NASA scientist finds 'alien life' fossils

I'm confused. What does the image have to do with the article?

Is it a way to associate Greenie-watermelons (pinko inside, not intel) with NASA crack-pottery?

I agree. Totally inappropriate image to use for such a potentially momentous discovery.

The theory is that a collision with Mars, for example, kicks chunks off the planet which fall to earth.

So how do they know the meteorite wasn't "kicked off" the earth only to eventually fall to earth again - containing the fossil?

Also, if the theory is true then the aliens are us, right? Therefore there are no aliens and we are the same. So how will they every prove its an "alien" organism?

What I'm interested about is how these bacteria look biologically, how they operate, how they work. The bacteria of Earth aught to be MUCH different than the bacteria of any other place where life has formed. If not, this tells us something about the basics of life perhaps, how life forms, etc.

So how do they know the meteorite wasn't "kicked off" the earth only to eventually fall to earth again - containing the fossil?

The original article in the JoC addresses this. Nice and appropriate copyrighted pics too.

I'm confused. What does the image have to do with the article?

Is it a way to associate Greenie-watermelons (pinko inside, not intel) with NASA crack-pottery?

Did you just use pinko as an insult? Really? Go back to the 50's please. The Cleavers would like to have dinner with you.

Very interesting, but some of the filiments look like extrusions and voids to me.

I wonder, could NASA have more up their sleeves, and are they "preparing" society for the really BIG news (in small steps)?

So how do they know the meteorite wasn't "kicked off" the earth only to eventually fall to earth again - containing the fossil?

Actually no, these bodies all come from comets which have never been part of a planet.

As to how they know the meteorites are not from Earth, depleted o2 isotope ratios.

So how do they know the meteorite wasn't "kicked off" the earth only to eventually fall to earth again - containing the fossil?

Actually no, these bodies all come from comets which have never been part of a planet.

As to how they know the meteorites are not from Earth, depleted o2 isotope ratios.

"...the absence of nitrogen in the cyanobacterial filaments detected in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites indicates that the filaments represent the remains of extraterrestrial life forms that grew on the parent bodies of the meteorites when liquid water was present, long before the meteorites entered the Earth's atmosphere."
-from the article.

A NASA scientist's claim that he found tiny fossils of alien life in the remnants of a meteorite has stirred both excitement and skepticism, and is being closely reviewed by 100 experts.

Not exactly: If the writer had actually read the piece he/she'd have noticed that invitations have been sent to FIVE THOUSAND scientists for review... an act never before done in any scientific pre-pub.
.
Vis-a-vis statements here about "they look like to me" only show no reading of the article. It's not merely the shapes, but the chemistry and bio morphism that was analyzed.

So how do they know the meteorite wasn't "kicked off" the earth only to eventually fall to earth again - containing the fossil?

I dont know enough about physics, though I believe the energies required to throw earth debris into orbit and and then reenter the atmosphere would probably melt any rock you can imagine. It would have to be a large enough rock to survive reentry and imagine the devastation/energy of the initial impact.. Also comets/meteors contain a unique spectrum of elements and isotopes so it is easy to determine the source of a rock.

"...the absence of nitrogen in the cyanobacterial filaments detected in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites indicates that the filaments represent the remains of extraterrestrial life forms that grew on the parent bodies of the meteorites when liquid water was present, long before the meteorites entered the Earth's atmosphere."
-from the article.

What I inferred from reading the article was that the absence of nitrogen is evidence of extreme age (ruling out terrestrial contamination) but not in itself proving extraterrestrial origin. Anyone more knowledgeable on the subject- please speak up.

Somehow skeptical blog about this finding:

http://rrresearch...ite.html

There seems to be much more to this story than the above article relates.

The circumstances around the publication of this work seem almost as interesting as the claim itself.

As an aside, the specimen itself has several prior claims of containing ET life dating back to 1962: http://en.wikiped...fication

(In 1965 a seed was 'found' on this meteorite. So it's been well studied)

But back to the paper, several things seem peculiar. The paper is by a single author (for such a discovery, why would'nt other experts be brought in for thoroughness?

