1
   

“Terrorists” are still in NASA & Science Magazine

 
 
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 02:58 am
“Terrorists” are still in NASA & Science Magazine

A few days ago Lana Tao, senior executive managing director of the Journal of Cosmology, issued a statement entitled “Have terrorists won?” In the statement the Journal of Cosmology accused some people in NASA and Science magazine of “terrorist” acts. Tens of thousands of people have seen the statement. But the statement was withdrawn from the Journal for unknown reason.

In fact, the “terrorists” are still in NASA and Science Magazine and numerous alien fossils have been found in many meteorites. See evidence at
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 1,820 • Replies: 24
No top replies

 
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 07:01 am
@bewildered,
Someone said:
Still looks like it's there to me: http://journalofcosmology.com/


Actually I was confused and meant another statement about closing the publication and detailed acts by people in NASA and Science Magazine who blocked contact with media,distribution of the journal. That statement has been withdrawn because the journal now decides to continue to publish.

parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 07:24 am
@bewildered,
If it's on the internet it must be true..

And it really must be true when the person linking to it is the person that wrote it.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 08:51 am
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:
Still looks like it's there to me: http://journalofcosmology.com

The Journal of Cosmology doesn't have a great rep as an unbiased source of scientific information. Now, if you can find it in the Journal Nature, that's a different story...
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 02:48 am
@bewildered,
Interesting final statement by Journal of Cosmology--
All Roads Lead to the O'Bama White House
http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html



Ticomaya
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 07:17 am
@rosborne979,
What about the Journal of Applied Cosmetology?

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/3301/tinfoilhatarea.jpg
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 07:21 am
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:

“Terrorists” are still in NASA & Science Magazine

A few days ago Lana Tao, senior executive managing director of the Journal of Cosmology, issued a statement entitled “Have terrorists won?” In the statement the Journal of Cosmology accused some people in NASA and Science magazine of “terrorist” acts. Tens of thousands of people have seen the statement. But the statement was withdrawn from the Journal for unknown reason.

In fact, the “terrorists” are still in NASA and Science Magazine and numerous alien fossils have been found in many meteorites. See evidence at http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/




wretchfossil is a garbage site.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 07:23 am
@Ticomaya,
i knew a girl who was studying to be a cosmetologist, it really surprised me because she wasn't even russian
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/female-astronaut.jpg
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 09:14 am
@bewildered,
Final Statement by the Journal of Cosmology on the
Hoover Microfossil-Meteorite Discovery
All Roads Lead to the O'Bama White House

