NASA Scientist Claims Evidence of Alien Life on Meteorite

We are not alone in the universe -- and alien life forms may have a lot more in common with life on Earth than we had previously thought.

That's the stunning conclusion one NASA scientist has come to, releasing his groundbreaking revelations in a new study in the March edition of the Journal of Cosmology.

Dr. Richard B. Hoover, an astrobiologist with NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, has traveled to remote areas in Antarctica, Siberia, and Alaska, amongst others, for over ten years now, collecting and studying meteorites. He gave FoxNews.com early access to the out-of-this-world research, published late Friday evening in the March edition of the Journal of Cosmology. In it, Hoover describes the latest findings in his study of an extremely rare class of meteorites, called CI1 carbonaceous chondrites -- only nine such meteorites are known to exist on Earth.

Though it may be hard to swallow, Hoover is convinced that his findings reveal fossil evidence of bacterial life within such meteorites, the remains of living organisms from their parent bodies -- comets, moons and other astral bodies. By extension, the findings suggest we are not alone in the universe, he said.

“I interpret it as indicating that life is more broadly distributed than restricted strictly to the planet earth,” Hoover told FoxNews.com. “This field of study has just barely been touched -- because quite frankly, a great many scientist would say that this is impossible.”

In what he calls “a very simple process,” Dr. Hoover fractured the meteorite stones under a sterile environment before examining the freshly broken surface with the standard tools of the scientist: a scanning-electron microscope and a field emission electron-scanning microscope, which allowed him to search the stone’s surface for evidence of fossilized remains.

He found the fossilized remains of micro-organisms not so different from ordinary ones found underfoot -- here on earth, that is.

“The exciting thing is that they are in many cases recognizable and can be associated very closely with the generic species here on earth,” Hoover told FoxNews.com. But not all of them. “There are some that are just very strange and don’t look like anything that I’ve been able to identify, and I’ve shown them to many other experts that have also come up stumped.”

Other scientists tell FoxNews.com the implications of this research are shocking, describing the findings variously as profound, very important and extraordinary. But Dr. David Marais, an astrobiologist with NASA’s AMES Research Center, says he’s very cautious about jumping onto the bandwagon.

These kinds of claims have been made before, he noted -- and found to be false.

“It’s an extraordinary claim, and thus I’ll need extraordinary evidence,” Marais said.

Knowing that the study will be controversial, the journal invited members of the scientific community to analyze the results and to write critical commentaries ahead of time. Though none are online yet, those comments will be posted alongside the article, said Dr. Rudy Schild, a scientist with the Harvard-Smithsonian's Center for Astrophysics and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cosmology.

"Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5,000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis," Schild wrote in an editor's note along with the article. "No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough vetting, and never before in the history of science has the scientific community been given the opportunity to critically analyze an important research paper before it is published, he wrote."

Dr. Seth Shostak, senior astronomer at the SETI Institute, said there is a lot of hesitancy to believe such proclamations. If true, the implications would be far-reaching throughout the fields of science and astronomy, the suggestions and possibilities stunning.

“Maybe life was seeded on earth -- it developed on comets for example, and just landed here when these things were hitting the very early Earth,” Shostak speculated. “It would suggest, well, life didn’t really begin on the Earth, it began as the solar system was forming.”

Hesitancy to believe new claims is something common and necessary to the field of science, Hoover said.

“A lot of times it takes a long time before scientists start changing their mind as to what is valid and what is not. I’m sure there will be many many scientists that will be very skeptical and that’s OK.”

Until Hoover’s research can be independently verified, Marais said, the findings should be considered “a potential signature of life.” Scientists, he said, will now take the research to the next level of scrutiny, which includes an independent confirmation of the results by another lab, before the findings can be classified “a confirmed signature of life.”

Hoover says he isn’t worried about the process and is open to any other explanations.

“If someone can explain how it is possible to have a biological remain that has no nitrogen, or nitrogen below the detect ability limits that I have, in a time period as short as 150 years, then I would be very interested in hearing that."

"I’ve talked with many scientists about this and no one has been able to explain,” he said.

This better not turn out like Spiderman 4... cos' that really sucked.

Sperm = Meteorite

Egg = Earth

Really though, if you'd been studying rocks for years and thought you might have discovered strange life forms, you'd wait until everything you've done had been scientifically verified and proved before going to the media. Plus he went to Fox News, so I call utter bullshit on the whole thing and hope to never hear of it again.

I van almost hear his scientific reasoning:

Scientist 1: Hey, I've been working on asteroids in Antarctica, can I show you something?

Scientist 2: I'm very busy splitting dark matter and creating a new strain of cancer for the government, but sure, since you've trapped me in the bathroom, I'll have a look.

Scientist 1: Here.

Scientist 2: Well all this shows me is that whatever this may be, you purport it to be very small.

