[Marticus]

To be fair, they published a paper in 2006.

While slow, I can see how something like this would need heavily evidence-supported data to be even remotely non-laughable in even scientific communities.

Now I'm not disagreeing in saying that proving something "simple" like, say, the ability for the cells to reproduce at 121C could be somewhat easily verified, but usually with things like this just verifying something like that isn't grounds for publication by any means.

It's not that it's not interesting, but we're trying to prove that these are extraterrestrial life forms here. They're going to definitely want to prove, independently, the whole (likely) bundle of proposed theories, such as the fluorescence possibly linking them to (in the article) the Red Rectangle, plus verification that they do not have any type of DNA or RNA (harder than you'd think), plus other behaviorial/evolutionary traits not yet discovered before they consider it "proven" or otherwise.

To say that since one cannot be verified, thus it is all irrelevant or false is just impatience. Work with a grad student sometime who is pursuing their dissertation, haha.