Also, no crude drafts of the paper were shown to other experts in the field for comments before submission? For the magnitude of the claim, this seems odd.

The author also broke this story with an interview on Faux News and apparently only made a submission to the JOC, again a rather questionable choice for a discovery of this magnitude.

con't

con't

Of course, JOC is a peer-reviewed publication , but why not publish this momentous paper alongside the 100 other invited reviews and all? And while the situation seems to be somewhat confusing already, the JOC has announced they will cease publishing in May due to some evel conspiracy by (who else) NASA and "Science" mag: http://daviddobbs...big-bang

This seems like some desperate ploy by JOC for clicks (and as they say, they're "going out with a bang"). This story has been getting a lot of attention on the astro boards today.

More details on the story (and some great comments) over at BA: http://blogs.disc...teorite/

First we came from Ape. Now, we come from rock. Sounds "rock solid" proof to me. I like this stuff. I'm ready to look for my ancestry up there.

Birthmark sez: "The bacteria of Earth [o]ught to be MUCH different than the bacteria of any other place where life has formed."

Why? You sound pretty sure for soemone who has never seen any alien life forms. I understand that an organism from another planet MIGHT have unique obstacles to overcome, and thus unique physiology, but it's pretty presumptuous to assert that it MUST be different.

If you were to design a fast-moving aquatic animal (for instance) it would pretty much have to have a sleek, elongated form that can move efficiently through the water. This is why dolphins, which evolved from something resembling a hooved wolf, now look like fish. It's not because they're both from Earth. It's because physics forced their evolutionary hand. Some things have a very narrow range of solutions.

First we came from Ape. Now, we come from rock. Sounds "rock solid" proof to me. I like this stuff. I'm ready to look for my ancestry up there.

Most likely we came from both.

Congratulations for this is an important finding!

This seems to substantiate the ideas put forth several years ago by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.

Again, congratulations!

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
omatumr.com

Also, if the theory is true then the aliens are us, right? Therefore there are no aliens and we are the same. So how will they every prove its an "alien" organism?

I think you're misunderstanding the word 'alien' and its use. 'Alien' is also used to describe people from other nations within the same planet. It just means its home is not here. So there would still be plenty of aliens and alien worlds even if it's proven that we evolved from alien bacteria.

Gonna be real.I seen show where they use super cannon and shoot bacteria or something to emulate fast impact on earth and they survive and mutate.

Thank you, thank you, Professor Rudy Schild, for your courage in serving as editor of the Journal of Cosmology and for challenging NASA's lock-step consensus dogma as a substitute for science.

Whether or not this particular finding is confirmed, you have gained the respect of many for having the courage to confront the "scientific-technological elite" that former President Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address:

youtube.com/watch?v=GOLld5PR4ts

@ TheWalrus

Well they ought to be different because we are able to classify it (are we gonna be able to go to a plant with life on it and go, "oh look! Fungi! Mammals!" I mean yeah, bacteria are prokaryotes, but even prokaryotic cells have a basic structure that would only seem logical to be unique to this planet. what are the odds that we find something just like it? That's why I said I'm interested in it's structure and function mostly, because if we find this is JUST like a bacteria cell on Earth, then this tells us a lot about evolution and extraterrestrial life, and even perhaps how prokaryotic cells evolved into Eukaryotic cells.

This is just hype and hot air, coming as it does from the JoC. yyz has already made an excellent summary of the red flags associated with this 'release'.

Dr. Rhawn Joseph, the man behind JoC, is a well known crank who believes life here was seeded from other star systems and that only life begets life. Another words, he's a creationist.

He started the JoC with his own paper (not peer reviewed), called "Life on Earth Came From Other Planets", in 2009.

In the introduction to this inaugural paper, we find these quotes:

"Very tiny animals result from the corruption of mortal things, arise from defects of dead bodies, or from excrements, or from putrefaction of dead bodies." -St. Augustine, Catholic Bishop, Church Father, Catholic Saint.

