The Journal of Cosmology website looks a little sketchy to me -- not what I would expect from a serious science publication.
Even if he could conclusively prove that he is seeing a fossil in a meteorite you couldn't discount the idea that these meteorites were blasted off the earth's surface and into space by some ancient, huge asteroid strike and fell back to earth at a later date. That seems more likely to me than bacteria developing on a comet which is what he is suggesting.
That being said I had never heard of this class of meteorite. Here is a description from the paper by a chemistry professor who analyzed one in 1806,
"He realized that these stones were different from all other meteorites since they had the appearance of solidified clay. Thénard reported that “when the stones were placed in water they disintegrated immediately and gave off a strong clay-like odor.” "
I suppose the source meteorite could have been ejected matter from an impact with another planet that harbored life; i.e., a sort of "meteor vector." That, to me, seems far more plausible than life developing out of nothing on a meteor or comet in space.
They have a track record of showing images and video with their reporting and imply the images are related to the news being discussed when they are often not.
Does anyone else question his choice to give FOXNews the exclusive? If you had made one of the most important scientific discoveries in history, would you submit it to FOX?
Unfortunately, it fits right in with history. NASA no longer has any credibility on the extraterrestrial life front. I've lost count of all their announcements, which have without fail turned out to be anything from arguably-fraudulent (though not quite provably so) up through so dubious it means nothing, like the previous meteorite results.
They have a pretty picture in the news story, certainly, but I will wait for independent confirmation before I even begin to consider the possibility that this may be true, as opposed to a carefully-selected picture culled from gigabytes of data. Not because I have preconceptions either way, but because that's how little I value NASA's announcements on this front.
The announcement of "arsenic-based life" was particularly bad, as it turned out to just be normal life that can survive in a higher than normal concentration of arsenic.
If the meteorites were found on earth, couldn't the fossils stem from local bacteria? Maybe the meteorite hit earth a long time ago, long enough so fossils could form.
Even assuming the possibility of bacteria contagion from Earth the question remains how the biological remain appears to contain no nitrogen, an essential building block to life as we know it.
This should be possible to determine. We should wait for a verification/reproduction of this study which will undoubtedly follow given the claims made.
http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html
The Journal of Cosmology website looks a little sketchy to me -- not what I would expect from a serious science publication.
Even if he could conclusively prove that he is seeing a fossil in a meteorite you couldn't discount the idea that these meteorites were blasted off the earth's surface and into space by some ancient, huge asteroid strike and fell back to earth at a later date. That seems more likely to me than bacteria developing on a comet which is what he is suggesting.
That being said I had never heard of this class of meteorite. Here is a description from the paper by a chemistry professor who analyzed one in 1806,
"He realized that these stones were different from all other meteorites since they had the appearance of solidified clay. Thénard reported that “when the stones were placed in water they disintegrated immediately and gave off a strong clay-like odor.” "