[meteorite-list] New Life On Mars Evidence 'Conclusive'
From: capricorn89 <capricorn89_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:48:11 2004
I'm curious. Why would this evidence first be presented in a "book" rather
than in a scientific paper, citing said evidence, and allowing researchers
to further evaluate the findings before mass distribution? Might this
merely be a device to sell a book. (Just an inquiry, that's all!) :=)
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Baalke <baalke_at_zagami.jpl.nasa.gov>
To: Meteorite Mailing List <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 11:19 AM
Subject: [meteorite-list] New Life On Mars Evidence 'Conclusive'
> New life on Mars evidence 'conclusive'
> October 10, 2001
> A new book reveals Nasa scientists have found 'conclusive' evidence life
> once existed on Mars.
> Experts at the Johnson Space Centre in Houston say three meteorites they
> have analysed contain fossilised bacteria.
> They think life may have originated there four billion years ago and then
> arrived on Earth.
> The findings are revealed in the new book Mars: Inside The Red Planet by
> Heather Couper and Nigel Henbest.
> Some of the best new evidence comes from the Nakhla meteorite which landed
> in Egypt in 1911.
> 'Microfossils' inside it are said to be better than similar controversial
> findings in meteorite ALH 84001 revealed in 1996.
> The book quotes Nasa's Dr Everett Gibson as saying: "We opened it in a
> lab and inside it found samples of clays which are probably in the 600 to
> 700-million-year-old time frame.
> "Within these carbonates and clays are structures and features that are
> larger and better preserved than those we saw in 84001."
> Show your support at the Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund -
> Meteorite-list mailing list
Received on Fri 12 Oct 2001 02:05:29 AM PDT