UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Mar > Mar 12

Re: Hoagland's Fossil Theory - Stanford

From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 23:52:50 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:12:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Hoagland's Fossil Theory - Stanford


>From: Nick Balaskas <Nikolaos.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:52:38 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
>Subject: Re: Hoagland's Fossil Theory

>>From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:41:19 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Hoagland's Fossil Theory

>>>From: Chaz Stuart <Daydisk2.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:50:01 -0500
>>>Subject: Hoagland's Fossil Theory

>>>Don't laugh! I don't know about the "cover-up", but he does make
>>>a rather strong case for this fossil being a crinoid relative or
>>>"sea lily" stem:


>>http://www.enterprisemission.com/articles/03-08-2004/crinoid_cover-up.htm

>>>(too many important, relevant pix to just post the text).

>>Strong case? In your mind, maybe, but not in mine. I went to the
>>webpage and read everything and examined the images. Not as bad
>>as George A. Filer with his allegation of Martian writing on
>>rock, but those Hoagland quotes are from poor observers and
>>interpreters because their perceptions are clearly colored by
>>what they want to see, in much the same way that they have
>>artificially colored (not calibrated, but colored) the
>>'blueberries' blue. Look how it distorts the balance of colors,
>>extremely so in one of the images.

>>They are as kids playing around with fake money and pretending
>>they are rich.

>>But, what's new? Hoagland has been playing that game for years
>>now.

>>And now we have George Filer playing a more extreme game without
>>even the play money of simulacra. His claim of finding letters
>>resembling ours on Martian rock is nothing short of
>>unadulterated fantasy. With his pretentious silliness before
>>reporters (as in recent days), IMO, UFO research needs no other
>>enemies.
>
>Hi Ray!
>
>There are numerous examples of such "out of place artifacts" or
>OOPARTs here on Earth, so why not on Mars too? Reference to such
>things was made on Errol's UFO radio show last Saturday night.
>
>Since Nature does seem to imitate Man too, it is not surprising
>that such things will be identified in the Mars rocks by
>careful, but not necessarily critical, observers. The human mind
>fills in details or interprets the images we see so that the two
>capital letters, E and G, although they are the same size and
>interesting is not very compelling evidence of past intelligent
>life on Mars. Never-the-less, such evidence should never be
>selectively ignored as is often done by scientists just because
>it goes against their beliefs or the currently accepted
>scientific views.
>
>Since you have much experience searching for and identifying
>fossils here on Earth, I would like your opinion on what you see
>in these images of rocks brought back to Earth from the Moon by
>the robotic 'Luna' Soviet spacecraft. Do these look like fossils
>to you, George Filer or Richard Hoagland (see web site below)?
>
>http://www.panspermia.org/zhmur2.htm
>
>Since the Moon is in Earth's backyard of space, these fossil
>looking objects could very well be identical to early Earth life
>that was blasted out into space from large meteor impacts in the
>past.


Nick,

Undoubtedly, the little spheres shown at the panspermia website
are glass micro-spherules from impact events, which are abundant
on the moon. I have several nice slices of lunar highland
breccia right here (from well-documented lunar meteorites), and
they abound with spherules and micro spherules of anorthisitic
(and some other) glass. I think I may even see one or two tiny
spherules of white anorthisitic glass in a lunar mare basalt
slice. I have also closely examined such spherules brought back
by one of the manned lunar missions when my wife temporarily had
some under her guardianship, over-night, in connection with her
job with NASA. I took some nice macro photos of them.

The ringed thing could have any number of causes (See below, for
one.) that are more plausible than the fossil interpretation,
especially if it really came from the moon. I surely would
hesitate to invoke Terra-Luna panspermia to account for
something like that, which is clearly made of glass resulting
from an impact. I trust you understand my point.

If the Russians officials thought those things shown on that
very speculative (due to its unfounded interpretations) website
to be fossils, you can bet the U.S. would have heard about it in
the context of, maybe, "Hey! Look what your astronauts
overlooked!" And, by contrast, if the Russians (or former
Soviets) wanted to cover up (for inconceivable reasons) the
discovery of past life on Luna, they surely would not have let
those images out into public view -- if, in fact, they really
were collected on the moon (and I'm not saying I believe
otherwise).

Believe me, if they were really fossils, they would have shown
up in a major journal by now. What scientist could resist
seeking such a 'feather in his cap' and maybe even a Nobel Prize
for such a discovery if he or she should have confidence in the
fossil interpretation?

I would refer you to, for example, the book Moon Rocks And
Minerals, 1971, Pergamon Press, Inc. (Scientific Results of the
Study of the Apollo 11 Lunar Samples...) It has abundant photos
of spheres and microspheres of glass, and Plate 7, top, shows a
multi-ring hypervelocity impact crater (evidently formed by the
strike of a micrometeorite) with surrounding chipped (spalled)
zone, on a dark brown glass sphere from the lunar fines. That
is very reminiscent of the ridiculously alleged, "...silicated
fossil found in lunar regolith similar to modern spiral
filamentous microorganisms such as Phormidium frigidum..." shown
on that panspermia website. Such a statement shouts of
intellectual dishonesty. Even if it were a fossil (which it
clearly is not), the writer would be hard-put to account for how
it became "silicified" on a waterless moon. In fact, quite a
few very excellent examples of such multi-ring impact craters in
glass are illustrated elsewhere in the book I just referenced.
The person who put together that website and made those claims
shows a deep ignorance of the well-documented identity of lunar
materials, or else is just a dreamer who has little regard for
established facts.

O.K., Nick, you asked for my opinion, so there you have it. As
you state, I have a lot of experience with terrestrial fossils.
 As is not the case with most paleontologists and
paleoichnologists, I also have appreciable experience in the
study of meteorites, including lunar and Martian meteorites, and
with impact glasses (relevant here, and of which I have a very
extensive collection), and a bit of first-hand experience with a
couple of Apollo lunar samples. For those reasons, your asking
my opinion is appreciated, because I feel that I do not speak
'in the dark' on such things.


Ray Stanford

"You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles." --
Sherlock Holmes in The Boscombe Valley Mystery




[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com