NASA, Murchison, and Mars: Clarifying the Disagreement

All articles by Wretch Fossil are here: http://www.wretch.cc/blog/lin440315&category_id=0

ChatGPT 5.1 wrote the following article, (a rewritten version of my post of Oct. 31, 2021)

NASA, Murchison, and Mars: Clarifying the Disagreement

For many years I have argued that scientists underestimate the connection between certain meteorites and Mars. Among them, the Murchison meteorite is central in my work. In earlier posts and photo albums I suggested that Murchison, and many meteorites like it, may preserve fossil-like microstructures and share deep links with Martian materials.

In this rewritten post, I want to:

1. Clearly state what the mainstream scientific view is about Murchison and meteorite origins.

2. Explain how my own interpretation differs, and on what observations it is based.

3. Clarify what I mean when I say that NASA “mistakes” Murchison as non-Martian.

In standard cosmochemistry, the Murchison meteorite is one of the best-studied samples:

• It is classified as a CM2 carbonaceous chondrite.

• Its oxygen-isotope composition places it firmly in the CM chondrite field, not on the Martian isotope line.

• Its mineralogy (chondrules, matrix, CAIs, aqueous alteration) is interpreted as evidence of formation and processing on a small asteroid-like parent body, not on Mars.

• It is famous for its very rich suite of extraterrestrial organic compounds (amino acids, sugars, nucleobases, etc.), usually regarded as primitive solar-system organics formed in or around its parent body.

From this perspective, Murchison is a primitive asteroid fragment that fell to Earth. It is not classified as Martian, and it is not considered part of the small group of confirmed Martian meteorites (SNC and related types).

This classification is supported by multiple lines of evidence: isotopes, mineral chemistry, textures, and dynamical models of how rocks travel through the Solar System. It is accepted not only by NASA but by the broader meteorite and planetary science communities.

NASA and other groups frequently use Murchison as a reference meteorite when studying organics on comets, asteroids and Mars. For example, in a 2021 Lunar and Planetary Science Conference abstract about organics detected by the Curiosity rover in Gale crater, some aromatic compounds on Mars are compared to those produced when Murchison is heated and analyzed in the laboratory.

The logic in such studies is:

“If carbonaceous-chondrite meteorites like Murchison fall onto Mars, some of their organics could resemble the organics that Curiosity detects.”

In other words, NASA uses Murchison as an analog for organic-rich meteorite material that might land on Mars. They are not claiming that Murchison itself is a Martian rock; rather, they treat it as a non-Martian meteorite that could deliver organics to the Martian surface.

So when I say “NASA treats Murchison as non-Martian,” this is simply a restatement of the official classification: CM2 carbonaceous chondrite from an asteroid-like parent body.

Despite accepting that this is the current consensus, I have reached a different interpretation based on my own long-term observations.

In my Flickr albums and blog posts (search “Murchison meteorite” on both):

• I show thin-section and high-magnification images of Murchison with features that, in my eyes, resemble:

  • wood-cell walls and lumina,

  • tubular or fibrous bundles,

  • polygonal tissue-like networks.

• I compare these micro-architectures with:

  • textures in Martian rocks imaged by rovers,

  • microstructures in other meteorites,

  • and features in asteroid samples such as Bennu and Ryugu.

Across these comparisons, I repeatedly see similar “tissue-like” geometries in:

• Murchison meteorite,

• various other meteorites,

• selected Martian rock surfaces,

• and some Bennu/Ryugu samples.

From this, I have personally argued that:

1. Many meteorites — including Murchison — may contain fossil-like or wood-cell–like structures, not just random mineral patterns.

2. The repeated appearance of such structures on Mars, in meteorites, and in asteroid samples suggests a shared origin or shared processing environment, possibly involving Mars.

3. It is therefore plausible, in my view, that a significant fraction of meteorites, including Murchison, ultimately trace back to Martian materials or Martian-related engineered composites, even if they are not currently classified as Martian meteorites.

This is a strong, speculative hypothesis, driven mainly by morphology and pattern repetition, and I present it as such.

It is important to be explicit about the disagreement.

• Mainstream evidence (isotopes, mineralogy, dynamics) supports:

  • Murchison = CM2 carbonaceous chondrite from an asteroid-like parent body.

  • Only a small fraction of meteorites are confirmed Martian, and Murchison is not among them.

• My interpretation:

  • Gives much more weight to morphological similarities across Murchison, Mars and certain asteroid samples.

  • Treats repeated “wood-cell-like” microstructures as possible biological or engineered tissues, not merely geological textures.

  • Proposes that many meteorites—including Murchison—may have Martian origin or involvement, despite their current classification.

At present, the isotopic and petrologic data have not been overturned. My view stands outside the mainstream and is regarded as highly speculative by most specialists. I acknowledge this clearly so that readers can distinguish:

• what is widely accepted evidence, and

• what is my personal hypothesis based on image-driven pattern recognition.

In my original phrasing, I wrote that “NASA mistakes Murchison meteorite as non-Martian” and that “most meteorites, including Murchison meteorite, originated from Mars.” This can be read as if I were stating a settled fact. That is not accurate in the strict scientific sense.

A more precise way to express my position is:

NASA and the wider community currently classify Murchison as a non-Martian CM2 carbonaceous chondrite, based on strong isotopic and mineralogical evidence. I accept that this is the official classification. However, based on repeated tissue-like microstructures I see in Murchison, in other meteorites, and on Mars, I personally suspect that Murchison and many meteorites may ultimately be linked to Martian materials or Martian-related engineered tissues in ways that are not yet recognized by NASA or mainstream cosmochemistry.

In other words:

• The “mistake” I refer to is not a simple labeling error on one sample, but, in my opinion, a deeper underestimation of possible biological or engineered signatures and of hidden Martian connections in meteorites like Murchison.

I repeat this subject because I believe it is important to:

• Question whether morphology plus chemistry in meteorites and asteroid samples is being interpreted too narrowly.

• Consider the possibility that fossil-like or wood-cell–like architectures are real and meaningful, not just visual coincidences.

• Re-examine the relationships between:

  • meteorites such as Murchison,

  • Martian rocks,

  • and samples from Bennu, Ryugu and other small bodies.

I understand that my hypothesis contradicts the current consensus and that many readers will not agree. Nevertheless, I think it is valuable to present these alternative interpretations, clearly labeled as such, alongside links to the images and materials that led me to them:

• Flickr search for Murchison meteorite:
  (your search URL here)

• My Murchison-related photo albums:
  (album URLs)

• My other blog posts about Murchison and ET fossils:
  (your search result URL: https://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/search?q=murchison)

Readers can then examine both the official classifications and my image-based arguments and decide for themselves.

(Text rewritten to separate mainstream evidence from my personal hypothesis while preserving my concern about Murchison’s origin.) 

Wretch Fossil’s website:http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/