The following is a final statement of the facts as we know them:
1) In 2007--NASA approved the submission of the Hoover Microfossil-Meteorite data for publication.
2) The IJA had received a paper by Hoover, but it was never reviewed as it was determined to be too lengthy.
3) Hoover wrote the paper submitted to JOC in Sept-October 2010 and submitted it in the first week of November of 2010.
4) The Hoover paper submitted to JOC, and the data it contained, had never been reviewed or rejected by any other journal, but contained the data approved by NASA in 2007 for publication.
5) The Hoover paper was reviewed, and subsequently underwent a major revision and was resubmitted in November, and again reviewed and approved. But it was not immediately published in JOC as is our normal standard procedure.
6) For the next 4 months the Hoover paper was critically examined by a Referee/Editor who went over it line by line, even enlarging the photos to pixel size to search for any evidence of tampering or fraud or anything which would make the data suspect. The data looked solid.
7) We were well aware the paper would be controversial, and were braced for slanders and defamatory attacks.
8) Before it was published the Hoover paper was made available to the scientific community for comment.
9) It was published in the first week of March and immediately met with an avalanche of slanderous attacks, led by a NASA administrator at Ames Research Center and a fake expert, and two media outlets with ties to NASA.
10) JOC quickly became the target of these attacks, now led by NASA's Chief Scientist, who, to our astonishment, brazenly lied about the history of the Hoover paper and about JOC and its review policies. In so doing he maliciously disputed the legitimacy of the work of two NASA Senior Scientists Science Directorates who have published five peer reviewed articles in JOC, and over 30 NASA scientists and 4 NASA astronauts who have also published their own peer reviewed work in this same journal. JOC has in fact been guest edited by a NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate, and another senior scientist at NASA/JPL. NASA's chief scientist was willing to discredit anyone and everyone including top scientists at NASA, in order to destroy the legitimacy of the Hoover discovery.
11) Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe spoke by phone with Richard Hoover the weekend the article was published, and reported that Hoover was clearly "terrified". Hoover reported that NASA officials had been threatening him and "shouting" and "yelling and screaming" at him.
12). Over the following week we received 24 commentaries on the Hoover article. Most of these were sympathetic.
13). JOC is so confident of the data the editors at Science and Nature magazine were invited to cooperate in an independent review. These editors were uncooperative.
14). To date, there is no evidence the Hoover data is not accurate. The preponderance of evidence is these are microfossils of microorganisms which are extraterrestrial in origin and which colonized these structures and the parent bodies, before this planet was formed.
15). We had anticipated the results would be met with hoots of derision. We anticipated slander and defamation. We believed that much of this would be motivated by ignorance, fear, and religious beliefs. We did not anticipate that NASA's chief scientist would lead a slander campaign and boldly make up lies about the Hoover paper and JOC. We frankly wondered why he would dare make up easily disproved lies and why he did not fear consequences from officials higher up.
16). On Friday, March 18, 2011, Dr. Rudolf Schild, Editor-in-Chief of JOC spoke at length with Richard Hoover and learned that the White House, i.e. the offices of President O'Bama, became a party to this issue almost immediately after the story broke. The exact nature of this involvement is unknown to us.
17). We have been concerned that Richard Hoover might be forced to recant. He has not done so yet. However, it is also clear he has been under enormous pressure at NASA by powerful forces which wish him to disavow his findings.
These are the facts as we know them. We believe the data is real. The implications profound.
We have to consider if a mountain-sized chunk of this planet was sheared from the surface and tossed into the abyss, only to land billions of years from now on another planet, that this chunk of expelled Earth would be peppered with the fossilized remains of various organisms. Hoover found fossils of microorganisms which had lived in the parent bodies which may have included planets older than Earth.
The Hoover data, by itself, does not mean life on Earth came from other planets. It simply means we are not alone--and the implications are staggering. However, based on the evidence compiled in an inexpensive book, "The Discovery of Alien ExtraTerrestrial life" and which includes Hoover's discovery and landmark paper, and the discoveries of other independent scientists, the conclusions are threefold:
We are not alone. Life is everywhere. Life on Earth, came from other planets.
JOC never intended to take the safe road. Our goal is to advance science. We are open to all ideas, even those we disagree with, so long as they are backed up by science and scholarship. This is why JOC has become one of the most read scientific journals in the world.
It takes courage to lead. It also takes intelligence to recognize when it is time to move on. The involvement of the offices of the president of the United States in this sordid affair, and with all its power, is most distressing. What the motives are, is unknown to us.
It is the intention of JOC to say no more about the Hoover paper and to ignore all further inquiries; unless backed into a corner and forced to respond.
With 14 million hits for March alone, JOC has had a major impact, and has become one of the most read scientific journals in the world. Our goal is to advance science.

parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 10:44 am
@bewildered,
The most telling part of that timeline is at no time did JoC have the paper critically reviewed by peers before publication.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 10:59 am
@bewildered,
I'm also curious when we elected an Irish man President.
O'Bama?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2011 11:06 am
@Krumple,
Wretchfossil is Bewildered's site. He routine quotes his own blog.
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2011 02:38 am
@bewildered,
Added on March 20, 2011:
Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe, the chief exponent of the theory that planets like earth have been seeded for life by comets has been dismissed from his post at the Cardiff University in Wales, United Kingdom.
http://arabnews.com/opinion/letters/article320581.ece


0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 09:18 am
@parados,
I have thought about the commentaries on the web about Richard Hoover's recent discovery. Now I am confident he was right about the alien microbes. I have studied his figures carefully and read many comments web.
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2011 03:26 am
@bewildered,
Press releases from Journal of Cosmology:
http://daviddobbs.posterous.com/journal-of-cosmology-going-out-with-big-bang
http://daviddobbs.posterous.com/j-of-cosmology-story-gets-weirder-yet
http://daviddobbs.posterous.com/cosmology-journal-declares-war-won-enemies-ev
http://daviddobbs.posterous.com/life-from-space-expert-loses-funding-skymania
http://daviddobbs.posterous.com/journal-of-cosmology-calls-criticism-of-hoove
http://daviddobbs.posterous.com/the-orgueil-meteorites-fall

Old Goat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2011 04:28 am
Bewlidered,
I've received and assembled your kit exactly as per instructions, used the very best quality tin foil and have used extra long wire coat hangers as antennae as required.....but I still can't get the daviddobbs links to work.

