The paper considers the arguments of the two studies[4,7], which critisize the authorÂs publications[ 2,3] in which the detection of objects on the surface of Venus, hypothetically related to the presence of life on the planet was presented. In a detailed critique the author suggests that Âthe Âstrange stoneÂ is a geological formation consisting of rounded angular fragments cemented by volcanic material, lava or tuffaceous material.Â The images shown in the article have nothing in common with a Âstrange rockÂ and are just a common geological material. They have neither a regular structure of the ÂowlÂ, nor the peculiarities of its structure. The difference is so striking that it is hard to believe that a specialist in mineralogy can actually see something in common in these images, but can not see the regular structure of the ÂowlÂ that is not inherent to stones. Another critic compares the methods of transmitting images by radio link and suggests that differences in the images caused by the properties of the type of used modulation. It is shown that in instead of one and the same image, two different images (mistakenly or deliberately) were presented (obtained at intervals of about 87 minutes). Their time of registration was clearly indicated in. Differences in the content of pictures are related to the planetÂs surface, and not to the properties of the link. Along with the answers to the criticism, the article provides a new result, discovered by processing images from VENERA-13 lander.