Evidence, ignored

What if a respectable NASA scientist found indisputable proof of the existence of alien lifeforms? And how would we react if one of our Mars rovers came across something that looked suspiciously fossil-like while cruising the red planet?

Dr. Richard B. Hoover spent 46 years of his life working for NASA before he retired in 2011. Astrobiology and extremophiles were his areas of expertise, in which he also made significant discoveries, earning him the title „Inventor of the Year“ by NASA in 1992. Considering Dr. Hoovers impressive merits, you'll have to wonder what's going on when his research is continuously being ignored. Research that no less than three times, has concluded that fossilized microorganisms of non-Earthly origin has been found in fresh meteorites.

In short, he has found fossilized microorganisms in meteorites that we know for a fact hit Earth  within the last 200 years. The fossilized samples in these space rocks lack any trace of oxygen, a process that takes many hundreds of thousands of years to happen. His findings therefore suggests that the specimens are ancient (not from here) and definitively not a result of contamination.

In spite of these highly scientific evidence, he is being widely criticized by his peers who insists that some form of Earthly contamination must have occurred [sic]. NASA on the other hand are playing the Kafka card saying that nothing can be taken into account before a certain level of peer reviewing has taken place - peer reviewing which no one are willing to do. 

--

But where could these fossils come from? As it turns out, Mars is a good candidate. Our rover Opportunity did indeed 2004 find some very suggestive irregularities on one of it's many rock encounters. Irregularities with a strong resemblance to crinoids, and would probably also be interpreted as such, were they found on Earth. 

The original image features three distinct fossil candidates. 

Zoom in on the "crinoid". <---> A specimen found on Earth. 

Unfortunately all we can do is speculate, since they only lasted for approximately 3.5 hours before someone in a NASA control room decided that they should all be sanded down to dust. 

Dr. Hoover probably isn't alone in questioning the bizarre decision-making. Just imagine an archaeologist reaching for a hammer and smash the newly found discovery to pieces as soon as she laid her hands on it. The logic simply doesn't add up.

3,5 hours after the spectacular find the three potential candidates were literally turned to dust. 

Hardly eyebrow raising, NASA chooses silence when called into question. Dr. Hoover however claims that an unofficial explanation was given to him by a colleague who stated that they were looking for remnants of coal in order to ensure that they were fossils. But why look for coal traces when [according to the video] it's not necessary to determine whether they are fossils or not? And even if this was the case it certainly seems rather drastic to settle for this method knowing the samples would be forever annihilated in the process.

Personally I don't see any good reason to doubt Dr. Richard B. Hoovers research and of course have to concur to the fact that other non-Earthly life indeed is a reality. However, what I find even more intriguing is the insinuation that there appears to be forces that not only oppose the idea of other-wordly life, but actively suppress it, regardless of the increasing amount of good data that favors a living cosmos.

Ashtar Galactic Command speaking

Recently when enjoying an after work beer with a colleague of mine, the topic of UFOs arose. Even though he hadn't done any research into the subject, he was convinced that mundane explanations i.e. weather balloons, Venus, delirium etc. sufficiently could account for the phenomena. I took it all with ease, because when it comes to these matters this is by far the most common response you'll get.

I do however find it perplexing, that the main reason for the dismissiveness almost always stems from failed expectations. ”Why don't they land on the White House lawn (and hold a Press Conference)?” is the classic question which presupposes that an otherwordly intelligence, would they find their way here, obviously would chose a suitable metropole for landing and make itself known on a global scale.


(Apparently, it all comes down to a curious question of communication.)


The problem here lies in what we take for granted. Even if another intelligence could and also wished to communicate with us, the circumstances for this to occur are seldom discussed. Perhaps we overlook our own part in this as well; after all, communication requires two active parties. 

Personally I'm very fond of the idea that communication may be proceeded only under circumstances which leaves room for doubt, thus leaving our free will intact. Needless to say, the idea of information coming through human sources, for example psychic and channeled data, indeed appeals to me. Fascinating material are to be found from mentioned sources. As long as one watchfully pay attention to what's actually being presented as well as the environment surrounding its source, it's not very difficult to defend the intellect against the all too common nonsense. 

--

One of my favourite cases featuring information through doubtful means is known as the Southern Television broadcast interruption. On the 26th of November, 1977, the audio signal of an English news broadcast was hijacked by someone calling himself Vrillon, a representative of the Intergalactic Federation: Ashtar Galactic Command. Only the sound was interrupted, which means that the video broadcast kept rolling as Vrillons enigmatic voice conveyd a 6-minute-message of New Age-nature.

Nevermind the gray, the guy to the right seem to be the more accurate depiction of the Messenger.

Considering that the radio waves were transmitted through air, they were also vulnerable for interception, although an advance transmitter nearby as well as a great deal of expertise must've been necessary to pull it off. Not surprisingly the incident was therefore quickly dismissed as a hoax, lacking any conceivable alternative explanation.

Up until today, a suspect has never been identified. Taking into account the considerable amount of time that has passed since this happened, it's also unlikely that we'll ever find someone accountable for this. Hence the mystery remains. 

Regardless of the true origin of the monologue, I would like to suggest that the actual content of the message is what's actually important here. Looking beyond the distracting (and creepy) circumstances, one should soon recognize that profound wisdom is being shared. 

Timeless words of love.

What greater message could one convey ...

Ancient Universe

The mainstream cosmological model, widely referred to as the Big Bang-theory, tells us that the Universe is roughly 14 billion years old. A number that doesn't exactly make sense both according to science, as well as from a philosophical point of view, as we shall see. 

The datings are, among other things, based upon our understanding of the properties of light. Mainly the concept of redshift, which means that the distance of a stellar object, can be estimated by the wave length of the light it emits. 

Some of the most remote objects in the visible Universe are called quasars. These objects have redshifts which put them 10 billion light years away from us. On top of that they are extraordinary bright, which suggests that they are several hundred (even thousand) times more energy containing than the Milky Way galaxy. Go figure.

A quasar.

The recently deceased astronomer Halton Arp was one of few in this field who maintained a critical stance against the Big Bang-theory. He based his critique on observations he'd made when gathering pictures of galaxies. Many of the galaxies he observed showed seemingly connecting "bridges" between them and nearby quasars. Considering that the most distant galaxies he detected were approximately 200-300 million years away, they couldn't have any connection with each other what so ever - at least according to the Big Bang-enthusiasts.

 The NGC 7603 galaxy clearly shows a bridge between itself and a quasar.

The NGC 7319 galaxy even has a quasar in front of it.

Arp suggested that quasars derive from galaxies, thus implying a vastly younger age for these objects, and more importantly, that the mechanisms causing redshift aren't fully understood. He proposed that inherent characteristics could be responsible, although unsure of what exactly.

Furthermore, independent observations indeed support a new take on the nature of quasars. Early last year a large quasar group was detected in a rather concentrated area of the night sky; and if we are to believe that these objects are as massive as mainstream cosmology suggests, they constitute 5% of the visible Universe. A fact that directly contradicts the Cosmological Principle which states that matter should be evenly distributed throughout space.

...

Regardless of what's true, I'm intuitively inclined to favor an ancient Universe. The whole notion of dating the Universe through our puny Earth-perspective is not only naïve, but also absurd when we obviously haven't a clue about the nature of time in the first place.

Besides, it's only fair to assume that Existence foregoes Time.  

∞