"Although popular newspapers and magazines (e.g. Scientific American, 2009) unabashedly and religiously promote an Earth-based abiogenesis, no one has demonstrated or proved that life can be produced from non-life".

So a crank trying to appear legit.

@Birthmark
I'd be quite surprised if these bacteria were much different from the bacteria here on Earth, especially if they are prokaryotes, as chemistry is universal. If they look like bacteria from Earth then I'd bet they work in similar ways too. Obviously there may be some differences like how genetic material is stored, type of food required, environmental differneces (likes light, heat, cold, ect) but you see that on Earth. To have completely *different* bacteria, they wouldn't be bacteria as you'd have to have some funky chemistry to pull that off!

i would think that if life did arise on another planet with a similar geology to ours (water with land masses and similar/same chemical mixtures otherwise), it would probably work the same, regardless of where it is.
as it was so nicely stated above, it all depends on the chemistry.

So a crank trying to appear legit.

Yes, it is difficult to judge.

"The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda."

"Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformationage) it takes on a special urgency and importance"

- - Michael Crichton

This quote can be found in the very first paragraph of his speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco on September 15, 2003: "Environmentalism as Religion"

The paper is definitely interesting. Time will tell if it is a work of fiction or not, simply because the theory will be either falsified or validated when civilization is capable of returning probes with relevant samples from various bodies within our solar system. It is "unlikely" that the outer peripheries of our solar system have been contaminated by ejecta from the earth, and our best bet would probably be one of the icy moons. Just a little bit of patience and enough funds for a few missions are required. But then something like this will stir up a hornets nest of controversy.

Did you just use pinko as an insult? Really? Go back to the 50's please. The Cleavers would like to have dinner with you.

Would that *we* could. Better Ward and June than Obowma and Manchelle, Islamo-NAZIS rather than mere commie-pinkos.

Is this really the place for such posts as yours, while i am sure your posting style would be popular in some tea party forum this is primarily a non political forum?

On-topic i have so say i am a bit dubiouse about this myself. But as i am not a specialist in this field i shall await generall concensuss with great interest.

Until we find a living lifeform and do a genetic test and determine that it is NOT DNA based life, I will not believe it. If there is bacteria life in the solar system outside of Earth, I would guess that it would use the same type of DNA as we have here on Earth. An impact on Earth can send bacteria to other parts of the solar system. This will result in life forms that have evolved differently but still belong on the same tree of life as DNA structured life on Earth.

This report is also an encouraging first sign for an end to NASA's domination of space sciences with lock-step consensus dogma.

Congratulations!

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
omatumr.com

Don't like pinko huh?
How about 'brain dead liberal fool supporting non-sense dreamed up by communist run environmental propoganda generating money begging Americal haters'.

It's the people like you that make me think my investment in Reynold's Wrap Co. stock will always produce a strong return.

Richard Dawkins will have the final say.

Until we find a living lifeform and do a genetic test and determine that it is NOT DNA based life,

Bit of a poser, that.

The paper is definitely interesting. Time will tell . . . But then something like this will stir up a hornets nest of controversy.

As the Climategate scandal unfolds and bureaucrats in federal research agencies realize that they may be under public scrutiny, I fully expect that a backlog of scientific findings over the past four decades will become available for evaluation.

Again, I congratulate the author and the editor for their courage to their present findings directly to the public that supported the research.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

I'm going to take a step back here and let the Christians and the Scientologists battle this one out. Oh this will be fun!

I see much legitamate debate and nonsense here. All I know is the Universe is so big that somewhere whatver happened here happened there as well. I dont care if it was God's word, other extraterestrials or happen chance roll of dice. Our search is very exciting even if errored in many ways. Lets not debate the serch for truth only our motives in that debate that skew the truth and the honest investigation.

The journal of cosmology is quite a website. Like a 3rd grader designed it.

