NASA disavows its scientist's claim of alien life (Update 3)

Mar 07, 2011 By SETH BORENSTEIN , AP Science Writer
A meteor streaks across the sky against a field of stars during a meteorite shower in 2010. Top NASA scientists said there was no scientific evidence to support a colleague's claim that fossils of alien microbes born in outer space had been found in meteorites on Earth.

The gaps and stringy fibers in these space rocks sure look like bacteria, and a NASA researcher has caused a stir with claims that they're fossils of alien life. But as NASA found 15 years ago, looks can be deceiving.

Top scientists in different disciplines immediately found pitfalls in a newly published examination of three meteorites that went viral on the Internet over the weekend. NASA and its top scientists disavowed the work by noon Monday.

Biologists said just because it looks as though the holes were made by bacteria doesn't make them fossils of extraterrestrial microbes. The meteorites could be riddled with Earthly contamination. And both astronomers and biologists complained that the study was not truly reviewed by peers.

There are questions about the credentials of the study's author, Richard Hoover. And the work appeared in an online journal that raises eyebrows because even its editor acknowledges it may have to shut down in June and that one reason for publishing the controversial claim was to help find a buyer.

"There's a lot of stuff there, but not a lot of science," said Rosie Redfield, a microbiologist at the University of British Columbia, who publicly dissected the paper over the weekend. "I looked at it and shuddered."

The Associated Press talked to a dozen scientists, and none of them agreed with the findings. There was none of the excitement that surrounded a similar claim that NASA announced with fanfare in 1996 - but was forced to back away from later - that a meteorite from Mars found in Antarctica showed evidence of alien life.

"There has been no one in the scientific community, certainly no one in the meteorite analysis community, that has supported these conclusions," NASA Astrobiology Institute Director Carl Pilcher said Monday of the latest work.

Hoover, of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., claims he found fossils that look like remnants of bacteria in a handful of meteorites. His research, published online Friday in the Journal of Cosmology, concludes these must have come from outer space. It is based on three specimens of a rare type of meteorite - thought to come from comets - found in France in 1806 and 1864 and Tanzania in 1938.

Hoover's pictures look like microscopic versions of flattened tubes and tangled strings.

Hoover didn't return phone calls or e-mails from the AP.

Rudy Schild, a Harvard astronomer and editor-in-chief of the journal, said the study was reviewed by scientists, but he wouldn't identify them. Schild said the idea was to garner attention and generate debate, which happened after it was first reported over the weekend by FoxNews.com.

"We thought the purpose of the exercise here is having it released and having it discussed," Schild told the AP. He acknowledged the journal's imminent demise was "a factor in play, but there are other factors as well" in the decision to publish Hoover's research.

The year-and-a-half-old journal champions a disputed theory that life started elsewhere in the universe and was seeded on Earth by asteroids and comets.

Schild said criticisms of Hoover's paper "are legitimate" but that he agrees with Hoover's conclusion.

Other scientists say Hoover, who has worked for NASA in solar physics but now bills himself as an astrobiologist, doesn't have the proper expertise. "Anyone can call himself an astrobiologist. That doesn't make it so," said Pilcher, the astrobiology institute director.

And while Hoover's paper in the journal lists him as a "Ph.D.," NASA's solar physics website does not mention a doctorate. A colleague of Hoover's said he acknowledges that he doesn't have the advanced degree. Schild said someone at the journal - he doesn't know who - may have inadvertently listed Hoover with the doctorate title.

Top planetary scientists, including those who study meteorites, are at a conference in Houston this week and this was the talk - albeit mostly in a can-you-believe-this-stuff way, said Harry "Hap" McSween, one of world's foremost experts in meteorites.

"I don't think anybody accepts this idea," McSween said. "Nobody thinks they are extraterrestrial."

McSween has studied one of the meteorites cited - the one that fell to France in 1864. He said it was in "atrocious" condition at a Paris Museum with noticeable contamination. There was a vein in the rock that hadn't been there in old photographs, a sign of creeping moisture. That makes sense because even NASA moon rocks, hermitically stored, have been contaminated with Earthly microbes, he said.

McSween and other scientists said they had hoped the public would ignore reports about the study, but they didn't. It was on the top of Yahoo News much of Monday.

"It looks like it's kind of viral," McSween said. "It's extraterrestrial life, that's why."

For biologist Redfield, it was just another case of a scientist who's not a biologist tinkering in a field he doesn't know.

One of the first rules for biologists is just because one thing looks like another doesn't mean the two things are the same, she said.

"These guys make some stupid announcement completely ignoring all the rules of biology and then get all the publicity," Redfield said.

For McSween and Redfield it's deja vu. McSween criticized the 1996 discovery, which had been announced by then-President Bill Clinton on the White House south lawn. Over the years, scientist after scientist chipped away at the basis of that Mars meteorite finding and now it's not generally accepted as proof of alien life.

And that study had stronger peer review and more supporting lines of evidence, Redfield and McSween said.

Seth Shostak, an astronomer who searches for intelligent alien life, desperately wanted to believe the reports. But when he read the Hoover study, he ended up disappointed.

"It looks very, very doubtful, which is a shame from several points of view," said Shostak, a senior scientist at the SETI Institute in California. "But that's the way science is. People make claims that often don't hold up. That's the nature of science."

Explore further: DNA survives critical entry into Earth's atmosphere

More information:
The Journal of Cosmology paper: http://bit.ly/eFOppL

NASA's Astrobiology Institute: http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/

3.3 /5 (12 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

NASA scientist finds 'alien life' fossils

Mar 06, 2011

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.

NASA Astrobiologist Identifies New 'Extreme' Life Form

Feb 24, 2005

The end of a scientific journey -- started five years ago in a frozen tunnel deep below the Alaska tundra -- came in January for NASA astrobiologist Dr. Richard Hoover. It proved a long, arduous journey for Hoover and his ...

Large Meteor Tracked over Northeast Alabama

Jun 03, 2010

On the evening of May 18, NASA all-sky meteor cameras located at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and at the Walker County Science Center near Chickamauga, Ga. tracked the entry of a large meteor estimated ...

NASA extends science contract

Mar 19, 2007

NASA officials have approved a contract extension option with Teledyne Brown Engineering Inc. of Huntsville, Ala., for science systems development.

Recommended for you

DNA survives critical entry into Earth's atmosphere

4 hours ago

The genetic material DNA can survive a flight through space and re-entry into the earth's atmosphere—and still pass on genetic information. A team of scientists from UZH obtained these astonishing results ...

Team develops cognitive test battery for spaceflight

4 hours ago

Space is one of the most demanding and unforgiving environments. Human exploration of space requires astronauts to maintain consistently high levels of cognitive performance to ensure mission safety and success, and prevent ...

User comments : 35

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Parsec
5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2011
Truth does not depend on the verification of experts. However, it is much much more likely to be really bad science if it was not. Even peer-reviewed journals get it wrong a lot. I would not hold a drop of expectation that this was real until more people investigated and found it so.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (20) Mar 07, 2011
On the other hand, NASA is the agency that promoted unscientific AGW claims.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Sleepy
4.6 / 5 (22) Mar 08, 2011
On the other hand, NASA is the agency that promoted unscientific AGW claims.

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


So you think NASA is unscientific because they support global warming, but you use your experience with them to validate your own expertise.

And, as usual, this article has nothing to do with global warming, stop trolling.
omatumr
1.1 / 5 (15) Mar 08, 2011
Actions by NASA, Al Gore and the UN's IPCC in promoting AGW (anthropologic global warming) destroyed the credibility of all three.

Lost credibility will not be restored by Dr. Carl Pilcher's statement:

"The simplest explanation for Mr. Hoover's measurements is that he's measuring microbes from Earth. They're contamination."

If he doubts Dr. Hoover's conclusions, he should first go into the laboratory and confirm or discredit Dr. Hoover's work there, before making prejudiced statements to reporters.

Dr. Carl Pilcher is acting like a member of the "scientific-technological elite" that former President Eisenhower warned about in 1961:

youtube.com/watch?v=GOLld5PR4ts

yyz
5 / 5 (13) Mar 08, 2011
The peer review status of the paper submitted to the IJoA has been updated accordingly:

""The statement "This paper was submitted in 2007 to the International Journal of Astrobiology. However, the peer review process was not completed for that submission."Is not true, The paper was rejected, after peer review. Rocco Mancinelli, Ph.D., Editor, International Journal of Astrobiology."

http://www.spacer...id=32928

Sleepy
4.6 / 5 (12) Mar 08, 2011
Thank you for getting back on topic, Mr. Manuel. If you feel that NASA's credibility is destroyed, then you should stop using the agency in your signature.

If Hoover is right, he has proof of extra-terrestrial life. I imagine a lot of scientists would be very interested in his research, as it would be literally world-changing. To blame its repression on a vast anti-science conspiracy seems unlikely. Every biologist in the world would drop what they're doing to follow his lead, if it were valid.
Beard
2.3 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2011
They keep saying "durrrr just kuz it looks like one dun't mean it iz! lololololol".

Refute his data goddamn, I want to hear why his data is incorrect.
omatumr
1 / 5 (16) Mar 08, 2011
NASA officials are acting just like former President Eisenhower warned a government "scientific-technological elite" might one day behave:

youtube.com/watch?v=GOLld5PR4ts
omatumr
1 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2011
NASA officials are acting just like former President Eisenhower warned a government "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
Ethelred
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2011
Dr. Carl Pilcher is acting like a member of the "scientific-technological elite" that former President Eisenhower warned about in 1961:
Oliver is acting like he too is above questioning.

Why doesn't doesn't Dr. Peter Toth support you? You constantly spam site after site with a mention of his more than 30 year old supposition that the Sun might be a pulsar but oddly enough HE doesn't seem to agree with you.

Truthing requires dealing with questions with something besides philosophical pablum.

Ethelred
rynox
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2011
I mean did you see the website it was published on? It looked like my 5-year old designed it. Whatev'
omatumr
1 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2011
Can we focus on the experimental data?

NASA has avoided data 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
Ethelred
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2011
Can we focus on the experimental data?
Sure. Do you have anything we haven't already seen and when we asked you questions for clarification that have you refused to answer?

Oliver is acting like he too is above questioning.

Why doesn't doesn't Dr. Peter Toth support you? You constantly spam site after site with a mention of his more than 30 year old supposition that the Sun might be a pulsar but oddly enough HE doesn't seem to agree with you.

Truthing requires dealing with questions with something besides philosophical pablum.


You have been spamming this site worse than Quality is my dignity. Apparently Quantity of repetition is your lack of dignity.

Stonewalling is what you are accusing others off. Stop the hypocrisy and answer the bloody questions. Heck I gave a new one and you don't like it either. So answer the old ones.

Where is evidence for bound neutron decay? Without that you have noting but nonsense.

Ethelred
Kio
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 08, 2011
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
Kio
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 08, 2011
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
omatumr
1.1 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2011
A. Why doesn't doesn't Dr. Peter Toth support you? Ethelred


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

B. Where is evidence for bound neutron decay? Without that you have noting but nonsense. Ethelred


B. Solar energy is not generated by "bound neutron decay."

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 and 100% of the solar electron electron neutrinos from H-fusion are explained without resorting to magic neutrino oscillations.

Are you aware of errors in Dr. Richard Hoover's experimental observations?
omatumr
1 / 5 (16) Mar 08, 2011
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
Sleepy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2011
Well, this has definitely become an interesting comment thread. Hilarity has ensued, keep up the good work, gents!
omatumr
1 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2011
Two Questions for NASA Astrobiology Director Carl Pilcher


1. Did this 7 Mar 2011 report quote you correctly saying,

"There has been no one in the scientific community, certainly no one in the meteorite analysis community, that has supported these conclusions" ?

[A member of the meteorite analysis community** posted

"Congratulations for this is an important finding!"

earlier on the 6 Mar 2011 news report and identified himself as

"Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo."

**"Xenon in carbonaceous chondrites", Nature 240, 99-101 (1972); "Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis", Nature 277, 615-620 (1979); etc.]

2. Have other NASA employees received government pay while posting comments (openly or anonymously) on PhysOrg that were critical of Dr. Hoover's work?

Thank you for taking the time to reply to questions about NASA's attitude toward an important finding.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 09, 2011
Did NASA Astrobiology Institute Director make prejudicial comments?


Basically, the question is just this:

Did comments of the Director of NASA Astrobiology Institute encourage a fair and unbiased review of Dr. Hoover's findings? Or, . . .

Did comments from the Director of NASA Astrobiology Institute destroy any chance for a fair and unbiased review of Dr. Hoover's findings by any scientist that now receives or might in the future seek research funding from the NASA Astrobiology Institute?

See: astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/funding/

That is the question.
yyz
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2011
"The year-and-a-half-old journal champions a disputed theory that life started elsewhere in the universe and was seeded on Earth by asteroids and comets"

In case anyone was curious about "Hydro-gravitational-Dynamics" cosmology here's a link to a 2010 paper by Schild, Gibson and Wickramasinge: http://arxiv.org/...0504.pdf

Included are images of "biological dust,eg. PAHs, diatoms, spores of archaia and other nanobacteria" in the Helix Nebula (Fig 2), "PAH dust, possibly biological" in the Small Magellanic Cloud(Fig 4) and "possibly biologically active PGC" in the Coal Sack(Fig 11).

Just a glance at the paper should tell you why there is so much resistance to this "theory". Of course it's certainly helpful the three authors are on the editorial staff of the JoC (and can peer review papers, as noted).

Googling papers reveals a style similar to OKMs work: Same illustrations and arguments in many self-referential submissions.

Biology is only one prob. here

yyz
5 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2011
One bio on Richard Hoover mentions that he has worked in the past with Fred Hoyle. The same Fred Hoyle who, as Oliver has noted elsewhere, collaborated with Wickramasinghe on their version of Panspermia.

I think it likely Wick & Hoover (& Schild & Gibson) knew each other well before this paper was published, from Hoover's earlier claims.

And what's up with Hoover's credentials?

soulman
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2011
And what's up with Hoover's credentials?

What credentials? You mean whether he's really a Dr. or just a Mr.?
trekgeek1
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2011
This is heartbreaking, but I'm also happy. I'm happy because it shows the science community as the honest people most of them are. Well established scientists looked at the data and said it was incorrect. This is contrary to the conspiracy theory of scientists hiding the truth from people. Nobody tried to make excuses to validate their personal hopes, it was just the facts.
Calenur
5 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2011

Basically, the question is just this:

Did comments of the Director of NASA Astrobiology Institute encourage a fair and unbiased review of Dr. Hoover's findings? Or, . . .

Did comments from the Director of NASA Astrobiology Institute destroy any chance for a fair and unbiased review of Dr. Hoover's findings by any scientist that now receives or might in the future seek research funding from the NASA Astrobiology Institute?

That is the question.


Here's your answer. With our currently political climate, and the annoyance of over-hyped 24 hour news, scientists are forced to overreact in order to distance themselves from scandal. It seems there is no longer room for rational debate in our society, and those who get caught making a mistake are punished by having their funding removed and their name tarnished. You keep warning about the 'scientific-technological elite', but we are nowhere near that reality; Scientists are hunted.
Jaydawg
5 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2011
Can we believe the conclusions of this paper if the same results were given had we landed a sophisticated probe on an asteroid and found similar results?

It seems like any contact space debris has with something that originated from earth leaves a trace of our earthly presence that contaminates these specimens.

Sounds like more than ever we should be funding international space agencies to examine these kinds of asteroids IN SPACE.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2011
Sorry this is so long but there is a lot of nonsense to deal with.

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. Without corroborating evidence any rational person gives up a bad idea. Which of course leave us with you and your bad ideas that you refuse to give up despite the exceeding weak, uncorroborated evidence that actually points to a different star going bang.

B. Solar energy is not generated by "bound neutron decay."
Damn straight. Nor by fission. Looking at the earlier papers I see why I thought you had it differently. You were engaged in such incredibly vague handwaving I must have tried to make sense out of it where there was no sense.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2011
Spontaneous neutron-emission from a central neutron star sustains luminosity
At no time do you actually say where the neutron-emissions come from except for a claim of vague high nucleon atoms. Which are at low levels in the Sun.

Handwaving is not science but you must have worn out your arms doing so much of it.

explained without resorting to magic neutrino oscillations
Which does not require magic unlike an iron and neutronium Sun with a rigid surface thus requiring a far higher density than the Sun has. There is ample evidence that neutrinos oscillate. More coming with new experiments. When they confirm the already strong evidence of oscillation will you give this up or just pretend it never happened as you doing with the present evidence?

Dr. Richard Hoover
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
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2011
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. Usually this is called circular reasoning. On Earth such material gets EATEN so it is reasonable to assume life is involved with it. Life is NOT needed to produce it so the assumption was indeed circular.

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.

was confined to investigations of uncoated, freshly fractured, interior surfaces of the meteorites.
Unfortunately this is NOT a solid rock. It does NOT fracture as if it was a crystalline rock. Its a clay like rock and a porous conglomeration of dust, even discounting cracks.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2011
Energy dispersive x-ray analysis of these structures reveals that these filaments are permineralized with minerals rich in magnesium and sulfur.
As I expected when I wrote the paragraphs above.

