T or E

Note: "diamond-shaped" end of "T-Upright" is seen in the upper right corner of the image. Notice also the two veins of possible ore intersecting the T-Upright, one in it's center, and one trough the diamond. If these veins also intersected the other two arms of the "E," that would be interesting.

We'd also be interested in seeing if the other two arms share the same stylization as the "T" in the sense that if the "E" is a symbol to be seen from space, and if it represents some kind of ancient Letter/Character or Font, such as "Italics," then we should expect to see the same stylization in the other two arms: viz, we should expect to see the wide "base" of the "T" which narrows gracefully toward the "diamond," coming to a kind of "bottleneck" just before it reaches the diamond. If this pattern was repeated in the other two arms, that might be considered compelling evidence for artificiality. (spam deleted ND 4 13 08)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />and later through the efforts of archeologists on the ground, using their specialized knowledge, there might be ways to prove artificiality.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Oh yes, definitely. If it ever gets to that point (men on the ground) it could be proved if true. I didn't mean to imply that it couldn't at that point.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i></i>
For instance, what if the unusual looking "diamind-shaped" end of the T (see first image of this post) was replicated in the other two arms? If so, that would be strong evidence of artificiality.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That would be super-strong circumsantial evidence....to some. But to others, nothihg would matter. Remember what the OJ Jury said about DNA? They said, "DNA SchmeeNA"

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<br />When your working with thousands upon thousands of images.. It's pretty difficult to sum up all your understandings into a short post that "casual observers would even try to comprehend"

Lets leave it to the same "group" that has got us this far in 40 years.. I eat right I hope to live a long life..
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Trinket, I don't understand this. Who has worked with "thousands of images"? And who is the "group"? And who is the "us" in "got us this far in 40 years"?

I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.

Thanks.

BTW, I didn't mean to offend you with the Woody Allen movie story. It was a joke. Even though I've been away from New York for 29 years, I still get accused of having a New York sense of humor that not everybody gets.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
Whether or not they prove to be artificial is an open question, but I thought we were making some good points.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The problem with this whole discussion is quite simple: there has been a complete absence of attempts to explain any unusual features via natural processes. Instead, anytime someone finds anything that doesn't have an obvious natural explanation or analog to known geology the starting assumption is that it's possibly artificial and critics are put in the position of having to disprove a thesis that isn't supported by any real evidence in the first place. This approach can hardly be called scientific. And then there's the pareidolia...

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />there has been a complete absence of attempts to explain any unusual features via natural processes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't know about "any", but in this case yes, that's absolutely true. But I thought that was the whole purpose of a forum. All it would take would be for one knowledgable person to post why they thought these features existed. I don't think the "onus" is on anyone. We're just sharing ideas. I would be very open to opposing points of view. I, for one, just don't know of how these features may have formed naturally.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i></i>
Instead, anytime someone finds anything that doesn't have an obvious natural explanation or analog to known geology the starting assumption is that it's possibly artificial<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't think there's anything wrong with exploring the "possibilities". Seems logical to me. I'm forever dealing with "possibilities".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i></i>and critics are put in the position of having to disprove a thesis that isn't supported by any real evidence in the first place.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Critics? Critics of what?

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
I don't think there's anything wrong with exploring the "possibilities". Seems logical to me. I'm forever dealing with "possibilities".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That justification for entertaining unnatural explanations before exhausting the natural ones sounds disturbingly similar to the one the Intelligent Design advocates use and the standard for what constitutes "evidence" in this exercise seems likewise based more on wishful thinking than scientific examination.

JR