T or E

<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 />That justification for entertaining unnatural explanations before exhausting the natural ones sounds disturbingly similar to the one the Intelligent Design <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What are the "natural ones"?

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>
<br /><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 />That justification for entertaining unnatural explanations before exhausting the natural ones sounds disturbingly similar to the one the Intelligent Design <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What are the "natural ones"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You know, the usual boring ones: erosion, quakes, floods, volcanism, chemistry, radiation, meteor impacts, exploding planets...

If the point of your examination is looking for evidence of artificiality, the human imagination is such that you're likely to almost always be able to interpret the data available to suit your purposes. This may be fun and entertaining, but its not likely to lead to anything resembling scientific knowledge or truth.

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 />You know, the usual boring ones: erosion, quakes, floods, volcanism, chemistry, radiation, meteor impacts, exploding planets...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ok, fair enough.

Erosion? If it was erosion, it would still be curious. Why did the trenches erode, and not the surrounding terrain. There would have to be a reason. So, there isn't really a good model for erosion. Not in the natural sense. For instance, in the processing of semiconductor devices, the wafer is covered with photoresist, which is then exposed to light, much the same as a piece of film is. Then, depending upon the type of photoresist, either the exposed part, or the unexposed part is polymerized and washed away, leaving the pattern that was exposed to light, either as trenches or mounds. That's a form of erosion that isn't natural. The trenches eroding would be analogous to that. There could be a natural reason, still, but maybe not.

Quakes? I live in California. These trenches are not being caused by disruptions on fault lines. I'll bet you anything on that one.

Radiation? I don't think so. Unless Superman is looking for something.

Meteor impacts? That would be like the "magic bullet" in the Kennedy assassination.

Exploding planets? What are you suggesting? How would an exploding planet do this? Anything is possible, but aren't you being as fast and loose with the theorizing, as you are accusing us of being?



<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>
If the point of your examination is looking for evidence of artificiality<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In a way, I see your point here. There is such a thing as "if you look, you can find anything." I'm not disputing that. On the other hand, if you look at some of this stuff logically, the kinds of questions that Neil and I are raising are really quite valid.

rd

rd,

I wasn't attempting to provide natural explanations for the T feature in particular, but examples of what would constitute a natural explanation. Based on your confusion I think I may have misinterpreted your question.

My opinion of the feature in question is that it is a small, partially collapsed section of much larger cavern system. There's no question that the close proximity of the high volcanic plateau would likely provide a ready source of either subsurface lava or liquid water. The sharp angles could result from the existence of harder rock which the flow by chance encountered at a perpendicular angle. The flow that produced the cavity would then proceed through the softer material along the boundary. The area appears to be covered to a signifant depth with a fine material like volcanic ash that has filled the channels and given them a flat bottom and angled sides.

Thats just one simple natural explanation. The actual events that formed the T may be more complicated and entirely different. But I don't see any reason to believe that they weren't natural. There is visual evidence of older channels that are shallower and bisected by the ones that form the T. I haven't seen any claims that they appear to be artificial so why is there any reason to believe that newer channels in the same area weren't formed by the same natural process. Furthermore, in the context images the farther one follows the channels from the T, the more natural they appear be.

A perfectly satifactory natural explanation for this and other features can be discovered, but it requires that one be inclined to finding one instead of satisfying other agendas.

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 />Based on your confusion I think I may have misinterpreted your question.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

jrich,

You present a lot of interesting possible (and speculative) explanations of natural causes for the terrain in the area of the T. But with all due respect, I'm not confused, and I wasn't actually asking a question.

But thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

rd

<i>Originally posted by jrich </i><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I wasn't attempting to provide natural explanations for the T feature in particular, but examples of what would constitute a natural explanation. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't discount the possibility that the T or E feature is the result of natural, as opposed to artificial, causes. That's why I'd like to see more detailed imaging of the entire feature. I hypothesized above that there are certain characteristics of this feature that, if repeated in the other two "arms" visible in the context images shown above, and also seen in the link, would be good evidence of artificiality:
www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0303753.html

More and better imaging would aid in deciding what was the actual cause of at least a part of this feature. Was it natural or artificial? I believe that the existence of other apparent artificial structures and possible artworks on Mars, makes feasable the possibility that there may be more. All we want to do is study them. Won't you help us to do that, if only to falsify our theory? That, after all is a legitimate function of the process.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That justification for entertaining unnatural explanations before exhausting the natural ones sounds disturbingly similar to the one the Intelligent Design advocates use<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Nice try. Nobody here (well, at least nobody I support) is arguing for "Intelligent Design" of the spiritual or supernatural kind. Neither are we looking for "unatural explanations." We are just keeping an open mind to the possibility that there are artifacts constructed by intelligent beings (the corporeal kind--like us). Our assumption of such a possibility is based on prior evidence of a compelling kind.

Neil