The paper is definitely interesting. Time will tell . . . But then something like this will stir up a hornets nest of controversy.

As the Climategate scandal unfolds and bureaucrats in federal research agencies realize that they may be under public scrutiny, I fully expect that a backlog of scientific findings over the past four decades will become available for evaluation.

Again, I congratulate the author and the editor for their courage to their present findings directly to the public that supported the research.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

So, do you believe there is additional evidence warehoused in government "back rooms"?

@Jaeherys

I'd be quite surprised if these bacteria were much different from the bacteria here on Earth, especially if they are prokaryotes, as chemistry is universal. If they look like bacteria from Earth then I'd bet they work in similar ways too. Obviously there may be some differences like how genetic material is stored, type of food required, environmental differneces (likes light, heat, cold, ect) but you see that on Earth. To have completely *different* bacteria, they wouldn't be bacteria as you'd have to have some funky chemistry to pull that off!

No you hit my point perfectly! You said "Obviously there may be some differences like how genetic material is stored, type of food required" and that's mostly what I'm getting at, I don't mean because it's not from Earth it should not even resemble life, but the basic things would be slightly if not more so different, but most DEFINITELY not the same.

I also wanted to add that some life forms out there may not require what we necessarily need -- we can't ONLY look for planets just like ours (however that is THE best bet, and I'm excited that's what we are doing). Until we actually find extraterrestrial life, these theories of what life needs to live and how they operate are what we see life needs ON EARTH, and how they operate, ON EARTH.

This report is also an encouraging first sign for an end to NASA's domination of space sciences with lock-step consensus dogma.

Oliver K. Manuel

Oliver, you act EXACTLY like the kid who got picked last for kickball. Speaking as an outside observer, your obvious bitterness does you no favors in the reputation department. You might be right, but you come off like all the other cranks who don't seem to care about their rep, yet keep a-postin'.

Have you always been so anti-conformity or did the scientific community hurt you in some unforgivable way?

Don't like pinko huh?
How about 'brain dead liberal fool supporting non-sense dreamed up by communist run environmental propoganda generating money begging Americal haters'.

It's the people like you that make me think my investment in Reynold's Wrap Co. stock will always produce a strong return.

You might want to keep a closer watch on your portfolio, as Reynolds Aluminum was bought out by Alcoa in 2000. I'm just sayin'

This is just hype and hot air, coming as it does from the JoC. yyz has already made an excellent summary of the red flags

If it quacks like a duck... Looks like we were right on this one. In a new thread here:

NASA and its top scientists are distancing themselves from a space agency researcher who concludes that he found alien bacterial life in meteorites that were collected many decades ago

certainly no one in the meteorite analysis community, that has supported these conclusions

Scientists inside and outside the space agency have criticized and even ridiculed Hoover's study, his credentials and the journal itself

Hoover...had submitted the paper to the Journal of Cosmology after it failed to get published in a more established peer-reviewed journal.

If Hoover wants to be taken seriously by the community of astrobiologists, he needs to publish this in a real journal and to respond to the criticisms from other scientists

Case closed.

As soulman notes above, NASA definitely wants nothing to do with this paper as is.

NASA has released an official statement regarding the paper by Hoover: http://www.spacer...id=32928

Most importantly "...NASA cannot stand behind or support a scientific claim unless it has been peer-reviewed or thoroughly examined by other qualified experts."

The paper was submitted for publication to the International Journal of Astrobiology in 2007 where, contrary to some claims, it DID undergo peer review and WAS rejected.

I find it interesting that NASA had no knowledge of the papers submission to JoC or of its publication in that journal.

The NASA statement notes that all questions regarding this paper be directed to Hoover.

Btw I read elesewere that of of the 100 personal invitations sent out for comments on the JoC paper, only 12 had responded (probably flabbergasted) and the deadline was extended a day!

Should be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

I admire the author and the editor for reporting this discovery to the public.

The finding will either be confirmed or denied.

Why all the emotionalism?

Why all the emotionalism?

