FLASH: New Scientific Paper on POSSIBLE Fossils in Martian Meteorite

This paper has just been cleared for publication, and an old, old friend of mine is one of the authors. The conclusion is as follows:

5. Summary and Conclusions
The martian meteorite Y000593 contains two distinctive
sets of features associated with the martian-derived iddingsite.
The tunnel and microtunnel structures are typically
found in olivine along the margins of mineralogically complex
iddingsite veins. These microtunnels contain areas of
enhanced carbon abundance that, in some cases, are not associated
with common carbonate cations and therefore are
interpreted as carbonaceous material, perhaps similar to
kerogen. The second set of features consists of nanometer- to
micrometer-sized spherules sandwiched between layers of
indigenous iddingsite and distinct from carbonate and the
underlying silicate layer. Similar spherules have also been
described in Nakhla (Gibson et al., 2001). EDS spectra of the
Y000593 spherules show that they are significantly enriched
in carbon compared to the nearby surrounding iddingsite
layers. A striking observation is that these two sets of features
in Y000593, recovered from Antarctica after about
*50-thousand-year residence time, are similar to features
found in Nakhla, an observed fall collected shortly after
landing. We cannot exclude the possibility that the carbonrich
regions in both sets of features may be the product of
abiotic mechanisms; however, textural and compositional
similarities to features in terrestrial samples, which have
been interpreted as biogenic, imply the intriguing possibility
that the martian features were formed by biotic activity.

Putative Indigenous Carbon-Bearing Alteration Features
in Martian Meteorite Yamato 000593

Published in ASTROBIOLOGY
Volume 14, Number 2, 2014
ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/ast.2011.0733

From that snippet you posted, it is possible evidence of some sort of carbon lifeform 50k years ago found on earth by a supposed martian rock...now, why couldn't that have been done on earth?

And don't we currently have rovers and such on mars now trying to find such stuff with no success at the moment?

reply to post by JimOberg


any pictures of this asserted martian meteorite?

I may be able to do a blow up

funBox

reply to post by funbox


Lol...pics or it didn't happen.

OP the reason there's not much happening in this thread, is everybody and his dog expected it years ago.

It's actually somewhat annoying to those of us who already knew years ago, back in the 90s.

Nothing at all to do with lack of channelling btw, more to do with taking almost 20 years to back up what was being claimed about the meteorite alllllll the way back when.

I know progress is Slllooooow in the space sciences, but a teeny-tiny carrot after almost two decades...that's absolutely bloody ridiculous.

MysterX
It's actually somewhat annoying to those of us who already knew years ago, back in the 90s.

Well, to be fair, nobody -knew- years back
There was mounting evidence, and educated guesses. but knowing...unless you personally had the rock to examine, the educational background to know what your looking at, and the proper tools, not to mention a whole host of considerations (such as the imprints possibly being of earths origins), then yeah, it was just a guess.
What does it mean though if it is indeed found out to be evidence of martian microbial life?

Well, the realistic implications day to day mean nothing, but the grand scheme of things, considerable. It could suggest that wherever life can exist, will exist in the universe. This would mean the universe is a very lively place and we are not very special (not that we aren't valueable...a diamond is still a diamond even if there are millions of others). That is a big deal though and the person claiming this better know what he is claiming, as it completely and permanently shifts the paradigm view of our species in this universe...no guessing, no maybe's. I think if it is even remotely possible that this claim is not correct, then you simply don't claim it considering what a huge impact it is.

It would be similar to walking down the street and finding a feather, do you consider its origins, or do you immediately call the worlds press to report on the absolute fact of old testament Angels wandering around? Some people may "know" its angels, whereas plenty of others may simply want an accurate investigation and consideration of birds before such claims.

reply to post by SaturnFX


We all 'know' things don't we.

Many of us that come to this site could be accurately called 'long in the tooth'...we've been around the block, and know there is very little 'hard irrefutable proof' of virtually anything, even life itself is now seriously being theorised as a projection or hologram of some kind in some serious scientific quarters...so what's absolute proof?

You know what i mean by 'we knew' don't you?

As it turns out, it looks like we were correct too...so it's not a case of belief in 'airy-fairy angels' and never was like that, it was hard, solid, tangible evidence right there, being examined by trained scientists who were seeing these structures and reporting them wayyy back then.

Don't you find it at least a little curious it has taken as long as it has to draw the same tentative conclusions as were being drawn back then?

I take your point though SaturnFX, but i hope you see mine too...absolute proof is an elusive commodity, and 'knowing' is often all we have.

Regardless of most of us having expected/known this for decades, it is still a big step to go from theoretical to concrete. It's the difference between "we think" and "we know". Further, to actually observe martian life, even incredibly simple martian life, is a huge step because of the questions it may answer. Unfortunately, the whole topic of life on mars has become so diluted. People have forgotten about the really simple important questions.

I think that the important question is, are there significant similarities between martian life and earth life. If so, do they hint at a possible common planetary origin of life. Did life from mars seed earth, or did earth and mars both received the same seed? I think that will be one of the biggest answers to come out of this whole ordeal. If there is/was life on mars, do we share a common ancestor... or did that life come into being completely independent of life on earth? That's a huge question, with huge ramifications. If life developed on mars and earth independently, then we can assume that life is EXTREMELY common. To have two independent "cradles" of life in the same solar system, even if the life formed billions of years apart, would greatly alter our view of the universe. Alternatively, if life on earth came from mars on a space rock then we can start looking for the origins of life on mars. Or, if earth life and martian life share an ancestor, we can start looking for an earlier, likely more distant, cradle of life.

The question of whether or not there is life on mars isn't the important question. The answer itself isn't *that* significant. It's more that the answer will finally enable to ask the really important questions.

reply to post by JimOberg


Nice. So the conclusion is "maybe life, maybe other processes", which is a very good indicator of possible past life on Mars (at least as percentage points go).

Maybe you can do a more detailed analysis of what this means, as well as give your friend a call and get some quotes for us. Thanks for posting this, funbox alerted some of us to the thread on the Mars anomalies thread.

Edit: to some posters who think this is an announcement of past life on Mars, it is only a possible. The key conclusion:

We cannot exclude the possibility that the carbonrich
regions in both sets of features may be the product of
abiotic mechanisms; however, textural and compositional
similarities to features in terrestrial samples, which have
been interpreted as biogenic, imply the intriguing possibility
that the martian features were formed by biotic activity.

JimOberg
This paper has just been cleared for publication, and an old, old friend of mine is one of the authors.

The papers disputing this should be interesting to read.

Aleister
Nice. So the conclusion is "maybe life, maybe other processes", which is a very good indicator of possible past life on Mars (at least as percentage points go).

Or not! I'm glad the paper finally settled all the debate!

reply to post by LeviWardrobe


it could hint at a common or shared origin, or it could also mean that life of a very similar structure is pretty much everywhere where the conditions are similar...which has very exciting possibilities for a Europa mission.

reply to post by JimOberg


You realize at the end they contradict themselves. They say that it may be abiotic as well. so there saying looks like itcould be an organism however it may not be. Gotta love science They probably added that after other researchers found it to be volcanic.

reply to post by dragonridr


I think that's more to do with serious arse covering myself.

reply to post by Blue Shift

Thanks for sharing Mr. Oberg.

Could you tell us what the next step is related to this research?

gortex
Doesn't sound unequivocal to me .

Where's that darned sarcasm smiley?

reply to post by gortex


I think Blue Shift was being sarcastic there. When it comes to Mars finds, and possible life, sarcasm is in the toolbox.