By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - NASA scientist finds evidence of alien life

Scoobes on 07 March 2011
highwaystar101 said:

Ok, just been reading through the journal article (only briefly), and I realised I came across the journal of cosmology once before, only to find that it's a poor quality journal.

I think I'm satisfied that what has been found isn't contamination, but I'm still not convinced that what has been found is alien life. I'm not entirely sure that I understood much of what I read and I think I'm going to either wait to see what comes of this (what the astrobiologists say), then maybe that'll help me understand a little better.

And just to let you guys know, the long bacteria in the op is not a photo of the bacteria Dr Hoover has claimed to have found, that photo was just used as an example of bacterial life on Earth. The bacteria that he has claimed to have found is this...

-edit-

I've also just found out that whilst Dr Hoover works for NASA, this article was written entirely with no actual link to NASA, he wrote it independently. NASA have also said that there is no scientific evidence to support his claim and that he's made this claim for many years, in fact a quick Google just showed me that he's actually published similar claims before.

Pretty much what I thought too. It doesn't appear to be contamination (assuming integrity in the methods) but it doesn't offer proof of life either. The chemical analyses are thorough and interesting but don't make the claim concrete by any stretch. Not having NASA support makes the claims all the less likely too. 

As for the Journal, I thought the website looked a bit cheap. I've just been reading up and it's not the most reputable of Journals, lol.




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
Scoobes on 07 March 2011

Hmmm...

http://news.discovery.com/space/nasa-refutes-alien-discovery-claim-110307.html

On Saturday, aliens invaded.

On Monday, NASA denied their existence.

This might sound like the perfect X-Files storyline for conspiracy theorists to chew over (and they probably will, for months), but as you may have already guessed, something wasn't quite "right" about Richard Hoover's announcement of an extraterrestrial discovery inside samples of meteorites.

Here's NASA's take on said piece of research, via SpaceRef.com:

"NASA is a scientific and technical agency committed to a culture of openness with the media and public. While we value the free exchange of ideas, data, and information as part of scientific and technical inquiry, NASA cannot stand behind or support a scientific claim unless it has been peer-reviewed or thoroughly examined by other qualified experts. This paper was submitted in 2007 to the International Journal of Astrobiology. However, the peer review process was not completed for that submission. NASA also was unaware of the recent submission of the paper to the Journal of Cosmology or of the paper's subsequent publication. Additional questions should be directed to the author of the paper." - Dr. Paul Hertz, chief scientist of NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington
DNEWS VIDEO: ALIEN SPECULATION

SLIDE SHOW: Top 10 Places to Find Alien Life

So what can we learn from this statement? Well, it looks as if Hoover's paper didn't make it through the peer-review process when it was first submitted to a reputable science journal in 2007.

Peer review basically means that other experts in the astrobiology field needed to review Hoover's analysis and agree that he had followed the correct scientific procedures and reached conclusions fitting with the results he gathered from his analysis of meteorite samples. Only then can the paper be published. Somewhere along the line, Hoover's paper failed this procedure.

Phil Plait has put together a very nice post mortem of reactions from scientists pertaining to Hoover's claims, definitely worth a read if you want to see how knee-jerk announcements of aliens inside meteorites buckle under scientific scrutiny.

The Journal of Cosmology is known to have less than stringent submission guidelines (even though the website claims that articles are peer reviewed by "at least two recognized experts").

Unfortunately, we are no closer to finding evidence for alien life inside meteorites today as we were on Friday.

Special thanks to Keith Cowing for pointing me in the direction of today's NASA statement.




Get your Portable ID!

Chevinator123 on 07 March 2011

i swear i seen this mounths ago on youtube...



Kasz216 on 07 March 2011
highwaystar101 said:

Ok, just been reading through the journal article (only briefly), and I realised I came across the journal of cosmology once before, only to find that it's a poor quality journal.

I think I'm satisfied that what has been found isn't contamination, but I'm still not convinced that what has been found is alien life. I'm not entirely sure that I understood much of what I read and I think I'm going to either wait to see what comes of this (what the astrobiologists say), then maybe that'll help me understand a little better.

And just to let you guys know, the long bacteria in the op is not a photo of the bacteria Dr Hoover has claimed to have found, that photo was just used as an example of bacterial life on Earth. The bacteria that he has claimed to have found is this...

-edit-

I've also just found out that whilst Dr Hoover works for NASA, this article was written entirely with no actual link to NASA, he wrote it independently. NASA have also said that there is no scientific evidence to support his claim and that he's made this claim for many years, in fact a quick Google just showed me that he's actually published similar claims before.

