Planet of Art..

Ok Zip, now I'm intrigued. Tell me did you find that Key or make it yourself? If you found it intact like that, that's a mind-blower.

BTW, is there some significance to the 3 squared insignia?

rd

You’re getting the hang of this now. Good find Trinket.

Here’s the hi-res image cropped, and a background erased key. At the proper scale and shading it looks human, and it has the often seen small face in the head piece or hair, used presumably as an emblem of some kind.

You get to name it; But I’d call it “Viking Profile.”





And here is it’s location on MOLA topography map. It's in the crater at 39N, 116E.

Trinket, I can see how many (if not all) of your artworks have the multiple scale aspect to them. Is it your contention that they <b>all </b>do?

Do you have theory about this?

rd

Yes rd


Zips drawing while absolutely great only gives a finite view. It's like picking one tiny mirrored section of a kaleidescope and ignoring the rest as insignificant.

In one respect there is on Mars only one piece of art .. each image only represents different sections of this singularity..

hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_004412_1715



<font color="limegreen"> If A "Volcano" was found not to be a volcano , how would that impact the "LAVA" theory ?
Might you look at the "LAVA" differently as well as the entity that told you it was lava to begin with ? </font id="limegreen">

Trinket, this is great stuff. This last one reminds me a little about the story I told about how I like to find face images in the trees by imagining the face is hiding behind the branches, and I fill in the rest. Well, in this case, you have a face that has flow lines covering alot of features, but the effect on me is the same. It's very easy for me to see the whole face, and I'd bet I'm pretty much seeing what you want me to see. Very good. {History will decide what this stuff really is, whether or not it's what you think, or what someone else thinks, but that's ok.}

By the way, I like the way you're posting your images with very close to the original range of grayscales. I know some people may look at them and think they are "too dark" or "too gray", but I think you are presenting them with the broadest and most natural range of grayscales that you have to work with. I don't believe they are improved upon by ramping contrast or brightness such that there are many saturated pixels. Saturation is lost information.

Keep 'em comin'.

rd