Cosmology has no income, a small staff, and is overwhelmed with submissions from scientists around the world. A decision was made in early February to stop publishing in June. A buy out offer was received in mid-February. Terms were agreed to in late February. The offer was made public in February. Hoover's paper was received in November of 2010 and published in March.

We were well aware we would suffer profound, slanderous, attacks by those who would do anything to destroy our reputation. If Hoover's paper were a factor in this sale, we would have never published it. They are lying to you.

Have the Terrorist Won? Only a few crackpots and charlatans have denounced the Hoover study. NASA's chief scientist was charged with unprofessional conduct for lying publicly about the Journal of Cosmology and the Hoover paper. The same crackpots, self-promoters, liars, and failures, are quoted repeatedly in the media. However, where is the evidence the Hoover study is not accurate?

Few legitimate scientists have come forward to contest Hoover's findings. Why is that? Because the evidence is solid.

But why have so few scientists come forward to attest to the validity? The answer is: They are afraid. They are terrified. And for good reason.

The status quo and their "hand puppets" will stop at nothing to crush debate about important scientific issues, and this includes slander, defamation, trade libel... they will ruin you. Three hundred years ago, they would burn you for questioning orthodoxy. Has anything changed?

The scientific community must march according to the tune whistled by those who control the funding. If you don't do as you are told, if you dare to ask the wrong questions, they will destroy you.

JOC offered the scientific community a unique opportunity to debate an important paper, but for the most part they have declined.

The message is: Be afraid. Be very afraid. Or you will be destroyed.

Why is America in decline?

Maybe the terrorists have won.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS WAS JUST THE "INTRODUCTION", the scientific paper starts after this.  It includes interesting images and a lot of text, too much to copy into Alien Anomalys. The link above will guide you directly to Harvards actual Journal of Cosmology.
 Just the beginning.....:


Journal of Cosmology, 2011, Vol 13, xxx.
JournalofCosmology.com, March, 2011

Richard B. Hoover,
Space Science Office, Mail Code 62, NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812

Abstract

 

Environmental (ESEM) and Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) investigations of the internal surfaces of the CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites have yielded images of large complex filaments. The filaments have been observed to be embedded in freshly fractured internal surfaces of the stones. They exhibit features (e.g., the size and size ranges of the internal cells and their location and arrangement within sheaths) that are diagnostic of known genera and species of trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as the filamentous sulfur bacteria. ESEM and FESEM studies of living and fossil cyanobacteria show similar features in uniseriate and multiseriate, branched or unbranched, isodiametric or tapered, polarized or unpolarized filaments with trichomes encased within thin or thick external sheaths. Filaments found in the CI1 meteorites have also been detected that exhibit structures consistent with the specialized cells and structures used by cyanobacteria for reproduction (baeocytes, akinetes and hormogonia), nitrogen fixation (basal, intercalary or apical heterocysts) and attachment or motility (fimbriae). Energy dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS) studies indicate that the meteorite filaments are typically carbon rich sheaths infilled with magnesium sulfate and other minerals characteristic of the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites. The size, structure, detailed morphological characteristics and chemical compositions of the meteorite filaments are not consistent with known species of minerals. The nitrogen content of the meteorite filaments are almost always below the detection limit of the EDS detector. EDS analysis of terrestrial minerals and biological materials (e.g., fibrous epsomite, filamentous cyanobacteria; mummy and mammoth hair/tissues, and fossils of cyanobacteria, trilobites, insects in amber) indicate that nitrogen remains detectable in biological materials for thousands of years but is undetectable in the ancient fossils. These studies have led to the conclusion that the filaments found in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites are indigenous fossils rather than modern terrestrial biological contaminants that entered the meteorites after arrival on Earth. The δ13C and D/H content of amino acids and other organics found in these stones are shown to be consistent with the interpretation that comets represent the parent bodies of the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites. The implications of the detection of fossils of cyanobacteria in the CI1 meteorites to the possibility of life on comets, Europa and Enceladus are discussed. Keywords: Origins of life, CI1 meteorites, Orgueil, Alais Ivuna, microfossils, cyanobacteria, comets, Europa, Enceladus

1. INTRODUCTION

The CI1 carbonaceous chondrites are the most primitive of all known meteorites in terms of solar elemental abundances and the highest content of volatiles. Carbonaceous chondrites are a major clan of chondritic meteorites that contain water, several weight % Carbon, Mg/Si ratios at near solar values, and oxygen isotope compositions that plot below the terrestrial fractionation line. The CI1 classification indicates the meteorites belong to the CI (Ivuna Type) chemical group and are of petrologic Type 1. The CI1 meteorites are distinguished from other carbonaceous chondrites by a complete absence of chondrules and refractory inclusions (destroyed by aqueous alteration on the parent body) and by their high degree (~20%) of indigenous water of hydration. The aqueous alteration took place on the parent bodies of the CI1 meteorites at low temperature (<50 oC) and produced hydrated phyllosilicates similar to terrestrial clays, carbonates and oxides magnetite Fe3O4 and limonite Fe2O3 . nH2O. Sparsely distributed throughout the black rock matrix are fragments and crystals of olivine, pyroxene and elemental iron, presolar diamonds and graphite and insoluble organic matter similar to kerogen.

The CI1 carbonaceous chondrites are extremely rare. Although over 35,000 meteorites have been recovered there are only nine CI1 meteorites known on Earth (Table I). Five of them were observed falls: Alais, Orgueil, Ivuna, Tonk and Revelstoke) and the other four (Y-86029, Y-86737, Y980115 and Y-980134) were collected in 1986 and 1998 from the blue ice fields of the Yamato Mountains by Antarctic Expeditions of the National Institute of Polar Research, Japan. ...........




__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard