Evidence of Extraterrestrial Fossils found on Meteorite. Dec 29, 2012.

Very cool find op this is not the first fossil that has been found though from space this has been archived multiple times, i'm not even sure why people think it's a logical debate that there is no other life in space.

Originally posted by snowcr4sh
Very cool find op this is not the first fossil that has been found though from space this has been archived multiple times, i'm not even sure why people think it's a logical debate that there is no other life in space.

As far as I know there have been no confirmed cases of extraterrestrial fossils contained within meteorites. The closest we've come is ALH84001, and the jury is still out on that. The difference in this case being that the findings were released by NASA/Johnson Space Center for peer review, and are still under intense scientific scrutiny... which is as it should be, as opposed to a grade school book report level paper published in a fringe science-friendly "journal" by the author, who just happens to be the editor and proponent of the panspermia theory.

Originally posted by draknoir2
..

And he's not the Chandra Observatory's namesake.

Hmm, he isn't? Who is, then?

Originally posted by ScientificUAPer

Originally posted by draknoir2
..

And he's not the Chandra Observatory's namesake.

Hmm, he isn't? Who is, then?

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.

reply to post by Brighter

And if it's not a fossilized diatom, then what do you propose it is?

I'm not an expert on crystallography or microbiology. I'm not an expert on meteorites either.
I do know that such an unequivocal claim based strictly on what something looks like is not a very scientific approach.

Hopefully the meteorite will be made available for others to examine.

Originally posted by Phage
...
I'm not an expert on crystallography or microbiology. I'm not an expert on meteorites either.
I do know that such an unequivocal claim based strictly on what something looks like is not a very scientific approach...

Let's be honest, that thing is not mineral.

So, it all hinges on the origins of the meteorite.

Originally posted by draknoir2
..

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.

Thanks!

Originally posted by ScientificUAPer

Originally posted by Phage
...
I'm not an expert on crystallography or microbiology. I'm not an expert on meteorites either.
I do know that such an unequivocal claim based strictly on what something looks like is not a very scientific approach...

Let's be honest, that thing is not mineral.

So, it all hinges on the origins of the meteorite.

So, I take it you have access to the meteorite, have done your own extensive scientific testing to determine it is not mineral? If not, than it's just your opinion, and cannot be stated as fact, let's be honest, please.

I still have not seen any independent confirmation/tests that were done by a qualified lab that is not associated with either the publication in question or the scientists in question. Until that is done, and verified, everything stated is subjective and cannot be really confirmed. That's how science, true science, is done.

Anything less is quackery, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Krakatoa

Originally posted by ScientificUAPer

Originally posted by Phage
...
I'm not an expert on crystallography or microbiology. I'm not an expert on meteorites either.
I do know that such an unequivocal claim based strictly on what something looks like is not a very scientific approach...

Let's be honest, that thing is not mineral.

So, it all hinges on the origins of the meteorite.

So, I take it you have access to the meteorite, have done your own extensive scientific testing to determine it is not mineral? If not, than it's just your opinion, and cannot be stated as fact, let's be honest, please.

I still have not seen any independent confirmation/tests that were done by a qualified lab that is not associated with either the publication in question or the scientists in question. Until that is done, and verified, everything stated is subjective and cannot be really confirmed. That's how science, true science, is done.

Anything less is quackery, in my opinion.

wank wank

If someone showed you this and explained to you it was a fossil from a layer of rock somewhere on Earth, you'd never question it. That's why I say: Let's be honest.

reply to post by ScientificUAPer

If someone showed you this and explained to you it was a fossil from a layer of rock somewhere on Earth, you'd never question it. That's why I say: Let's be honest.

I would question it....until I saw an independent verification. My reaction would be, "WOW", then I would be asking to see the test results, and who did them, and what their qualifications were, and affiliations. I would be hoping it was actual evidence, but I would not accept it at face value based upon viewing it myself or taking someone's word for it at all.

PS: There's no need for that derogatory comment either, lets keep this a civil conversation please.

Originally posted by ScientificUAPer

If someone showed you this and explained to you it was a fossil from a layer of rock somewhere on Earth, you'd never question it. That's why I say: Let's be honest.

Could that have something to do with the fact that such fossils are abundant on earth and unprecedented within meteorites?

And do you know for a fact that the "meteorite" in question is not a terrestrial rock?

Let's be honest.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ScientificUAPer

If someone showed you this and explained to you it was a fossil from a layer of rock somewhere on Earth, you'd never question it. That's why I say: Let's be honest.

Could that have something to do with the fact that such fossils are abundant on earth and unprecedented within meteorites?

And do you know for a fact that the "meteorite" in question is not a terrestrial rock?

Let's be honest.

You totally underline my point: It sure looks like a life-form. Thus the question can more or less be isolated to:

What are the origins of the meteorite?

Originally posted by ScientificUAPer

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ScientificUAPer

If someone showed you this and explained to you it was a fossil from a layer of rock somewhere on Earth, you'd never question it. That's why I say: Let's be honest.

Could that have something to do with the fact that such fossils are abundant on earth and unprecedented within meteorites?

And do you know for a fact that the "meteorite" in question is not a terrestrial rock?

Let's be honest.

You totally underline my point: It sure looks like a life-form. Thus the question can more or less be isolated to:

What are the origins of the meteorite?

And you totally missed mine.

??

I believe your point was that it is likely Earthly in origin.

I said:

Originally posted by ScientificUAPer

Let's be honest, that thing is not mineral.

So, it all hinges on the origins of the meteorite.

That was not my point.


The reason there would be no controversy if they were claiming fossils in a terrestrial rock has nothing to do with whether there were any actual fossils or what they looked like. Fossils are everywhere on earth.

But they are not claiming that, are they?


And there are quite a few steps between "some guy on the internet posted a photo that looks like a fossil" and actual proof of fossils within a genuine meteorite. The first step would be a thorough vetting of the source material, and even at this stage there are problems.

I'm sorry, your point is too convoluted for me to understand.

Originally posted by draknoir2
...
Could that have something to do with the fact that such fossils are abundant on earth and unprecedented within meteorites?
..

That's what I replied to

Edit: So now Chandra is 'some guy on the internet?' Dang. I mean, he's perhaps an excentric, and not cautious enough, but 'some guy on the internet'?

Originally posted by ScientificUAPer
I'm sorry, your point is too convoluted for me to understand.

Edit: So now Chandra is 'some guy on the internet?'

edit on 15-1-2013 by ScientificUAPer because: (no reason given)

No doubt.



And is he not?

Sorry, I expanded my post just before you replied.

Maybe you should try to explain what I missed?

Originally posted by ImpactoR
They have discovered in the past some compounds found on comets that could create life if they were in some later stage, how is this any further in being news?

There's a big difference between a lump of chemicals and a lump of chemicals that has somehow (magic?) managed to form into an structured organism that eats, poops, and reproduces.

Originally posted by draknoir2
..
And is he not?

Is he to you?

en.wikipedia.org...