I can only speak for myself, but when science is exploited by cranks and publicized on fundamentalist faux news outlets (side stepping the peer-review process), in order to take people's money, it makes me see red and I want to expose and redress the abuse. Doubly so, as I know what a piece of work R. Joseph really is (from way back). The irony to whom I'm replying doesn't escape me!

I wish I knew which part of his paper NASA took issue with.

I wish I knew which part of his paper NASA took issue with.

The whole paper. He makes claims and doesn't substantiate them, then he misuses what would be properly administrered tests and discredits their negative results as error.

In effect, he has stuck his fingers in his ears in a search for something outside of what anyone else would consider evidence. It's quackery. Keep in mind, Oliver Manuel was with NASA, and he's as quacktastic as they get, for the very same reasons.

I wish I knew which part of his paper NASA took issue with.

NASA officials are trying to discredit the paper without addressing the data, just like former President Eisenhower warned a government funded "scientific-technological elite" might one day behave:

youtube.com/watch?v=GOLld5PR4ts

Here is the quote and a link to Eisenhower's 1961 speech on the dangers of a government-funded "scientific-technological elite."

"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 17 Jan 1961

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

It's easier to call someone a "quack" than to find fault with experimental data.

NASA has employed that technique for decades to keep the public misinformed about:

a.) The Sun's origin
b.) The Sun's composition
c.) The Sun's source of energy
d.) The Sun's influence on Earth's climate, and now
e.) The possible existence of life outside NASA Headquarters

Data published in mainstream journals [1,2] that NASA ignored are here [3]:

1. "Strange xenon, extinct superheavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle", Science 195, 208-209 (1977).

2. "Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis", Nature 277, 615-620 (1979).

3. "Neutron Repulsion," The APEIRON Journal in press (2011), 19 pages

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

Where is ANY evidence for the decay of bound neutrons?

Ethelred

All meteorites, asteroids, micrometeorites are the debris of the exploded geo-spheres. Few primordial space bodies in the solar system are exploded by planemoes:
Fifth planet between mars and Jupiter. proof is a main belt of the debris remain of the catastrophe.
Moon of the Saturn. proof is an impressive belt, that is a lot of rings of the different debris remain of the catastrophe.
Moon of the Uranus. proof is an amazing belt, that is a lot of rings of the different debris remain of the catastrophe.
Moon of the Neptune. proof is an amazing belt, that is a lot of rings of the different debris remain of the catastrophe.
Thus in the solar system are orbiting debris of the eight space-bodies as a minimum - 4 planemoes and 4 primordial space-bodies.
-All similar tiny fossils have an excellent explanation. Using the smaller geo-sphere debris they are traveling in the solar system. Thus the fossils came from an unknown - failed space body
K.Margiani

So how does he know that there was no cross contamination? After all doesn't the article state that "The implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets.". So, what...organisms can get out, but they can't go in the rock? Is there some magical force-field that prevents this from being a two way street?

How the planets and planemoes are formed???
They are injected from the supermassive precursor (parent) star of the Milky Way. From the turbulent streams of the supermassive shell
http://www.youtub...vk2wDYwc
K. Margaini

So how does he know that there was no cross contamination? After all doesn't the article state that "The implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets.". So, what...organisms can get out, but they can't go in the rock? Is there some magical force-field that prevents this from being a two way street?

I might be misunderstanding but he was looking at fossils so any contamination would be non-fossilized life forms which would be ignored.

Jake

Why does there need to be "crosscontamination" in your mind to explain the providence of life?

Is it too much for you to carry one sort of life to another?

It isn't contamination, it's germination. Mars held life, now Earth provides shelter for it, but who brought it to earth?

Where is ANY evidence for the decay of bound neutrons?

Ethelred

Solar energy (SE) is NOT generated by decay of bound neutrons

See page 10 of the paper ["Neutron Repulsion," The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages]

arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

Solar energy (SE) is generated by three, successive nuclear reactions:

1. 60% of SE: Neutron Emission

2. 05% of SE: Neutron decay to Hydrogen (H)

3. 35% of SE: H-fusion to form He

Net: 100% of the measured Solar Energy (SE) and 100% of the solar electron electron neutrinos from H-fusion are explained without resorting to magic neutrino oscillations.