Question: Do I have to point this special hat in any particular direction?
I have a gut feeling that North North West may work, but I'll have to do this from the end of the garden as the house gets in the way.

I'll get back to you.....
Old Goat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2011 04:41 am
Further to my recent post, I'm afraid that the end of the garden trick didn't work either.
Apart from having to beat off an angry territorial robin, the only thing I could pick up was a faint transmisssion from the Theta 149/b star cluster, asking for the Hubble telescope to be pointed elsewhere for a while, as they're having their annual Nudism day festival.

0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2011 08:32 am
@bewildered,
Here is a comment from another source.
Quote:
The often confounding prevalence of minerals that look an awful lot like living things is exactly what geologist Alison Olcott Marshall at the University of Kansas in Lawrence confronted in a Nature paper published last month.

Look closer

Olcott Marshall and her colleagues revealed that what we thought were the oldest known bacterial fossils on Earth are only deceptive patterns formed in the rock by geological processes. The researchers sliced the 3.5-billion-year old Apex Chert rock containing the alleged fossils into 30-micrometre sections, thinner than any previously studied slices, and shone a powerful laser at them to get a good look under the microscope.

The new analysis confirmed that the fibrous structures researchers had originally identified as fossilised cyanobacteria were in fact fractures in the rock filled with inorganic haematite and quartz.

“One lesson we learn over and over again is that morphology is very common between minerals and life,” says Olcott Marshall, who is also unconvinced by Hoover’s new paper. “Finding circles and wiggles is not necessarily evidence of life.”


And here's a comment from David Dobbs, who's web site you linked...
Quote:
lack time to do this justice, but thought this should enter the public record. The Journal of Cosmology's latest release about the Hoover assertions about signs of alien life in a meteor, below, speaks for itself. You can find other context at my post at Neuron Culture. I should note here though that when the journal says (below) that they've received "absolutely no evidence that the results from the Hoover study are not valid," it ignores arguments from qualified people, some of which are linked to at my aforementioned post at Neuron Culture. This thing has turned into a real circus.


The final comment by Olcott Marshal bears repeating, “Finding circles and wiggles is not necessarily evidence of life.”
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Mar, 2011 01:14 am
@Old Goat,
Since you cannot see them, let me show you here the naked statements from Journal of Cosmology:
Feb 14, 2011

Journal of Cosmology To Stop Publishing--Killed by Thieves and Crooks

JOC will publish its last edition in May of 2011.

The Journal of Cosmology (JOC) was founded in the summer of 2009, published its first edition in October, and immediately became a success. Within one year it was receiving nearly 1 million hits a month and dozens of news articles were appearing regularly about its content--a phenomenal achievement for a scientific journal.

Naturally, JOC's success posed a direct threat to traditional subscription based science periodicals, such as "science" magazine; just as online news killed many newspapers. Not surprisingly, JOC was targeted by science magazine and others who engaged in illegal, criminal, anti-competitive acts to prevent JOC from distributing news about its online editions and books.

Because JOC's editorial policy was to publish all peer reviewed science-based theory, including articles which directly challenged the "sacred cows" of "conventional wisdom", its success posed a direct threat to the entire scientific establishment and the "gate-keepers" who wish to protect easily disproved myths and crush dissenting views. Suddenly, here was this upstart, highly successful scientific journal, with a prestigious editorial board, which was directly challenging the status quo and their control over science.

JOC also threatened the status quo at NASA.

As we all know, the leadership at NASA is a disaster. Just last month NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel concluded that NASA is "adrift" and dysfunctional. Its leadership is under attack by Congress and is good only at leading a retreat and killing programs. They are running scared with their heads down, fearful of upcoming Congressional hearings, fearful of more criticism, fearful of losing their jobs. Fear. Fear. Fear. If these nincompoops and gutless wonders had been in power during the 1960s we would have never made it to the Moon and would not have a space program today. No clear goals, no direction, a space program completely adrift, this is the leadership at NASA.