Scientist 1: It is. It's a biological fossil.

Scientist 2: That's a very small fossil to have survived in an astero-

Scientist 1: So it does look like a specimen of microbiological life?

Scientist 2: Looks like, maybe, this is a familiar shape. It could still be anything.

Scientist 1: But it could be an alien too?

Scientist 2: Any abstract photograph could be an alien. I would say its interesting, but this is just an image. Legitimately it looks good. You've clearly got some good equipment and plenty of money in order to purchase a meteorite and fund your Indiana Jones fantasy, but without scientific reasoning and method I'm afraid y-

Scientist 1: Keep it down in there. Yes, Fox News?

I was sadden by the fact they went to Fox News of all paces as well but...

Its NASA and they have a tendency of ironically putting their findings exclusively on Fox.

Fox does have its really rare occasion of actually covering some pretty legit and interesting news. RARELY

  On 3/6/2011 at 9:48 AM, ZiggomaticV17 said:

I was sadden

You are uneducate

  On 3/6/2011 at 10:00 AM, analogue wings said:

  On 3/6/2011 at 9:48 AM, ZiggomaticV17 said:

I was sadden

 

You are uneducate

I am of the working class and severely tired.

Suck my dick for forgetting ed, FYI Sadden is a word.

  On 3/6/2011 at 9:22 AM, Gary C said:

Really though, if you'd been studying rocks for years and thought you might have discovered strange life forms, you'd wait until everything you've done had been scientifically verified and proved before going to the media. Plus he went to Fox News, so I call utter bullshit on the whole thing and hope to never hear of it again.

 

I van almost hear his scientific reasoning:

 

Scientist 1: Hey, I've been working on asteroids in Antarctica, can I show you something?

Scientist 2: I'm very busy splitting dark matter and creating a new strain of cancer for the government, but sure, since you've trapped me in the bathroom, I'll have a look.

Scientist 1: Here.

Scientist 2: Well all this shows me is that whatever this may be, you purport it to be very small.

Scientist 1: It is. It's a biological fossil.

Scientist 2: That's a very small fossil to have survived in an astero-

Scientist 1: So it does look like a specimen of microbiological life?

Scientist 2: Looks like, maybe, this is a familiar shape. It could still be anything.

Scientist 1: But it could be an alien too?

Scientist 2: Any abstract photograph could be an alien. I would say its interesting, but this is just an image. Legitimately it looks good. You've clearly got some good equipment and plenty of money in order to purchase a meteorite and fund your Indiana Jones fantasy, but without scientific reasoning and method I'm afraid y-

Scientist 1: Keep it down in there. Yes, Fox News?

  Quote

"Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5,000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis," Schild wrote in an editor's note along with the article. "No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough vetting, and never before in the history of science has the scientific community been given the opportunity to critically analyze an important research paper before it is published, he wrote.

It doesn't have to be life. We probably, if we reproduced the conditions that rock had been under, could manufacture similar structures.

  On 3/6/2011 at 7:19 PM, Fishtank said:

 

 

  Quote

"Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5,000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis," Schild wrote in an editor's note along with the article. "No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough vetting, and never before in the history of science has the scientific community been given the opportunity to critically analyze an important research paper before it is published, he wrote.

what? every scientific paper ever published is subjected to review before getting published.

  On 3/7/2011 at 12:42 AM, GORDO said:

  On 3/6/2011 at 7:19 PM, Fishtank said:

 

 

  Quote

"Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5,000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis," Schild wrote in an editor's note along with the article. "No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough vetting, and never before in the history of science has the scientific community been given the opportunity to critically analyze an important research paper before it is published, he wrote.

 

 

what? every scientific paper ever published is subjected to review before getting published.

I know, i know. but it's UFO people remember. Scientific method has never applied 'in the history' of their area of research 'before'

here's the actual paper if anyone is interested in checking it out. it's long.

http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html

at least that that terribly dated looking Journal of Cosmology website says "Our intention is to publish the commentaries, both pro and con, alongside Dr. Hoover's paper."

and @delet what do you mean "We probably, if we reproduced the conditions that rock had been under, could manufacture similar structures" ?

(I'm not taking sides here as to whether or not Hoover's conclusion is valid, I just think it's interesting)

  On 3/7/2011 at 12:59 AM, delet... said:

  On 3/7/2011 at 12:42 AM, GORDO said:

  On 3/6/2011 at 7:19 PM, Fishtank said:

 

 

  Quote

"Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5,000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis," Schild wrote in an editor's note along with the article. "No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough vetting, and never before in the history of science has the scientific community been given the opportunity to critically analyze an important research paper before it is published, he wrote.

 

 

what? every scientific paper ever published is subjected to review before getting published.

