Do you think the cited publocation The Examiner is any more credible? Or Discovery news, the same company that produces Ancient Aliens absurdity. The show that claims Lepricons are real. Are you kidding me? And if anyone actually rEad their web article, it's was 98% about what Kepler's mission is, and IF it would be possible to detect alien structures. NOT, that it may have or did.
And the next cited source the Examiner's next article after this alien structure, was about a Pembroke Welsh Corgi DOG, trying to rouse a fight with a pumpkin. Need I say more?
Anomalies occur they simply mean, we don't know what it is. Wild speculation about alien sup structures as an explanation of the anomaly, although a possibility, is one of millions more likely and less sensational.
Does the Face on Mars ring any bells? That the probability that a land
mass formed the vauge shape of a face on the planet was just skipped passed over for the sensational trash rag reporting of it being an alien sculpture. how is this any different?
I am all for the inevitable discovery of advanced life but not by sensationalist crap like this anomaly is stirring. It's no different than countless other anomlies we have seen in nature that if you spent 10 min researching actual credible, sources you would realize how drummed up this whole things is.
I.e., The space craft sucking energy from the sun, ext, was an phenomenon that was elementary to any actual cosmologist as a very normal magnetic gravitational happening that appears to look like an "alien disc" sucking energy from the sun.
You guys really want to find evidence, stop looking in rags or some unknown un acredited website. Stop believing any source that has a website and some impressive looking name as reliable. Check them out first.