NASA distances itself from meteorite fossil story

Say it ain't so. NASA has officially backed off the fossils in meteorites story, citing that the study was not thoroughly peer reviewed as required before going public. Leading scientists in various disciplines claimed the study, a newly published examination of three rare meteorites, was riddled with pitfalls. Published last Friday morning, NASA and its top scientists disavowed the work by noon Monday.



Earthly Contamination or Alien Life?

 Apparently the meteorites fell to Earth between 100 to 200 years ago, therefore any study conducted now can most certainly be contaminated with earthly bacteria. According to a scientist who has studied these same meteorites in the past, more specifically the one that fell to France in 1864. He stated the rock was in "atrocious" condition at a Paris Museum with obvious contamination. A vein in the rock that hadn't been there in old photographs provided proof of slowly spreading moisture.

The Associated Press interviewed up to a dozen scientists, and none of them agreed with the findings. Back in 1996, NASA announced similar findings with great zeal and was forced to back away from later. In that case, a meteorite from Mars found in Antarctica showed evidence of alien life - and then... apparently not.

"There's a lot of stuff there, but not a lot of science," said Rosie Redfield, a microbiologist at the University of British Columbia, regarding this most recent claim. She publicly scutinized the study over the weekend. "I looked at it and shuddered."

"There has been no one in the scientific community, certainly no one in the meteorite analysis community, that has supported these conclusions," NASA Astrobiology Institute Director Carl Pilcher said Monday of the latest work (No, not the guy from Ricky Gervais... although that would be fabulous, yes?) ... and what the heck is a meteorite annalysis community - I want in!

Somehow Mr. Hoover, who originally claimed he was ready for the controversy and open to other ideas, has managed to elude all phone calls and interviews.

So why would such a journal publish a story like this without the appropriate verification first? Rudy Schild, a Harvard astronomer and editor-in-chief of the journal, said the study was reviewed by scientists, but he wouldn't identify them. Schild said the idea was to garner attention and generate debate, which happened after it was first reported over the weekend by FoxNews.com. The journal was apparently looking for a buyer or risk going under. So the answer is, money.


Shame on you, "DR" Hoover!

 And the story gets worse. While Hoover's paper in the journal lists him as a "Ph.D.," NASA's solar physics website mentions nothing of the sort. A colleague of Hoover's acknowledged that he doesn't have a Ph.D. Schild said someone at the journal, he doesn't know who, may have accidentally published Hoover with the doctorate title.