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 neilderosa</i>
<br />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%): (Fig. 7). 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. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think it might be interesting to readers if we explain why we bothered to do this comparison between the context image and the "T".

In the beginning, we were very suspicious of the T (Neil and I are suspicious types, in general), for some of the same reasons that Trinket pointed out early in this thread. The thing just looked weird. After we got over thinking it was a mound, we still weren't totally convinced it wasn't "messed with" in some way. But that was before we knew about all the context images that existed for it.

Once Neil found all the context images, we figured we could at least convince ourselves that the "E" feature in the context was the same thing as the famous "T". I wouldn't be surprised if others have done this, but we didn't know about it if they did.

The calculations convinced us that the T was really there, and it was that size. Plus, with a little help from Tom, we finally got the "trench" vs "mound" controversy settled.

The bottom line is that these steps convinced us that the "T" is exactly what it appears to be, and there was no monkey business involved. That's why we started to approach the question of "why is it so reflective" from a different point of view.

rd

<i>Originally posted by rd </i><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The bottom line is that these steps convinced us that the "T" is exactly what it appears to be, and there was no monkey business involved. That's why we started to approach the question of "why is it so reflective" from a different point of view.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would also add, or repeat, that having convinced ourselves that there was no "monkey business" involved, we were all the more curious about why it looks so anomolous ("unatural looking" to the intuition). I will have some more on that shortly. Here is the T with width measurements.

(spam deleted 4/13/08)
Neil

Question of ignorance: are there any other plausible artificial structures or marking in the general vicinity of the "T or E"?

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 />Question of ignorance: are there any other plausible artificial structures or marking in the general vicinity of the "T or E"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, we discussed one area in the middle of Page 1 of this topic:

see: (Posted - 04 May 2006 : 12:37:58) There are others also. They could all be natural, like jrich said, but once you start buying into the artificiality of the T, it gets easier to see these in that light, just as you said, as "plausible artificial structures").

rd

I am glad to see your calculated spatial dimensions, to several digits. My engineering calculation are good to 16 digits, give or take 20 orders of magnitude. ahem.

Anyway, the Nefertiti maerial seems to be art, without utility. However, the "T or E" appears to be utilitarian, without art.

The size of the work is so large, that a culture based on chemical rocketry simply could not do these things. It necessitates nuclear rocketry or better.

The object could be a reservior or a casting mold or ?. It is unlikely to be a basin for any chemical fuel (such as oil) because no oxygen is available. Perhaps for water (ice) if the structure were lined.

As a casting mold, there seem to be endless possibilities. Are there any shallow channels which lead to the much deeper "T or E"?

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gregg

Question of ignorance: are there any other plausible artificial structures or marking in the general vicinity of the "T or E"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Until very recently I believed that M0303753, which shows a system of gullies at the foot of the nearby escarpment to Olympus Mons, provided information which subtracted from the artificiality theory for the T or E. Rich leaned in the opposite direction, thinking instead that it added to the theory. Now I'm tending once again to think he may be right.

The T has features already described that make it look artificial. If it is a "collapse" it is a very neat and clean-cut one. If it is a gash from a low angle meteor trajectory event, where did the "T" branches come from? If it is a dry river bed, or the result of a lava flow, why does it begin and end so abruptly? As usual there are lots of unanswered questions.

M03 at least looks like a system of gullies. It has sloped walls, flat bottoms, and has "T" branches in common with the T or E, but it still looks like a dry river bed or a lava flow. But does it really? Here's the link to M03.

www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/jpegmaps/M0303753.jpg

Neil