NASA objavljuje prve dokaze o postojanju vanzemaljskog života?

[ToniAdams]

crkva ga poslala.

[braca]

church of the flying spaghetti monster

[расејан]

church of the flying spaghetti monster

Зар не рече да "ја радије не бих да се од овог прави црква"?

[braca]

Зар не рече да "ја радије не бих да се од овог прави црква"?

rece ko? ne razumem

[расејан]

rece ko? ne razumem

Па шпагетно чудовиште. Пишем по сећању, света књига је остала тамо^рж.

Captain Mosey and the Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" FSM giving the "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" tablets to Captain Mosey. The book contains the Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts", adherence to which enables Pastafarians to ascend to heaven, which includes a stripper factory and beer volcano.^[25] According to The Gospel, Mosey the Pirate captain received ten stone tablets as advice from the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Of these original ten "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts", two were dropped on the way down from Mount Salsa.^[26] This event "partly accounts for Pastafarians' flimsy moral standards."^[27] The "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" address a broad array of behavior, from sexual conduct to nutrition.^[25] One reviewer commented that this parody of the Ten Commandments "reads like a bitter shopping list of the same criticisms" given to organized religions.^[1] One commandment is "I'd really rather you didn't build multimillion-dollar synagogues / churches / temples / mosques / shrines to [His] Noodly Goodness when the money could be better spent ending poverty, curing diseases, living in peace, loving with passion and lowering the cost of cable."^[26]

Edited March 9, 2011 by расејан

[mei]

da, jedno od najvaznijih otkrica otkad je nauke je objavio fox, a "publikovano" je u opskurnim "novinama" koje postoje samo kao internet izdanje...jeste li bre normalni, obicna patka...http://scienceblogs....over_bacter.php

namerno nisam postavila link na ovaj blog :D, a sve zato što se autorova kritika bar 30% odnosi na ovaj online časopis bez peer review procesa, pa tek onda na sam rad. naravo, ne branim journal of cosmology (nisam nikad ni čula za njega do ove vesti sa meteoritima), međutim, možda posle onog kraha sa marsovskim meteoritima i bakterijama publikovanih u ozbiljnom časopisu, u časopisima tipa Nature ili Science ne bi nikada više rizikovali da publikuju nešto slično, osim ukoliko rezultat nije baš-baš ubedljiv (e.g. bar jedno živo vanzemaljsko biće koje trči unutar meteorita ;-)). nemam vremena da ih tražim, ali bilo bi dobro da vidimo još neke kritike samog rada, bez mnogo backupovanja mestom objavljivanja tj. propanspermičnim online novinama.

[mei]

ovaj rad R. Huvera je 2007. godine odbijen u časopisu "International Journal of Astrobiology".klik

[Antares]

namerno nisam postavila link na ovaj blog :D, a sve zato što se autorova kritika bar 30% odnosi na ovaj online časopis bez peer review procesa, pa tek onda na sam rad. naravo, ne branim journal of cosmology (nisam nikad ni čula za njega do ove vesti sa meteoritima), međutim, možda posle onog kraha sa marsovskim meteoritima i bakterijama publikovanih u ozbiljnom časopisu, u časopisima tipa Nature ili Science ne bi nikada više rizikovali da publikuju nešto slično, osim ukoliko rezultat nije baš-baš ubedljiv (e.g. bar jedno živo vanzemaljsko biće koje trči unutar meteorita ;-)). nemam vremena da ih tražim, ali bilo bi dobro da vidimo još neke kritike samog rada, bez mnogo backupovanja mestom objavljivanja tj. propanspermičnim online novinama.

+1Evo jedne veoma ozbiljne kritike u spojleru. Sa njihovog je sajta pod "Commentaries". Sjajno napisano, i tacno kaze sta je problematicno i sta treba bolje da se uradi u ovakvim situacijama.