Yeah, that's what my research showed.  I think that's mentioned in the Times article I posted.

That's the annoying part about scientific research... you need to research the research and the publication it's published in before you believe anything.



Rath on 07 March 2011
bannedagain said:
Rath said:

The Drake equation is complete rubbish. Every single part of it is an assumption.



Yes it is but if you use it in a pessimisistic way you still come with lots of intelligent life. The point is that there should be life out there no matter how low the the numbers are in the equation. 

It's a guess.

I wish people would look a religion the same way they judge science.  Oh yea, there would be none left to talk about.

Unless you pick one of the variables as zero, in which case you end up with zero.

I totally agree that because of the vast size of the universe life probably exists elsewhere. It's just that the Drake equation itself is complete rubbish. It's trying to make something that isn't scientific look scientific, which annoys me.



Around the Network
bannedagain on 07 March 2011
Rath said:
bannedagain said:
Rath said:

The Drake equation is complete rubbish. Every single part of it is an assumption.



Yes it is but if you use it in a pessimisistic way you still come with lots of intelligent life. The point is that there should be life out there no matter how low the the numbers are in the equation. 

It's a guess.

I wish people would look a religion the same way they judge science.  Oh yea, there would be none left to talk about.

Unless you pick one of the variables as zero, in which case you end up with zero.

I totally agree that because of the vast size of the universe life probably exists elsewhere. It's just that the Drake equation itself is complete rubbish. It's trying to make something that isn't scientific look scientific, which annoys me.


agreed. I think it's not taken to heart. It's just a way to explain it a little or when we have a better number on everything it can be used.



highwaystar101 on 08 March 2011
Rath said:
bannedagain said:
Rath said:

The Drake equation is complete rubbish. Every single part of it is an assumption.



Yes it is but if you use it in a pessimisistic way you still come with lots of intelligent life. The point is that there should be life out there no matter how low the the numbers are in the equation. 

It's a guess.

I wish people would look a religion the same way they judge science.  Oh yea, there would be none left to talk about.

Unless you pick one of the variables as zero, in which case you end up with zero.

I totally agree that because of the vast size of the universe life probably exists elsewhere. It's just that the Drake equation itself is complete rubbish. It's trying to make something that isn't scientific look scientific, which annoys me.

I think the Drake equation itself isn't rubbish, but the estimations people make by using it are.

I don't think the Drake equation should be thought of as trying to answer something yet, and any estimation should be disregarded because it is too premature.

I do however think that the Drake equation is a useful tool that has allowed us to develop a series of questions concerning the requirements for intelligent life, and to be honest that is what it was meant to be. Each variable in the Drake equation has spawned dozens of questions about what factors are at play when considering that variable. It is a useful tool that supports enquiry about life beyond our planet.



bannedagain on 08 March 2011
highwaystar101 said:
Rath said:
bannedagain said:
Rath said:

The Drake equation is complete rubbish. Every single part of it is an assumption.



Yes it is but if you use it in a pessimisistic way you still come with lots of intelligent life. The point is that there should be life out there no matter how low the the numbers are in the equation. 

It's a guess.

I wish people would look a religion the same way they judge science.  Oh yea, there would be none left to talk about.

Unless you pick one of the variables as zero, in which case you end up with zero.

I totally agree that because of the vast size of the universe life probably exists elsewhere. It's just that the Drake equation itself is complete rubbish. It's trying to make something that isn't scientific look scientific, which annoys me.

I think the Drake equation itself isn't rubbish, but the estimations people make by using it are.

I don't think the Drake equation should be thought of as trying to answer something yet, and any estimation should be disregarded because it is too premature.

I do however think that the Drake equation is a useful tool that has allowed us to develop a series of questions concerning the requirements for intelligent life, and to be honest that is what it was meant to be. Each variable in the Drake equation has spawned dozens of questions about what factors are at play when considering that variable. It is a useful tool that supports enquiry about life beyond our planet.


Good way to answer it.



dib8rman on 08 March 2011

Right, the big issue with the find is contamination with a head long group of microbiologists going nuts over that detail; some saying outright that it is not evidence worthy of the claim.

As is the case with all things new in science it has to be proven beyond reason of doubt that it can be a substantial leap to a sustainable theory of ET life.

I do like most scientific things but new discoveries and the peer reviewing can get down right bloody.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D