Why does NASA continue to push Peer rejected findings?
Why does NASA continue to push Peer rejected findings?
(On the other hand mum on allegations of doctoring photos of structures on the Moon.)
March 7, 2011 - NASA Astrobiologist Has Evidence of Cyanobacteria Microfossils in Carbonaceous Meteorites. Report upcoming.
“The absence of nitrogen in the cyanobacterial filaments detected
in the carbonaceous meteorites (studied) indicates that the filaments represent
the remains of extraterrestrial life forms that grew on the parent bodies
of the meteorites when liquid water was present, long before
the meteorites entered the Earth's atmosphere.”
- Richard B. Hoover, Ph.D., NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center
Long sinuous, helical coiled and polarized filament with terminal
heterocyst similar to cyanobacterium Cylindrospermopsis sp.
in the Orgueil carbonaceous meteorite that originally fell on May 14, 1864,
in Orgueil, France, and weighed 14 kilograms. Field Emission Scanning Electron
Microscopy (FESEM) image by Richard B. Hoover, Ph.D., NASA/Marshall
Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama. See: Journal of Cosmology, Harvard University.
Harvard University's March 2011 Journal of Cosmology has a 43-page report by astrobiologist Richard B. Hoover, Ph.D., NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, about finding bacteria fossils in carbonaceous meteorites that resemble Earth's cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria photosynthesize, converting carbon dioxide into organic compounds using the energy from sunlight. Dr. Hoover's surprising discovery was little or no nitrogen in the fossilized meteorite bacteria. All Earth life requires nitrogen for amino acids, proteins and purine and pyrimidine nitrogen bases of the nucleotides.
He concludes his report, “Consequently, the absence of nitrogen in the cyanobacterial filaments detected in the carbonaceous meteorites (studied) indicates that the filaments represent the remains of extraterrestrial life forms that grew on the parent bodies of the meteorites when liquid water was present, long before the meteorites entered the Earth's atmosphere. This finding has direct implications to the distribution of life in the Cosmos and the possibility of microbial life in liquid water regimes of cometary nuclei as they travel within the orbit of Mars and in icy moons with liquid water oceans such as Europa and Enceladus.”
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on -
um. NASA isn't involved with this at all. in fact, far from being involved with it, they've distanced themselves from it.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave G on -
Yeah, the fact that some reporters can't tell the difference between 'a scientist who works/worked for NASA' and 'NASA' doesn't mean that there isn't a difference.
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on
-
it seems to be worse than you describe. from what i've read he submitted the paper to peer-review in 2007 and it didn't pass. so he just went to a online faux-journal.
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on -
Did he actually go to them or did they just reprint his original paper? Does a 'scientific journal' actually need permission from the original authors of a scientific report to reprint that report? I have no idea how that would work. I don't understand how copyright would apply to a paper submitted for peer review.
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on
-
papers are sub'd by the author or authors. a journal doesn't go looking for papers to publish. a journal recv's the submission and then has anonymous experts in the field review the paper (the peer-review process). these experts can send the paper back for revision, reject it completely, or recommend that it be accepted for publication. there's no reason to think that they took his paper (how would they even have come to have it?) and published it against his will. certainly he hasn't spoken up to say so. indeed, if that had been the case you'd surely have expected NASA to say so in their press release as that would have made the situation far better looking than that one of their scientists submitted an idiotic paper to a faux-journal and blindsided them.
-
Permalink Reply by Samuel H. Kenyon on -
Just because a journal is online only and/or Open access doesn't necessarily mean that everybody involved is an idiot. You have to actually prove why a particular journal or article in it is bad.
-
Permalink Reply by Ava Wilson on -
Actually NASA has publically rejected this on the basis it failed peer review and has disconnected themselves from it entirely. I don't know what you're talking about.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on -
Chronologically, NASA's announcement and this post happen the same day.
-
Permalink Reply by Samuel H. Kenyon on
-
For what it's worth (perhaps not much) Journal of Cosmology is publishing commentaries (21 so far) http://journalofcosmology.com/Life101.html. Some of them are silly frothing at the mouth excitement, and some mention reasons why Hoover might be completely wrong. It seems there was some requirement that even the harsh criticism be padded with the fringe enthusiasm (or maybe all the commenters are part of the same Rudolf Schild fringe network?)
What's new today
Forum
EMPOWERING WOMEN!!!!!!!!
Started by Belle Rose in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Simon Paynton 39 minutes ago. 108 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
So the Pope said I can go to heaven...
Posted by Misty: Baytheist Living! on May 22, 2013 at 6:56pm 5 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
