Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Kali74

NASA Astrobiologist claims non earth bacteria

98 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Dr. Richard B. Hoover cracked open a CI1 meteorite a carbonaceous chondrite which is one of only nine believed to have ever been found on earth and discovered fossils he claims are of bacteria not found on earth. His research is published in this months (March, 2011) edition of the Journal of Cosmolgy. The journal has invited 100 experts and has issued a general invitation to over 5000 in the scientific community to review the paper.

foxnews.com (I know fox news :P)

It's a really interesting article, scientists are very hesitant to get excited about it, which is understandable we've had similar things happen before only to learn we jumped the gun. Still, I can't help but think panspermia. :)

Edited by Kali74

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the start of Horror movie (Alien Bacteria causes a Zombie Outbreak) ..very cool though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Official Statement from Dr. Rudy Schild,

Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian,

Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Cosmology. Dr. 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 Dr. 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.

From journalofcosmology.com.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to this, as the meteor from Mars is still regarded as inconclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm looking forward to this, as the meteor from Mars is still regarded as inconclusive.

Me too, I'm really excited about it honestly even though I should be cautious. I didn't catch anywhere when this peer review is going to be available or when any conclusion is expected. To be honest I got lost in trying to understand all the scientific data. I'm a far cry from a scientist lol.

Edited by Kali74

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too, I'm really excited about it honestly even though I should be cautious. I didn't catch anywhere when this peer review is going to be available or when any conclusion is expected. To be honest I got lost in trying to understand all the scientific data. I'm a far cry from a scientist lol.

From context, seems to be the Journal of Cosmology as for the date:

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.

I'm looking forward to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this could be it. I'll reserve judgment until all the material is published, but this has me excited for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From context, seems to be the Journal of Cosmology as for the date:

I'm looking forward to it.

Woo-hoo, that's soon! I was expecting to have to wait like a year lol. Thanks for pointing that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woo-hoo, that's soon! I was expecting to have to wait like a year lol. Thanks for pointing that out.

No worries, I missed it the first few times I read through, there's an actuve thread on another forum I'm at about it, almost asked a really dumb question. ^^;

Hope it'll be an online release, the only place that carry these kind of mags are in the next town over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an earlier Paper by Hoover which basically states the same conclusion published in 2008 so the Scientific community has had at least two years to shoot this down which obviously hasn't happened.

Comets, Carbonaceous Meteorites, and the Origin of the Biosphere

Hoover R.B.

Thanks lost_shaman so is this the final step before something is declared proven?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks lost_shaman so is this the final step before something is declared proven?

I'm willing to bet this is a furthe3r and more in depth study than the original, and released to a more open journal than previously.

I like the Bad Astronomer's look at the article.

Edited by ShadowSot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating stuff, this could be incredible. Many thanks for all of the information Kali, lost_shaman, and ShadowSot! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm willing to bet this is a furthe3r and more in depth study than the original, and released to a more open journal than previously.

I like the Bad Astronomer's look at the article.

Hey ShadowSot,

I don't disagree with you, but I have to note that this is potentially a "game changer" and is being handled much differently than the Arsenic discovery (GFAJ-1) was handled for instance. I admit I'm not a Scientist, but I do like to read papers and from my POV Hoover has presented a compelling case. As the Bad Astronomer's article points out this is really a question of contamination. Hoover won me over when he discussed the fact that relatively 'young' (my word not Hoover's) cyanobacterial fossil's had detectable levels of N but terrestrial cyanobacterial fossil's that are very old show no traces of N just as the material in the chondrites did not and this was consistent with his conclusion that the 'microfossils' were very old. The presence of N would almost certainly confirm that these were living structures at the same time the presence of N would suggest these were 'young' structures and thus contamination, but the absence of N is consistent with 'old' cyanobacteria fossil's and ironically this absence of N which would prove these were living structures is consistent with the lack of N observed in 'old' cyanobaterial fossil's found on Earth 2+ Billion years ago.

The evidence Hoover is presenting really leaves one with only the conclusion that living biological material was present in the chondrite material that rained down upon the Earth during the Hadean bombardment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wickian just posted a thread about this in the Science and Technology forum that has a pretty good link. Wonder if this is the real deal. I don't know how many of you ever read Dan Brown, but if you read Deception Point, it's about how a meteorite containing fossils is supposedly found in the Artic. Funny how sometimes fiction can mimic fact.

This is going to be an Earth shaking discovery if it pans out to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I would love to take a look through this.

Well, the nitrogen decomposition effects are of two types, artificial and natural. Natural nitrogen decomposition is seen in Monerans who have double walled bodies capable of protecting themselves from even the most extreme conditions like thermoacidophiles and related Monerans. Unless the nature of the environment from which the above said organisms were extracted are not stated, I dont think I will be able to give a full analysis on the nitrogen part.

But, given they are extracted from the remote parts of Antartica accompanied by historical ageing, explanation wouldnt be so hard.

These Monerans use specific types of nitrogen fixing enzymes to deliver the high nitrogen content in the atmosphere in antartica, and might be drained of this, however I cannot base my claim as I donot have all the details. I will keep a close watch on this and post my conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long was that meteorite on Earth? Couldn't the bacteria have inhabited it AFTER it crashed with the planet's surface (which would mean the microorganisms aren't of alien origin)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long was that meteorite on Earth? Couldn't the bacteria have inhabited it AFTER it crashed with the planet's surface (which would mean the microorganisms aren't of alien origin)?

If they were extracted from the chondrules in the meteorites, I doubt that. But as already suggested elsewhere, there are methods to analyze this data to find if the organism is an unidentified earth species, but the full details are unavailable as of now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hav read Deception Point and its one of his most fascinating books based on most of the true points including that scientists can get carried away with this stuff and overlook the obvious....Sometimes wat appears to b out of the world may just be an undiscovered thing and there r many things yet to b unveiled!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wickian just posted a thread about this in the Science and Technology forum that has a pretty good link. Wonder if this is the real deal. I don't know how many of you ever read Dan Brown, but if you read Deception Point, it's about how a meteorite containing fossils is supposedly found in the Artic. Funny how sometimes fiction can mimic fact.

This is going to be an Earth shaking discovery if it pans out to be true.

Dan Brown was probably basing that off of the Mars meteorite that was recovered and shows the possibility of fossils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it been proved that the bacteria are of unearthly origin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it been proved that the bacteria are of unearthly origin?

Well, that is what we are trying to bring some insight into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PZ (Pharyngula) offered his usual biting commentary on it.

He makes a good point on the scale comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They claim that the laboratory tests that hav been carried out proves that the meteorite hasn't been contaminated with earth-based organisms,those organisms aren't exactly bacteria but Cyano-bacteria i-e blue green algae.

Edited by Spacelover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't the NASA scientists already discovered such things in the past,Meteorite containing some Bacteria specimen of seemingly unearthly origin...?This theory makes much more sense that the bacteria inhabited the meteorite sometime after it landed on earth but once again that depends upon how long it was before the meteorite was discovered.

I think that one could neither be proved nor disproved, not sure how that works but...lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.