Talk:ALH84001
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Solar System WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Solar System, and WikiProject Mars, which collaborates on articles related to Mars. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
ALH84001 is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
The annoucement of the ALH84001 was first made by a NASA Press Release August, 7th 1996 with later statements of President Bill Clinton. The article in Science published August, 16th.
See Press Release from NASA at ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1996/96-160.txt See Press Release from White House at http://clinton6.nara.gov/1996/08/1996-08-07-remarks-by-president-upon-departure.html See McKay, D. S. & Gibson Jr., E. K. (1996). Search for past life on Mars: Possible relic biogenic activity in Martian meteorite ALH84001. Science 273(5277): 924-931.
All of the facts included in this page are true, with the exception that it could not be confirmed to any reliable degree using radio-carbon 14 dating, since it is far too old. I would propose removing the reference to this test, since it doesn't apply to any object whose supposed arrival on earth was far past the acceptable threshhold of RC-14 dating.
[edit] Exogenesis
Is the comment about the word "Exogenesis" really necessary? It just redirects to the Panspermia article. Count Zero 08:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The last two links in the External Link category do not work.
[edit] ==Opinion or Fact?==
The article states that "most experts agree", and somewhat later cites a reference from the Associated Press that the finding has been discredited. References should be from either scientific sources or from published surveys so that we do not have to simply trust that "most experts agree"... (I know a number of experts who do Not agree).
Moreover, nanobacteria have not been discredited; to the contrary, the evidence is growing that they do indeed exist. See for example the Wikipedia article on Nanobacterium, particularly the findings in 2005-2006 Nanobacterium. Bonnie108 17:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