The Journal of Cosmology stepped into the leadership gap and published a special edition explaining how a mission to Mars could be accomplished and paid for--as detailed in a brilliant article by Dr. Rhawn Joseph (Marketing Mars). Twenty four NASA scientists contributed, including two astronauts who walked on the Moon, over 120 top scientists in total.

How did NASA's leadership respond? With fear. What if NASA's leadership were asked to explain this before Congress? So, they sabotaged, interfered with, and blocked press releases by their own Senior Scientist, and kept secret, from reporters, a press conference at NASA to discuss the human mission to Mars book and JOC's special Mars edition edited by a member of their own science directorate. The leadership at NASA headquarters is afraid of losing their jobs, they are being attacked as incompetent failures by Congress, and here was JOC and top NASA scientists saying: Onward to Mars. Better to kill the messenger.

As it turned out, certain people at NASA have a business relationship with JOC's competitors. As the folks at NASA admitted in a letter to Dr. Joseph (dated 2/13/2011), they knowingly plagiarized his article, they knew its purpose was to promote JOC and his business plan, and they stripped his name and all mention of JOC from the article, and used it instead to promote themselves and their publishing partners in the private sector. Dr. Joseph summed it up this way: "What a bunch of crooks."

When people working for NASA decide to steal from you, and when NASA (the U.S. Government) is in business with your competitors, it is time to say "Adios."

The April Edition of the Journal of Cosmology will be devoted to: "Consciousness and the Universe" (edited by Sir Roger Penrose of Oxford).

The final May edition, will be devoted to astrobiology, astrochemistry, and the pioneering work of Fred Hoyle (who coined the term "the big bang") and his colleague (and JOC editor) Chandra Wickramasinghe who along with Hoyle, coined the term: "Astrobiology."

In this final edition, evidence will be presented, demonstrating that life on Earth has a genetic pedigree extending backwards in time by over 10 billion years (billions of years before Earth was formed). We have the evidence. Its in our genes.

Life on Earth, Came From Other Planets ---and this is something the Bible-thumpers, the "leadership" at NASA, and the status quo, do not want the public to know.

With nearly a million hits a month, JOC turns off the lights as a winner. The loser is the public... but this is the history of science, and the nature of business. Its just the way it is.
Truly, Lana Tao

PS: Permission is granted to quote from and reprint this article.
March 6 statement:
NASA/Aliens--Why Not Science or Nature?
The Journal of Cosmology has received emails asking why Dr. Hoover's paper was not published in "Science" or "Nature."
We are aware that individuals who may or may not be associated with these publications are postingad hominem attacks, which essentially wish the public to believe that if Dr. Hoover's article was really important it would have been published by these other journals. These are tantamount to school-yard taunts by jealous children.
1) First, Dr. Hoover's article was an original contribution and had not been submitted to these two periodicals.
2) Secondly, both Science and Nature have a nasty history of rejecting extremely important papers, some of which later earned the author's a Noble Prize. Use google key words search for a wealth of info. Nature magazine admits to this, though they put a positive spin on these rejections.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6959/full/425645a.html
3) Editors at Science have been accused of using the Bible to make editorial decisions by scientists such as Dr. Gil Levin (who devised the famous NASA Viking Mars Experiments).
4) It is a matter of public record that the organization which publishes science magazine have engaged in illegal anti-competitive practices designed to harm the Journal of Cosmology. The continuing success of JOC poses a competitive threat to their business model. We should not be surprised their "hand puppets" are complaining that JOC published this article, and not them.
5) Science and Nature are in the business of making money. The Journal of Cosmology, is free, open access, and is in the business of promoting science.
6) Science and Nature protect the status quo, and have a history of rejecting great papers.
7) In less than 2 years, the Journal of Cosmology has become one of the top online science journals, with nearly a million hits for January.
Our mission is to advance science.
8) The ad hominem attacks and complaints by those say Dr. Hoover's article should have been published in these other periodicals, and not JOC, are just sour grapes and should not be taken seriously.
9) We have repeatedly offered to publish critical commentary. We are still waiting.
Truly,
Lana Tao
Permission is granted to quote and reproduce this letter
March 18 statement:
--NASA Threatens NASA Scientist
-Microfossil Evidence Certified as Valid
--Nature & Science Editors Uncooperative - Know Meteor-Microfossil Results are Valid
-The War Between Science (JOC) vs Religion (NASA)
(PRESS RELEASE REPRODUCED ON JOC WEBSITE)
http://JournalofCosmology.com

