Three or more Mars meteorites give impression of life on Mars

The most recent release of researcher data and imaging at SEM and EM size scale gives the impression to professionals that there may be a growth process on Mars which resembles growth items on Earth.
Looking at the satellite imaging on Mars, and seeing additional images of a seasonal and changing terrain on the Martian polar zones gives additional impressions of a growth or erosion/alteration process which resembles Earth type soil erosion processes. On Earth we think of life as being the primary or secondary process, in competition to liquid water, CO2, and related active chemistry.
In actual geological history, we are watching a landmass cycling system which is dominated by the Earth water basins, leaving us a small fraction of residue from our non-oxygen early history which would match the Mars environment.
We have to admit, we really do not know what we are looking at on Mars.
Link .
Not just a rock.
Possibly, just a rock.

“Terrorists” are still in NASA & Science Magazine

A few days ago Lana Tao, senior executive managing director of the Journal of Cosmology, issued a statement entitled “Have terrorists won?” In the statement the Journal of Cosmology accused some people in NASA and Science magazine of “terrorist” acts. Tens of thousands of people have seen the statement. But the statement was withdrawn from the Journal for unknown reason.

In fact, the “terrorists” are still in NASA and Science Magazine and numerous alien fossils have been found in many meteorites. See evidence at

Someone said:
Still looks like it's there to me:

Actually I was confused and meant another statement about closing the publication and detailed acts by people in NASA and Science Magazine who blocked contact with media,distribution of the journal. That statement has been withdrawn because the journal now decides to continue to publish.

While we speak reasonably 'freely' here on this blog, with some sentenced to the 'Against the Mainstream' section of this blog in a partial censure, we must acknowledge the non-free environment of the staid science community who have to ensure that published information is a one time path of travel for most all professionals. To publish, means that the person has spoken honestly to their best capability, among professionals especially, and I sincerely appreciate the honest efforts of those who seek to broaden my viewpoints with the newest information.
It has always been difficult for persons to publish science claims, and the grading of presitige among the groups can be a valuable aspect of inducing self discipline and filtering of weak ideas.
I make no claims in most images where I see a pattern suggesting possible life, but I would never take a few images to the journal Science, and try to make a claim with determination or certainty.
Hopefully the images presented in the links I provided, and the fact that the organics are now completely missing from more quiescently environmentally conditioned samples of Archean Earth fossils, will give persons the intrigue sufficient to hold both journals in good standing to allow a mixing and sorting and grading, of the information about Mars meteorites and the possibility that they did contain organic life type ordered materials.
I do not have direct observation of the contents of the images we can see in print in the Journal of Cosmology. I can only wonder and read the critical viewpoints of many professionals and sincere amateurs.
We can request a professional judgment over time.
I hope to see many examples of private held Mars and Chondrite meteorites given SEM and related imaging, with 'open journal' publishing of images free of charge to the main population, so, we can all make intelligent discussion and pass judgment on the content.
If you have ever tried identifying minerals or rocks, you find the increasing numbers of unidentifiable items a stream of time consuming challenges, unless the instruments of science are used to find a path for decision making.
Differentiating life from minerals is not easy by eyesight in many cases; It is easy in many other cases we have experience with.
That last comment is the reason I never exclude the possibilities prior to the science of discovery in measuring how much life has been influential on items in images. It takes samples and instruments to find the content of rocks, minerals, and life type chemistry. All information sources should be given consideration.
Mars meteorites may not have recoverable content, as would the very differentiated space confined meteorite material.

I am interested in the conduct of groups who suppress information, and that is not uncommon in governments, companies, and corporations.

Readers of this blog know of the many images of suggestive shapes in meteorite images especially the recently classified Mars meteorites. Several recent topics showed detailed closeups or enlarged sections with growths of interlocking 'branchlet' type materials, as yet to be identified as either mineral or other growth types, either terrestrial or Martian.
Here is a water shape of extreme low temperature formation preference of simple H2O.

Nearly all peer-reviewed journals are limited to very few people, accessible only through subscriptions or libraries. When mass media report scientific news, reporters often use press release furnished by university. In many cases, scientific conclusions can be wrong, and the general public is misinformed.

In view of the above, there is monopoly by a few.

Lack of full "Open Access" to the published documentation of professional science persons, lack of 'open debate' and transfer of information of basic research, and the various economic filters and mechanisms of exclusion, do give the effect and popular cognizance of a denial of access, and, aids in thwarting or blunting popular participation by the interested public.
Protecting the quality control mechanisms of science content does not have to preclude popular investment in the building and distribution of research.
The level of noise versus value is always a large portion of the building and distribution process of professional science.
How to include those interested in science with the professional science groups has always been seen socially as a problem.
Does this blog and others similar to it aid in the process? Should Journals be able to move between the professional and the popular in various ways?
Perhaps research should be allowed as 'unfinished' or 'open in popular debate', as online mechanisms to accommodate larger numbers of interested persons. Science has always had a public understood problem of extreme filtration of memberships, and filtration of full disclosure of finished product.
Online access to both could be a matter of 'noise' or an added value of man-hours and increased testing selectivity.

I don't know how to respond.
I did some 'Stardustathome' again today, and was appalled when I made mistakes in perceiving particle impacts, but the noise level and appearances often overlap, giving a statistical preference to individual 'perfect' viewing in the counting of image sets seen as 'movies'. I can be useful but not perfect, and may be graded my work by many factors, but the work is not professional science in a single pass by one person. It is a group effort, minimizing selection mistakes and failures as non-professional volunteers. Even the machinery limits capable choices.
I believe science is best distributed and written socially, in an 'open forum' context such as this blog, but many haven't the interest or commitment to participate.

I wrote the topic title as a gesture in humor of the popular swings of perception versus the accepted final product of 'one solution only' as Science, but there is a problem of social lack of participation, and investment in the process of basic and professional science generally. Additionally, there are several periods of popular interest in disclosures of several meteorite groups now in the recent historical public perception, giving a roller coaster effect of public ambivalence and confusion.

In a public forum the critical is increased, along with the non-science noise factor. It can be constructive or resistant to a final science process product.

Common distribution of inexpensive table top SEM's and other equipment will speed popular science product, but will always be facing filtering mechanisms of resistance and restriction.

You may each know more than I do about finished science publication, but where is all the popular interest and value that is possible with greater participation in numbers?

Press releases from Journal of Cosmology:

Related to the controversy: