[meteorite-list] Fwd: Re: New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite
From: cdtucson at cox.net <cdtucson_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 15:33:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20100506153309.L07V6.281366.imail_at_fed1rmwml44> > Everett, > All due respect but this was exactly my point. > ALH84001 does NOT match Martian Oxygen isotopes . The ones within ALH84001 only match a theoretical but different Martian atmosphere. > Only the much younger SNC's match what we know to be Mars Ratios. > "Houston we had a problem" . No problem just say it matches Mar's older atmosphere. Ya, that'll work. NOT! > Sorry but it still looks like a duck to me. How could we possibly know for a fact that Mars once had a different atmosphere that ALH84001 matches? . Sounds like to tail wagging the dog to me. > see link. > " Gas trapped in the meteorite's minerals does not match the ratio of gases of Mar's modern thin atmosphere. Younger meteorites do match." Dr. Ben Weiss. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com/msg12675.html > > So , again. ALH84001 may or may not be from Mars without a real stretch. ? > > Carl > -- > Carl or Debbie Esparza > Meteoritemax > > > ---- ekgmars at aol.com wrote: > > I would like to offer additional information about why we know ALH84001 is from Mars. In additional to the oxygen isotopes (which the scientific community now recognizes as the standard to recognized various extraterrestrial materials), the trapped noble gases match those previously identified to be from Mars (Bogard and Garrison, LPSC) in other SNC meteorites and the atmospheric gases measured by Viking's mass spectrometers in 1976 and 1977. Selected trace element abundances and ratios also match those recognized to be from Martian materials. The original diogenite classification of ALH84001 was based on a very limited chemical analysis and a single thin section which was not representative of the sample. > > Everett Gibson > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: cdtucson at cox.net > > To: JoshuaTreeMuseum <joshuatreemuseum at embarqmail.com>; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com > > Sent: Wed, 5 May 2010 17:32 > > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite > > > > > > Phil, > > I have no arguments against your points here but, I do have a few questions. > > With all due respect and hope that I am not too far off base here. > > > > Based on thousands of photos of Mars it seems to be a lot like Earth less the > > water and growies. > > Although there are a lot of places here that do look exactly like Mars. > > Isn't it possible for igneous rocks to become metamorphosed into rocks that > > might be from past oceans on Mars? > > > > One of our probes definitely confirmed the presents of Glauconite and Albite on > > Mars. > > these are also found in Earths oceans. So, I tend to believe a lot of what our > > scientists say. > > Even without extraordinary proof. > > > > To me there are theories being postured that are far more in need of proof than > > the fact that Mar's may have life. Such as. > > . > > The Moon was created by a giant collision with earth? > > What? The Moon is nothing like Earth and what about all of the other planet's > > Moons? > > Did Saturn and Jupiter get hit as well? Wait! How would that work? Aren't they > > Gaseous? What would it have hit? > > > > But the most Crazy theory is that ALH84001 is even from Mars at all. > > It does not match any of the other SNC's in either Mineralogy or Isotopes. Yes, > > it has some like minerals but that should not come as a surprise. > > And Yes, they say if the O- isotopes match, that is diagnostic of origin. > > Problem is that ALH84001's O-isotopes does not match the others. So, how could > > it have the same origin? > > Please explain that one? > > It was first classified as a diogenite because it is very much like a diogenite > > (if it looks like a duck) . But for the some reason it suddenly became a new > > Martian meteorite. > > It may well be from Mars but, if the isotopes don't match the others then how > > could it be? Usually Isotopes rule. Don't they? > > I am asking because I would like to know not to disrespect anybody here. > > Seems to me it may be from a different planet? > > Carl > > -- > > Carl or Debbie Esparza > > Meteoritemax > > > > > > ---- JoshuaTreeMuseum <joshuatreemuseum at embarqmail.com> wrote: > > > Melanie: > > > > > > I think they're just recycling their old claims to try and get more taxpayer > > > funding for their project. I'm still waiting to hear their "new" evidence. > > > It's the same as their old evidence, which is weak. McKay and his crew > > > remind me of Michael Mann and his CRU with their AGW agenda. (Incidently, > > > NASA is involved in Climategate with their questionable Goddard Institute > > > for Space Studies data.) > > > > > > These people are seriously looking for microbial fossils in igneous rock? > > > Has a fossil of any kind ever been found in an igneous rock? Are life forms > > > ever preserved in magma, granite or obsidian? This is laughable at the > > > least. > > > > > > So they found some magnetite crystals. They say 75% were naturally formed > > > by a shock mechanism, while 25% were so perfect, they had to be biogenic. > > > What are the chances of this actually happening? Wouldn't it all be natural > > > or all biogenic? > > > > > > And get this: the magnetite is exactly the same as that produced by > > > magnetotactic bacteria on Earth! So what are the chances of this happening? > > > 2 identical life forms on two different planets. These things live in the > > > ocean, could they survive an interplanetary journey? Why are these magnetite > > > chain fossils not found in sedimentary Earth rocks, but yet they appear in > > > igneous Mars rocks? Since these are aquatic creatures, it seems highly > > > unlikely they would turn up in igneous rock. > > > > > > Their whole argument rests of the morphology of a few magnetite nano > > > crystals, which they claim they can now see better with higher resolution > > > microscopes. I think this is very weak evidence, and I remain unconvinced. > > > I think desktop cold fusion is more likely. > > > > > > Phil Whitmer > > > > > > ______________________________________________ > > > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com > > > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > ______________________________________________ > > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > > Meteorite-list mailing list > > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com > > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > > > Received on Thu 06 May 2010 03:33:09 PM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|