Wils' Tetrahedron

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />This is, I think, a much better candidate for artificiality than any of the faces.

Emanuel
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree. It would be interesting to know if the *land art* supporters agree and understand why.

(Hint - To be consistent and avoid undercutting their own arguments they should disagree that this is a better candidate.)

JR

[/quote]I agree. It would be interesting to know if the *land art* supporters agree and understand why.

(Hint - To be consistent and avoid undercutting their own arguments they should disagree that this is a better candidate.)

JR
[/quote]

This is a simpler and more obvious artificial structure but it is no more real than the *land art*. I myself do not see much of the *land art* but I have no working experience or training in art.


Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is a simpler and more obvious artificial structure but it is no more real than the *land art*. I myself do not see much of the *land art* but I have no working experience or training in art.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

They are all just candidates in my book, Gregg. To me nothing has been proven one way or another, but artistic faces are much less persuasive than this tetrahedron, because of the pareidolia effect. Download images of nuclear mushroom clouds and volcanic eruptions. I did this and found many faces inside the cloud formations.

Emanuel

If the vertical stucture next to the tetrahedron is carved out by water then the light is coming from the righthand side in Zip Monsters figure 1. In that case the tetrahedron is a pit.
Unfortunately, there is no clear impactcrater in the original strip. And I doubt if it corresponds with the green rectangle in the Viking Context Image:

ida.wr.usgs.gov/fullres/context/e06002/e0600269_gr.jpg

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Michiel</i>
<br />If the vertical stucture next to the tetrahedron is carved out by water then the light is coming from the righthand side in Zip Monsters figure 1. In that case the tetrahedron is a pit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Many features have a black-white ambiguity that allows them to be seen as raised or sunken. The only way to know for sure is to look up the Sun azimuth for the image. This shows that the Sun is on the same side of the "tetrahedron" as the conspicuous triangular black shadow.

Work with the image until you see it both ways with equal ease. Then lock in on the correct perspective. Otherwise, the way you see it first will become dominant and you won't be able to shake that impression off. It sometimes helps to rotate the image. -|Tom|-

<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 />It would be interesting to know if the *land art* supporters agree and understand why.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I for one do not understand why. If anyone is making artificiality judgments based on appearance, then subjectivity will be unavoidable and judgments become a matter of personal taste and experiences. Only objective criteria should count. How do you objectify your expressed opinion that this is more likely to be artificial? I hope you have something more than "it looks more artificial", or "it is less common in nature than faces are". -|Tom|-