More importantly, are you aware of errors in Dr. Richard Hoover's experimental observations?

So how does he know that there was no cross contamination? After all doesn't the article state that "The implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets.". So, what...organisms can get out, but they can't go in the rock? Is there some magical force-field that prevents this from being a two way street?

I might be misunderstanding but he was looking at fossils so any contamination would be non-fossilized life forms which would be ignored.

Jake

Yes but when were they fossilized? Unless it was oh, say 5 billion years ago you can't rule out that the life originated on Earth...

Yes but when were they fossilized? Unless it was oh, say 5 billion years ago you can't rule out that the life originated on Earth...

The paper states that it must have happened billions of years ago, due to their low nitrogen content or something..

Those trying to discredit honest research reports may want to rethink their strategy.

This afternoon the Climategate foundation started to crumble!

See: Steve McIntyre's report this afternoon:

"Wahl Transcript Excerpt"

climateaudit.org/2011/03/08/wahl-transcript-excerpt/

Please keep in mind that only pawns have been accused of wrong doing - to date.

Those directing public research funds for propaganda are much higher up the food chain, leaders of the scientific -technological elite that former President Eisenhower warned about in his 1961 farewell address:

youtube.com/watch?v=GOLld5PR4ts

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

From your source:

I am advised that it's not a continuous chain, with some back and forth between the paragraphs excluded. I am advised that the excluded sections, often lengthy, do not place the excerpts in any different light than reading them as presented below.

Basically your source states: "there's a lot missing, but don't worry about it, the person who sent me these pieces told me it doesn't make a difference"

In short, you are quote mining testimony. Actually, worse than that. You're just forwarding someone else's quote mining of testimony.

It doesn't seem to me that's what Eisenhower warned about at all. Even a scientific-technological elite would request evidence for extraordinary claims.

"Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations."

"But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise."

"Of these, I mention two only."

1. "A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment."

". . . we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

Quotes to be continued:

"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades."

2. "In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government."

"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research."

"Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers."

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

Quotes to be continued:

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded."

"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite DANGER THAT PUBLIC POLICY COULD ITSELF BECOME THE CAPTIVE OF A SCIENTIFIC-TECHNOLOGICAL ELITE." [Caps added for emphasis]

"It is the TASK OF STATESMANSHIP TO MOLD, TO BALANCE, AND TO INTEGRATE THESE AND OTHER FORCES, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system EVER AIMING TOWARD THE SUPREME GOALS OF OUR FREE SOCIETY." [Caps added for emphasis]

End of selected quotes from

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

NASA officials are trying to discredit the paper without addressing the data, just like former President Eisenhower warned a government funded "scientific-technological elite" might one day behave:

It's easier to call someone a "quack" than to find fault with experimental data.

Since these are your views, perhaps you could address the following request by Ethelred, or any of the other requests for evidence supporting Neutron Repulsion, which seems to your answer for most of the articles on Physorg:

Where is ANY evidence for the decay of bound neutrons?

Ethelred

Again, I don't think NASA is guilty of anything resembling what Eisenhower warned against. It's just a hunch, but I doubt he'd be on your side for your personal beef with old co-workers. It's also hard to blame others for emotionalism when you use inflammatory words like 'Climategate'.

1. Climategate is the term widely used to describe hiding and manipulating experimental data to produce false "scientific evidence" for the AGW propaganda promoted by Al Gore,the UN's IPCC, etc.

2. You overlooked the above post:

Solar energy (SE) is NOT generated by decay of bound neutrons

See page 10 of the paper ["Neutron Repulsion," The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages]

arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

Solar energy (SE) is generated by three, successive nuclear reactions:

1. 60% of SE: Neutron Emission

2. 05% of SE: Neutron decay to Hydrogen (H)

3. 35% of SE: H-fusion to form He

Net: 100% of the measured Solar Energy (SE) and 100% of the solar electron electron neutrinos from H-fusion are explained without resorting to magic neutrino oscillations.

