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 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 />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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I was answering your question:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What are the "natural ones"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
JR

<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>
<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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The "Martians did it" argument has the same fundamental problem as the "God did it" one: it is an explanation that can be applied to EVERY question without independent proof that the "Martians" exist and it destroys the rationale and motivation for finding purely natural explanations.

Why does Mars have only a thin atmosphere? Lack of magnetic field to protect it from solar wind? Nope, the Martians did it.

Why did Mars' axis shift? Imbalance caused by mass gained on one side of planet from nearby exploding planet? Nope, the Martians did it.

Why did planet K and the others explode? Release of energy from graviton absorption? Nope, the Martians did it.

What caused the CMB? Equilibrium temperature of space heated by starlight. Nope, the Martians did it.

Why did humans evolve? Natural selection? Nope, the Martians did it.

Sound far fetched? Why? After all, they're just "possibilities based on prior evidence of a compelling kind". Think its misguided to advance non-natural explanations when natural ones will suffice? Precisely.

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> I was answering your question: what are the "natural ones"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Oh, ok sorry. It was late, and for some reason I thought you were talking about my last message.

rd

<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 />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. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

jrich,

I can't argue with any of this. Those are certainly plausible explanations. But what we're doing is building upon what we already consider to be evidence of artificiality. The "T" is very unnatural looking, even though your explanation could in fact hold. Once you take an unnatural feature, it's not such a great leap to hypothesize causes for other features that aren't natural.

True, you could say that we can never make that first case, but I think there's just too much evidence for making that first case.

Take the Nefertiti scene, for instance. There's way too much detail there for it to be natural, if higher resolution images show that not only is it there, but maybe add some interesting data to what we already see, like color, for instance, or another figure that's also clearly there.

And that's only one example, there's tons of stuff that hints at artificiality. So, as far as we're concerned, the first case has already been made. We're just speculating on other possible artifacts.

We have no "agenda" to speak of.

rd

"The "Martians did it"" [jrich]

As usual, I never said anything even remotely resembling this, nor did anyone I know of who I agree with and support. The late, great Carl Sagan believed that it was highly probable that life of the intelligent variety exists on many planets in our galaxy. If this is likely, why deny it, why cringe when we see probable signs of it? I say investigate, go boldly, accept the inevetable if it proves to be so!

If you kick him, he could almost talk. (Cropped from E2001532, brightness and contrast adjusted only.) There are only two choices here: trick photography, or the real Macoy. Neil

<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>
If you kick him, he could almost talk. (Cropped from E2001532, brightness and contrast adjusted only.) There are only two choices here: trick photography, or the real Macoy. Neil<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">OMG! How could I have been so blind! Its, its...Elvis!

Sorry, Neil. I didn't see anything and I'm actually very good at those <i>Where's Waldo?</i> visual searches. So I'll have to check "none of the above". Not really surprising. One of the hallmarks of pareidolia is that it is very subjective.

JR