Hi Brian
Thanks for the comments.
I do not think that I have taken that leap to extremism that you speak of. I think I have pointed out several times that my starting point is the WORKING HYPOTHESIS (not belief) that the Viking LR experiments indeed found life. The alternative working hypothesis is that elusive superoxides, which have never been found on Mars, caused the reactions. Neither working hypothesis has been proven so far. I've been collecting data points on both sides of the equation but particularly on the life side.
I haven't ignored the facts that suggest there is no life, the most troubling of which is the continued failure to find Organics at the surface, but I am still hopeful that some will be found by Phoenix from samples below the surface.
RE. the perchlorides, my point has been that if perchlorides are present in significant quantity and fairly widespread on Mars their presence would not support a chemical explanation of the Viking LR and GEX results but would support a possibility that there might be anaerobic microbes utilizing them as an energy source that could explain the Viking results from the standpoint of biology.
As I've said many times, I really value your enlightened and scholarly views in this ongoing debate and appreciate the effort you have made in researching and pointing out several datapoints that support the anti-life argument.
Mann; The last set of OM images are slightly better than the previous ones however focusing is still off and so the particles are still not clearly demarcated from the surface, particularly on the silicone media.
I don't think i've made any claims about the circled areas except that the particles in them are of a size or shape that suggest to me that the AFM should look at them more closely. I don't think they should be passed of as unambiguous mineral origin.
I see some strange beasties in Hort's last image using a glyph of the image but as you suggested they are probably not as dramatic as can be seen in the original x-eyed view.
Winston