1. It's a term widely used by individuals attempting to discredit the study of climate change, and is used exclusively by deniers.

2. I didn't overlook your post, I just don't think many would accept posting three numbers adding up to 100 as viable evidence for your theory, especially without providing any evidence of neutron decay. It also fails to address numerous other concerns which have been voiced, such as the rigid iron shell, and the solar mass limit.

"Climategate" is an abbreviated endorsement of the request by Helmut Schmidt, former Chancellor of Germany, for an inquiry into the credibility of advice on global warming that stems from the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/03/helmut-schmidt-calls-for-ipcc-inquiry

The news report states "An equal problem in nearly all western countries (Russia perhaps excluded) is the integrity of their national science academies and leading organisations, nearly all of whom, under the leadership of the Royal Society of London, have been acting as cheerleaders for the IPCC for the last ten years or more."

See also: "Penn State whitewashed ClimateGate":

dailycaller.com/2011/03/08/penn-state-whitewashed-climategate/

And "Wahl Transcript Excerpt" on Climate Audit

climateaudit.org/2011/03/08/wahl-transcript-excerpt/

I didn't overlook your post, I just don't think many would accept posting three numbers adding up to 100 as viable evidence for your theory, . . .

Read the peer-reviewed papers on neutron repulsion and a freshman textbook - if you are still unaware that free neutrons spontaneously decay in ~10 minutes.

Why divert attention away from the subject matter of this news report:

'Alien Life' Fossils

Using the '-gate' suffix implies evidence of a scandal, and is a tool used by talking heads and politicians to enrage the masses. While you may wish to believe it was an homage to his inquiry, it doesn't fall in line with the historical use of the suffix.

http://en.wikiped...2_suffix

Using the '-gate' suffix implies evidence of a scandal,

Yes, it certainly does.

You and I simply disagree if you insist that there is not a scandal involving the misuse of government science to promote government propaganda, exactly as former President Eisenhower warned might happen one day in his 1961 farewell address:

youtube.com/watch?v=GOLld5PR4ts

Why divert attention away from the subject matter of this news report:

'Alien Life' Fossils

You're the one that brought it up in the first place, after your repeated "congratulations to the author" posts didn't generate the attention you crave. Now you're just trying to evade answering questions about it.

Using the '-gate' suffix implies evidence of a scandal,

Yes, it certainly does.

You and I simply disagree if you insist that there is not a scandal involving the misuse of government science to promote government propaganda, exactly as former President Eisenhower warned might happen one day in his 1961 farewell address:

youtube.com/watch?v=GOLld5PR4ts

Those who protest the use of the -gate suffix turn right around and call a skeptic a "denier"- a reference to those despicable people who claim the holocaust never happened. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black IMO.

Those who protest the use of the -gate suffix turn right around and call a skeptic a "denier"- a reference to those despicable people who claim the holocaust never happened. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black IMO.

Those who never, EVER, agree with climate scientists are deniers, good or bad. With the amount of AGW evidence out there, a skeptic will find at least something to agree with. Every anti-AGW commenter on this site that "I" have read, is a denier. I could be missing crucial posts, but somehow, I doubt it. See! I'm a skeptic. :)

Those who protest the use of the -gate suffix turn right around and call a skeptic a "denier"- a reference to those despicable people who claim the holocaust never happened. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black IMO.

Those who never, EVER, agree with climate scientists are deniers, good or bad. With the amount of AGW evidence out there, a skeptic will find at least something to agree with. Every anti-AGW commenter on this site that "I" have read, is a denier. I could be missing crucial posts, but somehow, I doubt it. See! I'm a skeptic. :)

I'm a skeptic too. Skepticism should never be marginalized in scientific debate. When Big Al (non-scientist who is poised to become the world's first eco-billionaire) said "the debate is over" warning signs should go up. Any scientist knows that ALL empirical knowledge is subject to revision. This truism should be embraced by both sides of the debate.

