“Terrorists” are still in NASA & Science Magazine

The JOC has no credibility so you can forget about quoting them as a reputable source.

I'm guessing that would be the same Thieves and Crooks that started publishing the Journal of Cosmology to begin with.

I don't believe in panspermia. But I do believe there were alien bacteria in that meteorite studided by Richard Hoover. A lot of people will lose credibility for slandering Hoover and me.

It's fine to believe in whatever you want, but if you want to convince anyone else you're going to need extraordinary evidence, and so far you don't have it.

And if you do believe there were alien bacteria in the meteorite, then why wouldn't you believe in panspermia? Bacteria in asteroids would almost certainly imply panspermia.

The following is my reply to someone at Godlike Production. It contains my reason why no panspermia is possible. Note it was a dialogue between me and someone rebutting me.
Re: NASA, Science Magazine exposed for hiding alien life Quote [+] #
I will never agree with the theory of Panspermia, because that theory depends on the validity of the theory of evolution.

Quoting: Wretch Fossil

So there is no evidence that could possibly convince you?
Talk about close-minded and dogmatic.

Scientists don't start with the premise and look for matching evidence.
Creationists do that. They already know the Truth™, and will simply presume that every fact that proofs them wrong is somehow faked.

Look up cognitive dissonance.

There has already been numerous evidence that falsifies evolution, one such evidence being my article mentioned below. Without the theory of evolution, no amount of other evidence can save the theory of panspermia, even if ten living humans were proven landing alive on Earth from meteorites or Mars. Repeat:no amount of evidence can prove panspermia when evolution is false.

Evolution is falsified by my article:A human leg bone fossil of 300 million years ago, displayed at: [link to wretchfossil.blogspot.com]

Quoting: Wretch Fossil

Call back once you got that peer reviewed.

Didn't you read the press release from Journal of Cosmology explaining why Hoover did not send his article to Science Magazine or Journal Nature?

Concerning PZ Myers, he lied about there being no Haversian canals in fossil EC96-001 owned by Mr. Ed Conrad. Evidence:
[link to www.wretch.cc]

Quoting: Wretch Fossil

More pareidolia.

Guess people see what they want to see.

PZ Myers did not see what he did not want to see. Was that pareidolia? PZ Myers also lied about scale on that micrograph. That's two crimes in a row. Why do you follow a devil?


Bottom lien: No one can disprove Hoover's claim of alien bacterial fossil. PZ Myers can never disprove that.

Quoting: Wretch Fossil

In what upside down universe does a negative need to be proven?

Hoover's article is not a negative. Naysayers are always going to be naysayers. Hoover's article is valid, confirmed by many experts who have really done work in this new area, which is almost "no-man's land". Most biologists/anatomists are not in this area of cellular fossils, which are vastly differnt from living life. Few people, if any, have authoritative knowledge on fossilized bacteria.

Professor Meyer does NOT NEED to disprove Mr. Hoover's claims.
Mr. Hoover needs to proof his claims.
Hoover proved his claims. Losers,stubbon people inexperienced with cellur fossils refused to accept proof, just as Copernicus was not accepted at first.

Apparently he has failed to convince the people that matter.

You know, biologists.

Biologists do not matter when their theory of evolution is falsified or much in doubt or have no experience in cellular fossils. You are just a debator, not truth seeker.