 

I know, i know. but it's UFO people remember. Scientific method has never applied 'in the history' of their area of research 'before'

I'd say : learn to read. When he says "never before in the history of science" he's referring to "over 5,000 scientists from the scientific community". And lot of papers that get published present false facts.

And the scientific communauty is out of touch with the ufo matter, because when a scientist publishes a paper concerning UFOs, he immediately gets discredited.

  On 3/7/2011 at 1:14 AM, luke viia said:

here's the actual paper if anyone is interested in checking it out. it's long.

 

http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html

 

at least that that terribly dated looking Journal of Cosmology website says "Our intention is to publish the commentaries, both pro and con, alongside Dr. Hoover's paper."

 

and @delet what do you mean "We probably, if we reproduced the conditions that rock had been under, could manufacture similar structures" ?

 

(I'm not taking sides here as to whether or not Hoover's conclusion is valid, I just think it's interesting)

Well those rocks are generally composites of smaller bodies, from large clumps to bits sandy material. That have may have been heated and cooled several times over, been exposed to impacts and mixed with various elements. So we may then end up with odd crystals growing and what have you.

Sure life in space is nice, but i don't jump up and down every time i see and odd structure. Sure they may resemble rice shaped bacteria, or worms. But the research hasn't been done yet to determine how common these structures are, or how valid the comparison to life really is.

The Journal of Cosmology is fairly sketchy according to a bunch of scientist posters on Slashdot.

Looking over the site, it does look odd like a mixed bag and totally unlike high level peer reviewed research journals.

Going to read over the paper later, though its likely full of material thats above me.

the paper is pretty unconvincing according to pz meyers

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php

fucking weird journal if you ask me. and meteorites certainly don't come under cosmology...

i don't see anything in the paper more substantial than just "they look a bit like bacteria". the geochem from the SEM just shows them to be made from random mixes of mafic elements plus sulphur, could just be aphanitic intergrowths of olivine and some crappy sulphides (i've used SEMs before, great fun!). they have slightly enriched C, N and P but lah-dee-dah, those elements are going to be concentrated in residual melt shit anyway and not in the bulk mineralogy which will basically just be olivine and pyroxene. as for the funny shape of the crystals, it's probably a fairly common way for crystals to grow in fluid-filled cavities at zero gravity, nothing special. i'm wondering if someone's done experiments with late-stage-scummy-shitty-melt crystal growth in zero gravity. you get shit like that on Earth sometimes anyway.

over-sensationalised musings of a wishful thinker. nothing to see here. that's my two (Canadian) cents, anyway.

i'll translate any science-babble for you if you want, wattum

  On 3/7/2011 at 12:42 AM, GORDO said:

  On 3/6/2011 at 7:19 PM, Fishtank said:

 

 

  Quote

"Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5,000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis," Schild wrote in an editor's note along with the article. "No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough vetting, and never before in the history of science has the scientific community been given the opportunity to critically analyze an important research paper before it is published, he wrote.

 

 

what? every scientific paper ever published is subjected to review before getting published.

most of the journals i've submitted to have made ME "suggest" the reviewers, and then only about 3 or 4 of course, so very different from opening it up to hundreds or thousands.

  On 3/7/2011 at 2:12 AM, ezkerraldean said:

fucking weird journal if you ask me. and meteorites certainly don't come under cosmology...

 

 

i don't see anything in the paper more substantial than just "they look a bit like bacteria". the geochem from the SEM just shows them to be made from random mixes of mafic elements plus sulphur, could just be aphanitic intergrowths of olivine and some crappy sulphides (i've used SEMs before, great fun!). they have slightly enriched C, N and P but lah-dee-dah, those elements are going to be concentrated in residual melt shit anyway and not in the bulk mineralogy which will basically just be olivine and pyroxene. as for the funny shape of the crystals, it's probably a fairly common way for crystals to grow in fluid-filled cavities at zero gravity, nothing special. i'm wondering if someone's done experiments with late-stage-scummy-shitty-melt crystal growth in zero gravity. you get shit like that on Earth sometimes anyway.

 

over-sensationalised musings of a wishful thinker. nothing to see here. that's my two (Canadian) cents, anyway.

 

 

i'll translate any science-babble for you if you want, wattum

pwnt

  On 3/7/2011 at 2:13 AM, Charles Nelson Reilly said:

  On 3/7/2011 at 12:42 AM, GORDO said:

  On 3/6/2011 at 7:19 PM, Fishtank said:

 

 

  Quote

"Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5,000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis," Schild wrote in an editor's note along with the article. "No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough vetting, and never before in the history of science has the scientific community been given the opportunity to critically analyze an important research paper before it is published, he wrote.

 

 

what? every scientific paper ever published is subjected to review before getting published.

 

most of the journals i've submitted to have made ME "suggest" the reviewers, and then only about 3 or 4 of course, so very different from opening it up to hundreds or thousands.

and all your early drafts were read by no one?