CI1 fossils: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 08:06, 26 May 2024

CI1 fossils refer to alleged morphological evidence of microfossils found in five CI1 carbonaceous chondrite meteorite fall: Alais, Orgueil, Ivuna, Tonk and Revelstoke. The research was published in March 2011 in the fringe Journal of Cosmology by Richard B. Hoover, an engineer. However, NASA distanced itself from Hoover's claim and his lack of expert peer-reviews.^[1]

Findings

Hoover's team used Environmental (ESEM) and Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) to analyze the meteorite samples, studying internal surfaces. Hoover also produced electron micrographs which he believes resemble the shape of trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as the filamentous sulfur bacteria. For comparison, Hoover compared the samples to those of terrestrial minerals and biological materials. Hoover concludes from these results that the CI1 fossils are indigenous to the samples.^[2]

The claims were initially submitted to the International Journal of Astrobiology, which rejected the paper,^[3] but were eventually published by the fringe Journal of Cosmology. NASA distanced itself from Hoover's claims,^[3] and the claims were debunked soon after publication.^[4]

References

^ Sheridan, Kerry (7 March 2011). "NASA shoots down alien fossil claims". ABC News. Retrieved 2011-03-07.
^ Hoover, Richard B. (2011). "Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites: Implications to Life on Comets, Europa, and Enceladus". Journal of Cosmology. 13. Archived from the original on 2011-03-08. Retrieved 2011-03-05.
^ ^a ^b "NASA Statement on Astrobiology Paper by Richard Hoover". SpaceRef.com.
^ L. Battison (11 March 2011). "Microbes on a Moonbeam: Disentangling the Meteorite Microbe Claims". Science in Pen and Ink. Retrieved 2011-03-12.

This astrobiology-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

This meteorite-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

[1] Sheridan, Kerry (7 March 2011). "NASA shoots down alien fossil claims". ABC News. Retrieved 2011-03-07.

[2] Hoover, Richard B. (2011). "Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites: Implications to Life on Comets, Europa, and Enceladus". Journal of Cosmology. 13. Archived from the original on 2011-03-08. Retrieved 2011-03-05.

[NASA-3] "NASA Statement on Astrobiology Paper by Richard Hoover". SpaceRef.com.

[4] L. Battison (11 March 2011). "Microbes on a Moonbeam: Disentangling the Meteorite Microbe Claims". Science in Pen and Ink. Retrieved 2011-03-12.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Short description|Alleged evidence of microfossils in meteorites}}
-'''CI1 fossils''' refer to alleged morphological evidence of [[microfossils]] found in five CI1 [[carbonaceous chondrite]] [[meteorite fall]]: Alais, [[Orgueil (meteorite)|Orgueil]], Ivuna, Tonk and Revelstoke. The research was published in March 2011 in the ''[[Journal of Cosmology]]'' by [[Richard B. Hoover]], an engineer. However, NASA distanced itself from Hoover's claim and his lack of expert peer-reviews.<ref> {{cite news | first = Kerry Sheridan | title = NASA shoots down alien fossil claims | date = 7 March 2011 | url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/08/3157645.htm | work = ABC News | accessdate = 2011-03-07}}</ref>
+'''CI1 fossils''' refer to alleged morphological evidence of [[microfossils]] found in five CI1 [[carbonaceous chondrite]] [[meteorite fall]]: Alais, [[Orgueil (meteorite)|Orgueil]], Ivuna, Tonk and Revelstoke. The research was published in March 2011 in the [[fringe science|fringe]] ''[[Journal of Cosmology]]'' by [[Richard B. Hoover]], an engineer. However, NASA distanced itself from Hoover's claim and his lack of expert peer-reviews.<ref>{{cite news | first = Kerry | last = Sheridan | title = NASA shoots down alien fossil claims | date = 7 March 2011 | url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/08/3157645.htm | work = ABC News | access-date = 2011-03-07}}</ref>
 ==Findings==
 {{Main|Journal of Cosmology#Hoover paper controversy}}
-Hoover's team used Environmental ([[ESEM]]) and Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy ([[FESEM]]) to analyze the meteorite samples, studying internal surfaces. Hoover also produced  electron micrographs which he believes resemble the shape of [[trichomic]] [[cyanobacteria]] and other trichomic [[prokaryotes]] such as the [[filamentous sulfur bacteria]]. For comparison, Hoover compared the samples to those of terrestrial minerals and biological materials. Hoover concludes from these results that the CI1 fossils are indigenous to the samples.<ref>{{cite journal | url=http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html | journal=[[Journal of Cosmology]] | year= 2011 | volume=  13 | title=Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites:  Implications to Life on Comets, Europa, and Enceladus | first=Richard B. |last=Hoover| accessdate=2011-03-05}}</ref>
+Hoover's team used Environmental ([[ESEM]]) and Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy ([[FESEM]]) to analyze the meteorite samples, studying internal surfaces. Hoover also produced  electron micrographs which he believes resemble the shape of [[trichomic]] [[cyanobacteria]] and other trichomic [[prokaryotes]] such as the [[filamentous sulfur bacteria]]. For comparison, Hoover compared the samples to those of terrestrial minerals and biological materials. Hoover concludes from these results that the CI1 fossils are indigenous to the samples.<ref>{{cite journal | url=http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html | journal=[[Journal of Cosmology]] | year=2011 | volume=13 | title=Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites: Implications to Life on Comets, Europa, and Enceladus | first=Richard B. | last=Hoover | access-date=2011-03-05 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110308034118/http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html | archive-date=2011-03-08 | url-status=dead }}</ref>
-The claims were initially submitted to the ''[[International Journal of Astrobiology]]'', which rejected the paper.<ref name=NASA/> NASA distance itself from Hoover's claims,<ref name=NASA>
+The claims were initially submitted to the ''[[International Journal of Astrobiology]]'', which rejected the paper,<ref name=NASA/> but were eventually published by the [[fringe science|fringe]] ''[[Journal of Cosmology]]''. NASA distanced itself from Hoover's claims,<ref name=NASA>
 {{cite web
- |author=
  |title=NASA Statement on Astrobiology Paper by Richard Hoover
  |url=http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=32928
@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
  |url=http://leilabattison.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/microbes-on-a-moonbeam-disentangling-the-meteorite-microbe-claims/
  |work=Science in Pen and Ink
- |accessdate=2011-03-12
+ |access-date=2011-03-12
 }}</ref>
+==See also==
+* [[Glossary of meteoritics]]
+* [[Panspermia]]
 ==References==
 {{reflist}}
+{{Meteorites}}
+{{Astrobiology}}
+{{Extraterrestrial life}}
 [[Category:Astrobiology]]
 [[Category:Chondrite meteorites]]
+[[Category:Meteorite mineralogy and petrology]]
+{{astrobiology-stub}}
+{{meteorite-stub}}