Most of the filaments are encases within a carbon-rich external envelope
Which would not be from life if it pasted over a non-organic filament.

3.1.1. Interpretation of Images and EDS Data of Ivuna Filaments. The flattened embedded filament shown in Fig. 1.a is interpreted as the permineralized remains of a partially uniseriate, undulatory, ensheathed trichomic prokaryote.
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. Perhaps Oliver is impressed by arm waving considering the Olympic efforts he produced in his papers. I am NOT impressed by arm waving.

Wait Theres More. He waves so fast he takes off into FantasyLand.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2011
The dark lines C near the terminus of the sheath are consistent with cross-wall constrictions that are often seen as faint transverse lines in FESEM images obtained with living cyanobacteria.
Or with carbon deposited on a mineral in a vacuum.

In this image it is possible to see an extremely thin sheath S that is broken and covers only the upper portion of the trichome, which appears to have been completely replaced by infilling minerals.
Or is just a vacuum deposited coating on a mineral. Which fits the evidence exactly.

Not Yet There is MORE.

A lot of handwaving about various bacteria he can pretend might somehow magically fit the image of a filament with a C coating. Handwave Orbit is approaching.

The absence of detectable nitrogen content the Ivuna filaments provides evidence that these embedded filaments are indigenous and cannot be dismissed as a modern biological contaminant.
True. It has absolutely no signs of biology of any kind at all.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2011
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.

interpretation is consistent with morphotypes of undifferentiated filamentous cyanobacteria of the Order Oscilliatoriacea
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.

level of Nitrogen (0.7%) and Phosphorus (0.3%) and higher levels of Iron (19%) and Silicon (14%), which are probably from the meteorite matrix beneath the this, electron transparent carbon-rich sheath
Which is weird to claim since without nitrogen or at least phosphorus he has only evidence of a with a carbon coating. He doesn't seem to have a clue of the chemicals involved in basic biochemistry. If he does he sure is avoiding showing it.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2011
I think Handwave Orbit is nearly achieved.

Nitrogen fixation is an unambiguously biological process that is absolutely crucial to all life on Earth.
Yes and how is that relevant to something without nitrogen? More handwaving about bacterial shapes is where is going with that. Weird that.

I think that qualifies as Handwave Orbit Injection.

Therefore, it is suggested that none of the Orgueil samples could have ever been submerged in pools of liquid water needed to sustain the growth of large photoautotrophic cyanobacteria and required for the formation of benthic cyanobacterial mats since the meteorite arrived on Earth.
Which would severely contaminate an water soluble meteor and he made it clear the object would dissolve in water. That magnesium sulfate is water soluble seems to his notice at this point. Of course there is no evidence at all that it was ever in water so why did he go off this way?

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2011
Consequently, it is concluded that the Orgueil filaments cannot logically be interpreted as representing filamentous cyanobacteria that invaded the meteorite after its arrival.
Or as being from cyanobacteria at any time since they have PHOSPHORUS. And rather a lot of chemicals besides C, Mg, S and O. In fact they DON'T need Mg. He is totally oblivious on this.

They are therefore interpreted as the indigenous remains of microfossils that were present in the meteorite rock matrix when the meteorite entered the Earths atmosphere.
By the Magic in his Hands. I wonder if he chanted in Latin while waving.

These results provide definitive evidence that the filaments encountered in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites are indigenous to the stones and are not the result of microbiota that invaded the stones
It even better fits a mineral with a carbon coating. By far. BLIND he is.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2011
He goes on and on trying to show there is evidence of incursion by bacteria but since he doesn't have any evidence of chemicals needed by bacteria he need not bother. There is no life there nor was there ever any without phosphorus.

and the presence of microfossils of filamentous cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes in the CI1
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.

It is concluded that the complex filaments found embedded in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites represent the remains of indigenous microfossils of cyanobacteria and other prokaryotes associated with modern and fossil prokaryotic mats.
Despite the total lack of evidence that is anything but a Carbon coating on a MgSO4 filament.

Its not even crap. Crap has phosphorus.

Did you even read this rubbish Oliver? Are you that thrilled to see someone else wave his hands in magical passes over nothing?

Ethelred

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.