The Journal of Cosmology upon reviewing the evidence and the opinions of experts who have submitted their comments and evaluations, does hereby certify the paradigm shattering findings of Richard Hoover. We confirm the validity of his discovery of ancient microfossils similar to cyanobacteria in meteorites older than Earth.

We have been presented with absolutely no evidence that the results from the Hoover study are not valid. Further, we believe the public record
demonstrates that NASA's chief scientist has no credibility as he has made and issued a number of false statements about the history of the Hoover paper and the Journal of Cosmology (JOC),
and in so doing has maliciously disputed the legitimacy of the work of two NASA Senior Scientists Science Directorates who have published five peer reviewed articles in JOC, and over 30 NASA scientists and 4 NASA astronauts who have also published their own peer reviewed work in this same journal.

Equally astonishing, as NASA's chief scientist was proclaiming "openness" to new ideas and discoveries and inviting the press to speak with Richard Hoover, NASA officials were threatening and warning Hoover not to speak with the media and were "screaming and yelling" at him and demanding that he recant,
even as his wife lay dying and he was sick with cancer.

These terror tactics are reminiscent of totalitarian states and theocracies, where defenders of the faith, and Grand Inquisitors, armed with their Bibles, threatened, tortured, and killed those who challenged prevailing dogma.

We have seen this before, when Galileo an Giordano Bruno were threatened by the Inquisition, forcing Galileo to recant and torturing and burning Bruno alive when he refused to deny that planets orbited other stars. The same mindset is alive and thriving like a cancer at NASA headquarters, with NASA's chief scientist acting as Grand Inquisitor.

There has been a struggle, a war, between Science and Religion, for almost 2,000 years, and this war continues to this day.

We believe the entire controversy over these momentous discoveries can be characterized as science (life is everywhere, life on Earth came from other planets) vs religion (Life came from Earth).

On March 11, 2011, and in the interest of advancing science, we invited our critics and competitors, the editors at Science and Nature magazines, to join in forming an independent commission to investigate the Hoover findings. Despite their loud complaints, they ignored our offer. Why?

Science and Nature have been repeatedly accused of refusing to publish research which contradicts or challenges prevailing dogma. Dr. Gil Levin who designed NASA's famous Viking Mars Life experiment, has accused Science magazine of making editorial decisions based on the Bible. Although lacking any empirical, scientific support, the Biblical story of life's origins, minus the word "god" is in fact the official position of NASA, and Science and Nature magazine; i.e. life on Earth came from Earth. They have dressed religion in the language of science.

The critical but uncooperative behavior at the magazines Science and Nature and the defamatory, unsavory conduct of NASA administrators, does not promote science but is anti-science, and serves to protect religious beliefs; i.e. that life on Earth came from earth exactly as detailed in the Bible and the Five Books of Moses.

Unlike our critics and competitors, the Journal of Cosmology does not make editorial and scientific decisions based on the Bible and the "Laws of Moses", but on the laws of science. The Hoover findings are valid.

In sifting through the many false, deceptive, slanderous, and dishonest statements issued by NASA's chief scientist, it is noteworthy that NASA has not declared the Hoover results invalid. In fact, NASA approved these results for publication in 2007, but only if no mention was made of their extraterrestrial cometary origin. Nor has NASA provided any evidence the data is false. Instead, they have resorted to slander and defamation, and behind the scenes terror tactics designed to intimidate, frighten, and force Hoover to recant.

Hoover's results have been peer reviewed by only one scientific periodical, The Journal of Cosmology which has been edited in the past by a NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate. We have taken the unprecedented step of inviting over 5000 members of the scientific community to review and comment on the Hoover paper, which was made available before it was published. We are so confident of the results, we invited our critics and competitors to cooperate in the creation of a scientific commission to investigate the validity of these findings. Because they also know the results are valid, the editors at the magazines Science and Nature have been uncooperative.

