Reconsidering the Abiotic Assumption for Geometric Particles in Martian and Terrestrial Thin Sections

1. The Core Issue: Arrangement, Not Just Shape The attached assessment argues that the “squares and circles” seen in my Martian images can be explained by ordinary mineral cleavage, crystal habits, or polygonal patterned ground. This argument overlooks the core claim: not just the presence of geometric shapes, but their precise, organized, repeating arrangement consistent with fossilized plant tissue (e.g., wood cells). Mineral cleavage produces isolated or random fractures, not aligned, multi-cellular patterns with consistent orientation.

2. Lack of a Direct Counter-Image The assessment repeatedly asserts that “various minerals naturally exhibit highly geometric crystal habits” but does not show a single published thin-section image that matches my specific figure one-to-one at the 10–100 µm scale. Without such direct empirical evidence, the claim that these shapes are common abiotic structures remains an assumption.

3. Pareidolia Is Not Sufficient Pareidolia explains random perception of familiar patterns. However, when structures repeat systematically, with regular spacing, alignment, and size distribution, the probability of pure chance drops sharply. The report does not attempt any statistical or morphological test to demonstrate that my observed pattern can plausibly form by chance.

4. Tissint Meteorite Context The assessment admits Tissint contains diverse organic compounds but asserts these are “abiotic” by default. It neglects any microstructural mapping that might correlate localized carbon phases with the supposed “wood cell” pattern. Without a direct chemical test on the areas highlighted by my arrows, the “abiotic” conclusion is premature.

5. No Falsification Provided The report emphasizes that morphology alone cannot prove life — which is true — but it fails to address that a truly abiotic alternative must be demonstrated, not assumed. Until a thin-section or SEM image shows the same repeating squares/circles in a non-biological context with full microstructural match, the claim is not falsified.

6. Summary I welcome rigorous counter-evidence — specifically:

• Real thin-section photos at matching scale and context.

• High-resolution isotopic and elemental tests directly on the claimed fossil structures.

• Peer-reviewed side-by-side comparison.

Without this, the blanket statement “these are minerals” is not definitive. The burden remains open to test my claim properly, not dismiss it by default.