T or E

"Its, its...Elvis!" [JR]

Come to think of it, it does look a little like EP. That's the first thing you've said that I agree with.
[] N

Same subject, different planet.

They have just reported finding a pyramid in Bosnia, buried inside a hill. Speculation gives it a height of 722 feet; the Great Pyramid is 481 feet tall.

Why build the largest known pyramid and then bury it? Maybe natural forces buried it. And I really hate to say this, but the Egyptians cannot claim to have built this one.

In an indirect way, this bolsters the case for artificial structures on Mars.

We have a truncated, official history.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gregg</i>
<br />They have just reported finding a pyramid in Bosnia, buried inside a hill.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Pyramid vs. publicity stunt is still in dispute. See www.livescience.com/history/060504_bosnia_controversy.html

Let's wait until the dust settles before we use this to draw any inferences. -|Tom|-

Pyramid vs. publicity stunt is still in dispute. See www.livescience.com/history/060504_bosnia_controversy.html

Let's wait until the dust settles before we use this to draw any inferences. -|Tom|-
[/quote]

I concede your point.

But, with unrestrained laughter, I see that the European Association of Archaeologists has been "injured and insulted".

Because:

1) Mister so-and-so is not a documented (indoctrinated?) archaeologist!

2) WE ALL KNOW that the cavemen of the Late,Upper, Paleolithic Period could only build flimsy huts!

3) Such sites should be dug up by only professionals! (Who would use dental tools so as not to damage the multi-ton rocks.)

One would think that a site visit would be needed to objectively determine what is there. But perhaps a quick missive out of Oxford will suffice.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gregg</i>
<br />"Mister so-and-so is not a documented (indoctrinated?) archaeologist!"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I share your distrust of academics. But I have a comparable distrust of businessmen who see a chance ot make a quick buck. As I said and you agreed), let's wait for the dust to settle. -|Tom|-

In previous posts in this thread, I gave some indications as to why the T or E feature may be, at least partially, an artificial construction. I want to add a few more factors along those lines.

1- The upper part (upright part of T) forms an almost perfect 90° angle to the natural trench. The other two arms as seen in the context images also seem to branch off the curved E-Backbone at a 90 degree angle.
2- The inner angles are cleanly cut and sloped downward on both sides of the trench with straight walls and a straight surface cut on both sides.
3- The “base” of the T (uppermost end of T in image) appears to be cut out in the shape of a diamond or oval with flat ledges, giving it a distinctively artificial look.
4- The upright part of the T is narrow at the base and widens in an even pattern until it meets the T-cross part, at which point are the two symmetrical inside corners.
5- The surface cut of this part of the T is a neat “machine cut” presumably unchanged since its construction due to minimal Martian erosion.
6- Dimensions and analysis of shape to follow further reinforce this hypothesis.

Calculations:
Width of T, Context M07-03577.gif (measurements done with digital calipers on screen images set to 100%): Width of screen image: 150 millimeters; # of Pixels: 572; 1 Pixel = 0.262 millimeters (screen) = 248 meters (actual). Screen Pixels (SP) per millimeter = 3.82. The Cross measures ~1.05 millimeter. Therefore the Cross width is 3.82SP x 248m x 1.05 = ~995 meters or 0.995km.

Width of T, Narrow Angle SP2-43004 cropping: (again from screen image set to 100%). Width of screen image: 155 millimeters; # of Pixels: 591; 1 Pixel = 0.262 millimeters (screen) = 7.29 meters (actual). Screen Pixels (SP) per millimeter = 3.82. The Cross measures ~35 millimeters. Therefore the Cross width is 3.82SP x 7.29m x 35 = 975 meters or 0.975km.

While these calculations by Rich don't really add to the artificiality hypothesis in this case, they do show that the hi-res and the context images refer to the same feature, and they give a good indication of the size of the feature.

Here are some preliminary (estimated) calculations to give an indication of the slope of the walls and the depth of the T.

Depth of T, Narrow Angle SP2-43004: The reader should bear in mind that the following are just estimates to get a sense of the dimensions involved. The shadows are vague; resolution is at best fair; the surface might be uneven, and so on. First some more estimates: estimate of width of floor of T-upright near T-cross: ~0.35km; estimate of width of walls at same location: ~0.4km.
1- Overall width of T-upright near inside angles = ~1.15km.
2- Shadow cast from east wall coincides with base of west wall (approximately).
3- Width of shadow across trench = ~0.75km, estimated as percentage of 1.
4- Incidence angle of Sun from MSSS specs = 78.4°.
5- Compliment angle of 4, between Sun and horizon = 11.6°.
6- Direction of Sun is the line projected between right inside corner of trench at ground level and shadow of same on floor of trench. Bear in mind that the shadow crosses the trench on a slant, thus increasing its length. This line is used as the hypotenuse of triangle drawn between 3 and 6 to right inside corner or trench.
7- We now draw a right triangle to get trench bottom horizontal distance = ~ 0.875km using the direction of the Sun to get to an imaginary point directly under right corner, measured with ruler.
0.875km (7/8km) becomes base of right angle triangle to determine height of trench from floor. 11.6° from 5 is small angle of triangle. Thus:

(tan11.6) = h/ (7/ = h/0.875; 0.875(tan11.6) = h; 0.875(0.20527) = h = 0.1796km = 589.24 feet.

Slope angle of T walls: Our estimates of the height of the T, (0.1796 km) and wall width (0.4 km) result in a slope angle of 24.18°; (tan (slope angle) = 0.1796/0.4 = 0.449; arctan 0.449 = 24.18°).

Final notes: The position of the spacecraft (MOC) in SP243004 is 129.08° longitude, and 20.51° latitude. This places the camera ~ 5° latitude north of the T and hence an emission angle of the MOC of 12.57° at the given altitude of the spacecraft of 1911km, for an offset of a little over 400km. This factor would have to be considered in a more accurate measurement of width and depth of the T. It also offers another possible optical illusion until we realize that the north wall of the T-cross may be sloped to the same degree as the walls in the T-upright. When the resultant foreshortening of the wall from that angle is taken into consideration it further supports our hypothesis that all the walls have the same slope. The presumed natural south wall of the cross is in the Sun’s glare and can’t be seen.

If after further imaging we see a repeat of some or most of the patterns here described for the "T feature," in the other two arms of the "E feature" seen in the context images, these findings would lend support to the artificiality hypothesis.

Neil