No one has proved the results are false. Slander and histrionic tirades do not constitute legitimate scientific doubt.

The choice is simple: Science as advocated by the Journal of Cosmology, or religion masquerading as science as advocated by our critics.

The implications of the Hoover discovery published by the Journal of Cosmology are profound.

The media has a responsibility to tell the truth and to retract the many slanders and lies. The truth is:

1) NASA approved these results for publication in 2007.
2) The Journal of Cosmology is a peer reviewed scientific journal which has been edited by a NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate, Dr. Joel Levine, and which has published five peer reviewed papers by two NASA Senior Scientists Science Directorates, and the peer reviewed work of over 30 NASA scientists, four NASA astronauts, and top scientists from around the world.
3) Hoover's data was peer reviewed and published after 4 months of scientific scrutiny.
4) Crackpots, fake experts, and various media outlets slandered and defamed the Journal of Cosmology and Richard Hoover.
5) Richard Hoover has been threatened and ordered to recant by NASA officials
6) NASA's chief scientist has repeatedly made false statements to the press and is not credible.
7) The preponderance of evidence is that the microfossils discovered in the three meteorites, in the article published by the peer reviewed Journal of Cosmology, are evidence of ancient extraterrestrial life.

How can science advance if lunatics are unleashed to throw filth upon the reputations of legitimate scientists and the journals which dare to publish their findings? The media has a responsibility to tell the truth and to hold the media, the crackpots and NASA's chief scientist accountable.

Did NASA pay reporters to slander Richard Hoover and the Journal of Cosmology? Before the Hoover paper was published, JOC had repeatedly complained that NASA was providing funding to our competitors, and had paid a reporter to write an article for space.com and MSNBC which they published and which they plagiarized word-for-word from JOC.
It is these same two media outlets which led the slander campaign against JOC and Richard Hoover, featuring the ravings of charlatans and a NASA administrator. How many reporters and media outlets are on NASA payrolls?

We should also ask: Why would NASA administrators go to such extra-ordinary lengths to destroy the reputations of legitimate scientists and a scientific journal edited by one of its own Senior Scientists Science Directorates, for the single purpose of covering up one of the greatest discoveries in the history of humanity?
What else are they covering up? The media has a responsibility to investigate and to tell the truth.

In conclusion: The Journal of Cosmology has reviewed the evidence, has solicited commentary, we have invited scientific criticism, we have reached out to our competitors who have refused to cooperate because they know the data is real, and therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the Journal of Cosmology and Hoover study are beyond reproach.
As reported in the peer reviewed Journal of Cosmology, evidence of extraterrestrial microfossils of bacteria in meteorites older than Earth has been discovered and no legitimate scientist has been able to disprove the findings. The findings are valid.

The implications are staggering and the public deserves to know the truth, that life may be everywhere, throughout the cosmos. The Journal of Cosmology has compiled this wealth of data, along with the Hoover paper and commentaries, and the peer reviewed discoveries of numerous independent scientists, in a single inexpensive book, titled:
"The Discovery of Alien ExtraTerrestrial life" which features the landmark discovery of Richard Hoover.

Based on the evidence compiled in "The Discovery of Alien ExtraTerrestrial life" and the Hoover discovery, the conclusions are threefold:

We are not alone. Life is everywhere.

Life on Earth, came from other planets.




lmur
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Mar, 2011 01:26 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

I'm also curious when we elected an Irish man President.
O'Bama?


http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0315/obamab.html

He's coming home in May. Shocked
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Arrangement of microorganism - Question by fayorks
An animal that can photosynthesize! - Discussion by littlek
How do they fly? - Question by hannahherbener310
Test questions for evolutionites/evolosers - Discussion by gungasnake
Anti-Aging Compound identified - Discussion by rosborne979
Sex and Evolution - Discussion by gungasnake
Dogs Are People, Too - Discussion by Miller
Avoiding Death - Question by gollum
Synthetic Life - Question by Atom Blitzer
Single-Celled Organisms - Question by gollum
Biology Help Please?? - Question by cvmerchanary
 
  1. Forums
  2. » “Terrorists” are still in NASA & Science Magazine
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.75 seconds on 11/23/2014 at 02:33:52