9. Life in CI1 Carbonaceous Chondrites?Martin D. Brasier, Ph.D.,Dept of Earth Sciences, Parks Road, Oxford, UKThese meteoritic 'microfossils' provoke fascinating questions about the lines of reasoning and evidence needed to confirm whether very ancient candidate structures are biologically credible, or whether they are better explained by abiogenic processes and contamination. Such a debate has been going on since the time of Darwin and recently re-emerged when the 3.46 Ga Apex ‘microfossils’ were questioned (Brasier et al. 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006).Microfossils from the early Earth and beyond require criteria. These include evidence for a habitable context; biology-like morphology; and biology-like processing. Ancient filamentous structures should not be accepted as biological until possibilities of their non-biological origin, or contaminant origin, have been examined.Candidate biologic signals should always be placeable within a well-defined history. In terms of biology-like morphology, they should not form part of a continuum with other non-biological structures. They should ideally show distributions consistent with biological behaviour rather than with self-organizing structures (see Brasier et al. 2005, 2006). In terms of processing, more than a single metabolic tier should ideally be demonstrated, as with evidence from extracellular polymeric substances, organominerals or isotopic fractionations. Finally, the material should be available for scientific loan, for scientifically repeated tests and public scrutiny. And, of course, the null hypothesis of an abiogenic origin from several sources should be falsified.How do the structures illustrated by Hoover (2011) from CI1 carbonaceous meteorites meet with these criteria?1. In terms of context, a history of genesis for this rock, and for a confident placement of those structures within that storyline, has yet to be provided. This is now an essential step for early life work in the Earth Sciences.2. In terms of syngenicity, these samples have been sitting around in laboratories for between 205 and 73 years. It is well known that microbial contaminants can penetrate deep into such rocks, even during storage. The null hypothesis, therefore, is that many of these objects (e.g., Hoover 2011, figs 1, 3) may be prokaryotic contaminants.3. In terms of technique, multiple techniques are essential. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of fractures is notorious for making contaminants look integral to any given rock. EDS is poor at the best of times for detecting carbon and nitrogen. It is seldom employed in early life studies, where it has now been surpassed by Raman, TEM and NanoSIMS (e.g. Brasier et al. 2002, Wacey et al. 2008a).4. In terms of geochemical techniques, my understanding is that quantitative analyses require an instrument has been calibrated with a set of standards, for a specific working distance and for a flat surface, as for example on polished rock. Different setups (beam current, working distance etc) on different SEM machines should be avoided.5. In terms of nitrogen, different organic materials will lose nitrogen at different rates depending on the organism and its context. Nitrogen cannot be measured accurately with EDS, and the comparisons are open to questions about selectivity.6. In terms of the amino acids said to be present, it can be argued that the values from filaments are being swamped by the bulk values from the carbonaceous chondrites themselves.7. In terms of morphology, several (for example Hoover 2011, figs 2-5) could be said to resemble abiogenic ambient inclusion trails (AITs), commonly mistaken for cyanobacterial microfossils, including by Hoover and his colleagues (see Zhegallo et al. 2000). Such AITs are formed by the forward projection of minerals under gaseous pressure through a solid or liquid medium Such trails can be recognised by their distinctive infillings with secondary minerals; by longitudinal striations along their edges; by their irregular or polygonal cross sections; by their curved and twisted patterns; and by a tendency for some of them to cross cut or branch; Terminal mineral grains may even mimic 'heterocysts' (see Brasier et al. 2006, McLoughlin et al. 2007; Wacey et al. 2008a, 2008b). Many AITs have a similar composition to those described from the meteorites by Hoover (filaments with margins enriched in carbon and infilled with sulphur and silica rich minerals). Such abiogenic scenarios require rigorous investigation.

A sto se tice toga da ozbiljni casopisi vise nece objavljivati ovakve stvari. Pa posle ovoga ce situacija biti jos gora.

[braca]

Tip je prso skroz... Ovaj je naucnik isto ko sto je Nikola Seceroski bio predsednicki kandidat

Official Statement The Journal of Cosmology,Have the Terrorists Won? Only a few crackpots and charlatans have denounced the Hoover study. NASA's chief scientist was charged with unprofessional conduct for lying publicly about the Journal of Cosmology and the Hoover paper. The same crackpots, self-promoters, liars, and failures, are quoted repeatedly in the media. However, where is the evidence the Hoover study is not accurate?Few legitimate scientists have come forward to contest Hoover's findings. Why is that? Because the evidence is solid.But why have so few scientists come forward to attest to the validity? The answer is: They are afraid. They are terrified. And for good reason.The status quo and their "hand puppets" will stop at nothing to crush debate about important scientific issues, and this includes slander, defamation, trade libel... they will ruin you. Three hundred years ago, they would burn you for questioning orthodoxy. Has anything changed?The scientific community must march according to the tune whistled by those who control the funding. If you don't do as you are told, if you dare to ask the wrong questions, they will destroy you.JOC offered the scientific community a unique opportunity to debate an important paper, but for the most part they have declined.The message is: Be afraid. Be very afraid. Or you will be destroyed.Why is America in decline?Maybe the terrorists have won.

[Gonzo]

niko ne komentariše dokumente iz fbi arhivehttp://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Svet/247394/FBI-objavio-tajne-dokumente-o-vanzemaljcimaa i asanž najavljuje nlo likovehttp://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Svet/222399/Vikiliks-U-novim-depesama-o-NLO

[Indy]

Sad ide ono, "Moldere, vrati se, sve ti verujemo!"Ja bih mnogo voleo da stvarno ima vanzemoljaca.

[Mil@n]

Ja bih mnogo voleo da stvarno ima vanzemoljaca.

Ima ih, ne brigaj ništa.Ili to, ili svi oni lažu:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk

[Indy]

Ima ih, ne brigaj ništa....

To da ima UFO-a ne znaci i da ima vanzemaljaca. ;)

[Mil@n]

To da ima UFO-a ne znaci i da ima vanzemaljaca. ;)

Yes vala, na nekoj tamo planeti rastu letelice na drveću, otkače se ko jabuke i polete ka svemiru. :) Ako ciljaš na to da ima i oblika UFO koji ne uslovljavaju "vozača", tu se svakako slažem.Inače, na snimku je 21 od 100 snimljenih svedoka, od ukupno sada i više od 500 ljudi koji su govorili o svojim iskustvima ili su spremni na to.

[Indy]

Pa, UFO je samo neidentifikovani leteci objekt... svako iz dvorista moze da lansira 1 takav.Nego, super je ovo za vanzemaljce, samo cudi da oni toliko lice na vanzemaljce iz filmova, i cudi da se pojavljuju samo iznad USA (i verovatno tecno govore engleski)...