I'm a skeptic too. Skepticism should never be marginalized in scientific debate.

Not accurate. Skep[ticism in evolution should be marginalized, decried, shouted down, laughed at, etc.

When Big Al (non-scientist who is poised to become the world's first eco-billionaire) said "the debate is over" warning signs should go up.

They didn't, because the only people who paid any attention to him were outside fo science. Bozon the clown doesn't determine my stance on AGW, and neither does anyone who states something outside of peer reviewed literature.

Any scientist knows that ALL empirical knowledge is subject to revision. This truism should be embraced by both sides of the debate.

It is, but not by denialists.

Those who protest the use of the -gate suffix turn right around and call a skeptic a "denier"- a reference to those despicable people who claim the holocaust never happened. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black IMO.

That's not quite what I was going for. Denier is a common use word, and unlike -gate, wasn't designed for heated political discussions. Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully, however my mind doesn't jump to the Holocaust during discussions about climate change. However, I doubt many seriously minded skeptics with any sort of credentials would refer to the debate as 'Climategate' in lieu of evidence.

I'm unsubscribing to this topic .. it's degenerated to irrelevance.

catchya all later, if appropriate

It would be interesting if it was life from Earth prior to the formation of the moon! Who knows, can't wait to hear from the experts...

Anyone who thinks that life on this rock earth is the only life in the visible universe should return back behind the skirting boards...

Oliver Pontificated:

More importantly, are you aware of errors in Dr. Richard Hoover's experimental observations?

Yes. And you have yet to reply to my multiple post answer on the other thread.

So here is a link to the thread.

ttp://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-scientists-skeptical-meteorite-alien-life.html

And some highlights. Copy the whole thing if Oliver ignores this. Not going to let his crap go.

A. What, when, and where is the message you received from Dr. Peter Toth

Where is the message from him SUPPORTING you? You have ONE LETTER in Nature that was never backed up by ANYONE to support this idea. Toth has written nothing else to support it. Clearly he gave it up for a bad idea.

There is no DR. Richard Hoover. Perhaps you meant MR. Richard Hoover. Apparently he was not responsible for the screw up but that means the journal is not exactly competent.

More

First mistake. Using a meteorite that has been thoroughly contaminated for 146 years and another that has been around for 72 years.

Second mistake. He assumes terrestrial biomarkers are biomarkers for meteorites which is assuming his conclusion there was non-terrestrial life involved in the meteorite. Not a good thing.

minerals of Orgueil include: 6.7% Epsomite (MgSO4.7H2O)

A mineral that likes to form filaments. Not a good thing if you are claiming filaments in the meteorite are bacteria.

Why? He has MgSo4 and C and nothing else. A mineral filament coated with Carbon and Carbon ONLY? How the hell does that even remotely a prokaryote? MAGIC.

Or is just a vacuum deposited coating on a mineral. Which fits the evidence exactly.

True. It has absolutely no signs of biology of any kind at all.

More

The total lack of nitrogen makes that clear as nitrogen is involved in ALL life on Earth. Also phosphorus which also isn't there and that doesn't become a gas so can't be handwaved off the meteorite like nitrogen would be if he understood it should be there.

Also with a mineral filament and a carbon coating. Where the hell is the phosphorus? He isn't even cognizant that it should be there if it is a life form.

OK that is Full Handwave Orbit. He has NO evidence of that those were anything more than a MgSO4 filament with a carbon coating. NOTHING.

Its not even crap. Crap has phosphorus.

There is more on the other thread. Nine posts. More of the Hoover's article and more details in my remarks. It is a really crappy paper with LOTS of handwaving, wishfull thinking and carefully ignoring the total lack of any evidence of biological chemistry. Indeed much of the paper is an effort to show there is NO biological chemistry in a misguided effort to show there is no contamination.

Ethelred