Giant mammal’s red blood cell remains found in meteorite NWA 5480

3. They are geological vesicles: Geological vesicles do not show all the shapes marked in the micrographs.

Im in the mining business for over 30 years and Im vwry familiar with the science and tech behind polarized light microscopy. You are not, so you are making idiotic statements when you have no fuckin idea what you are talking about. High viscosity melt liquids often collaps on their inclusions and the "bubbles" appear as if they were sunken at their margins. Sphericles, ooids, vesicles, oolites, inclusions, nd a myriad other liquid structures in minerals.

Dont be making statements anbout what is or is not evidence of geological structure cause you are totally ignorant of the subject.
You are trying to hawk your products and they are all full of crap. I can see why Mr Phillips is rustrated with your inability to understand PLM techniques.

Stop peddiling thios bullshit or peddle iot somehwere else, I think that noone here is convinced that you are even in the right area of inquiry.


PS, my own guess, based upon the fact that these vesicles are variously in or out of focus (indicating a greater thickness of sample on the focal level), is that these are glue bubbles from the balsam slide mount. Every microscopist makes errors in slide mounting and especially when the tolerance for the sample is 30 micron thick, the sample on the slide is much thinner than a newspaper sheet and its a glassine substance that is quite brittle . The balsam or acrylic mounting liquid will exert pressure onto the slide and cause breakage and this will gather up little amounts of bubbles that display just as we see them with various margin shapes and various polarization responses (usually the indices of refraction yiled toward what is called a color birefringemce which shows up as two colors
1 an ultramarine blue
2a lemon yellow.

These are NOT blood cells and to think so is lunacy. You arent another Nicholas Steno or Dr SChiller. You are someone who would greatly benefit by reading an introductory mineralogy and crystallography text (freshman level)..

some are subhedral and euhdral mineral grains, many are in and out of thefield of view. Id concentrate on the one you have circled, blow it up to a higher resolution and start rotating it about the polarizer (OBVIOUSLY, YOU dont have the petrographic microscope).

Once the optical properties are clear then we can see that these mineral grains, inclusions, vesicles, and other things are clearly members of the mineral world.
You are demonstrating how fanaticism os born, you get hooked on one option before fully exploring what all the others have to offer.

Remember Tom Phillips as an award-winning photographer and the thin section maker as one of the best in USA.

ANd he seems a bit bewildered as to how people are coming up with these conclusions that there are "life signs " in his samples.

Ive read his frustration but he seems too nice a guy to call you a name.

Thin sections are either done correctly (30 microns) , mounted accurately with no "wedging" or they are worthless. There is no competition among thin section makers, thats just patently false.
A student practices, screws up many slides and finally gets it right. Its either perfect or its waste bin material

so your logic is? and let me get this right.
"they cant all be bubbles so those that arent must be red blood cells?"

Ya see how your logic needs some more underpinning here? Im missing the big jump that is basic to your way of thinking.

Photographs alone are insufficient evidence to reach the conclusions you are reaching.

Why?

Even if it were true, you could not claim with any evidence other than your "vast" scientific experience that these were RBCs or muscle tissue in fossils. Were you to get samples and stain them with substances like eosin , fuchsin or osmium tetroxide, could you even begin to have any credibility. Yet you avoid talking with Mr Phillips to borrow his slides and subject them to further testing.
You are merely some hobbyist who wants to believe your story because it "fits" your religious world view.
Your arguments are based on "It cant be x because I believe its Y..." This is a very poor one and is scientifically non robust.
Your conditions for fossilization have not been thought out at all and therefore sound really whacky (to be perfectly honest). Any reasonably intelligent person with an interest in science or paleontology or meteorites will challenge your conclusions and you have bsolutely no "credible evidence" to lean on except some wishful thinking about someone elses thin sections. Further, to someone trained in thin section analysis (like me) your arguments are without a base of any understanding of how we read the colors and the patterns on the slide.

If youre just having fun playing with someones slides, I think your little joke has gone totally rancid and its time for you to move on. However, if you really believe this stuff you conclude, try to present it at some academy meeting or your local museums amateur science clubs . They will tear you a new asshole, I giuarantee.

DOnt mix your religion with some bogus science and expect others to accept your work as valid. Its not. Yet you seem to be the only one who doesnt know it or even give a damn.
Sad , really.

