posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:37 AM
I haven't read every post here, but personally I think the issue is deeper than "true vs. false." The best way to come at it is in terms of
degree of artificality. You don't try to define it per se but rather simply estimate, based on probabilty, how likely it is to be to be
man-made vs. natural.
To do this you'd have to take many different factors into account. You'd have to know about local surface conditions over time, compositon of the
rocks (i.e, how do they weather, shatter...what kinds of stress are they under, etc.). You'd have to know how forces such as gravity and
electromagitisim work on the planet. Also vital: info in areas such as tectonics, atmospheric conditions, and so on and so forth. Some of this is
known but there is still much humanity doesn't know about Mars, despite its closeness.
The consensus scholarly opinion now is that the planet had a thicker atmosphere at one time, probably with a high C02 atmosphere. This would have made
it warmer, wetter, and it would have had flowing, non-frozen water running at surface level. All of this would have made Mars obviously more likely to
be able to support life...maybe even intelligent life. The planet was cataclysmically destroyed by some sort of asteroid or comet collison, or perhaps
another type of "entanglement" with a large heavenly body. They have made good progress in getting even the most surly opponants of these theories
to accept all of the above. Half the planet's crust and most of its atmospere was blasted into space. Now, when exactly this happened is a mystery.
The scholarly consensus tends towards "a long time ago," i.e. BCE 4 billion, for example. Nevertheless, there is are vocal and rational minority
opinions that place it much later...some even as recently as the last major ice age on earth, for example. Shocking as it may seem, it is very hard to
date impacts on Mars, despite the abundance of gigantic craters and surface distortions.
Anyway, at this stage, the point is to encourage speculation and identification of objects that are more likely to be artificial. Thus this is a good
thread and the OP's efforts are great at opening up new doors even if none of us can really say what such objects actually are or do.