Tim,
This is a hurried post as I rush out the door this morning with less than usual time for revision, but...
Yes, I agree with you. Personally, I could be persuaded the photo you've linked shows trails at the Seven Site. I was before. It's only when one applies the higher litmus test of 'is it capable of proof' to the science of photographic analysis that the certainty, in a group sense, drops off, and quite precipitously at that. There's probably a lesson there in that the interpretation of a photograph, even the interpretation of those who are highly trained in the work (and I am not), is liable to be hotly disputed, or perhaps ignored (but perhaps rightly) as little more than one person's opinion.
To the larger question of what would it prove if proven, raised by Nate, I'm not so certain.
Are any of these things central to the investigation? Absolutely not. But a lot of very good evidence has been gleaned from things previously written off, or very nearly abandoned as of low value, that I can recall. Science, unfortunately - or perhaps fortunately, depending on one's will and wallet - does not allow that the value or promise of discovery can always be predicted in advance.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C