Because pixels on a screen don't carry enough data to be convincing. And since your conclusions are completely outlandish you need piles and piles of corroborating evidence.

If you told us that micrographs of meteorites showed inclusions of different crystals in various patterns, we might believe you because those things are expected to be there, but we still might ask for other views of the same structures, or a chemical analysis.

But when you say you've found red blood cells in a meteorite, then you need multiple views of the same object from different angles, you need multiple photo's of the same object just to eliminate optical anomalies, and you're going to need multiple expert opinions on what the object is to eliminate misunderstanding of what you're seeing, and you're going to need chemical analysis. All of that would be required at a very minimum, before anyone will even begin to consider your conclusion.

All you're doing is selecting particular circles and blobs in the image which happen to look like blood cells (by pure coincidence) and then claiming that they are blood cells because they look like that. That process is not only non-compelling, it's laughably flawed.

"But when you say you've found red blood cells in a meteorite, then you need multiple views of the same object from different angles, you need multiple photo's of the same object just to eliminate optical anomalies, "

There are multiple views of the same objects on Tom Phillips' "NWA 5480 article" site. I will show them all when I have time. I did not show them all, because I thought they were just repetitive and I did not waste too much of your time.

REMINDS me of the old story I heard in a psychology class years ago

Dr: You say you are dead?

PAtient: Yes, I am dead

Dr: Do dead people talk?

P: No dead people do not talk

Dr Well you are talking, doesnt that prove that you are not dead"

P: No it only proves that dead people CAN talk

Ha

We still haven't been informed what kind of Giant mammals are under discussion here. Giant space hamsters?

Prolly one of these. With its cephalic"wing" configuration it doesnt need a real long runway to take off.




http://images.wikia.com/jamescameronsavatar/images/e/ec/Hammerheadtitanothere.jpg Somethin only a mother could love eh? Whoda thunk that our Solar System is chock fulla giant snarling HAmmer headed Titanotheres.
Good thing bewildered is on the job.

I know. I really wish Bewildered would get away from meteor pics and tell us more of his amazing stories. I want to hear more about these scientists who were traveling back and forth between Earth and Mars 3 billion years ago. What was it like living on Earth during the oxygen poisoning when blue green algae were just taking over. What did they have for dinner back then, algae soup?

I'm sure I saw a residual image of one of these "mammals" in one of those meteorite scans Bewildered posted...

And look at all those plants. It's amazing that so many red blood cells show up in meteorites, but not one single plant cell, which would be far more numerous and which have a rigid outer shell which should be far more likely to fossilize. Maybe the mammals on mars didn't eat plants, maybe they were sustained by pure divine providence.

"...........and you're going to need multiple expert opinions on what the object is to eliminate misunderstanding of what you're seeing, and you're going to need chemical analysis. All of that would be required at a very minimum, before anyone will even begin to consider your conclusion. "

1. Multiple expert opinions: There is no expert on blood cells that have been fossilized for billions of years or millions of years. There is no published articles except mine on fossilized blood cells. As to living blood cells, most readers can be experts if they search Google for red blood cells and take long and hard looks at various shapes of mammalian red blood cells.

2. Chemical analysis is useless in identifying red blood cells of billions of years ago. The reason is that most atoms in the red blood cells have been replaced with other unrelated atoms. Also atoms in RBC's, no matter replaced or not, have degraded or changed into different atoms.

3. The morphology of mammalian red blood cells is unique, which means there is no other material in the world that matches red blood cells in both their size and shape.

4. I have provided micrographs of human red blood cells for comparison with the ET RBC remains at the same magnification. In view of points 2, 3 and 4, why is there need for chemical analysis in order to identify red blood cells?
I have posted eight reasons showing why they cannot be other things. No one can identify them as any other things. What reason do people have to doubt them as red blood cell remains?

and each reason was more ridculous than the last

maybe cause most real scientists know that these are not rbc's

This is all assumption by you. No scientist goes out and makes statements on assumptions without evidence to support. You make bold statements but no backup except your jejune incorrect "analyses" of someone elses thin sections. (The "Someone else" is also quite frustrated by you or folks like you inserting your new Creationist bullshit into his work)