Wils' Tetrahedron

For the record, I still think none of these sites can be supported as artificial without a true human visitation.

Mark Vitrone

If the tetrahedron is a real, artificial structure, then its existence supports the case for *land art*. I spent time as a forward observer in artillery destroying *land art*. My hat is off to anyone who created *land art* on Mars. And if the Derosa Brothers have the talent for seeing it, I shall defer to them.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade 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. [Tom}
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The aquisition data (even for sun azimuth) only has relevance if it can be referred to an image we can trust to be what it is labeled to be. Since there are no "raw data" images posted, and since the "not map projected" images come in many varieties (eg, sometimes flipped horizonally, sometimes vertically, sometimes rotated 180 deg., etc), I have been following Tom's advice to orient my images with respect to whatever "map-projected" images are available. Sometimes it's a narrow angle image and sometimes it's a wide angle context image. But if it says "map projected," I have found I can rely on it.

Then it becomes a simple matter of "compare and adjust," to get north, south, east, and west. Once you have that, the rest follows logically. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west on Mars, in an aprox. 24 hour day. Just check the local time and (unless it is noon) you will know where the shadows are supposed to be. It's pretty easy.

Neil

I second Mark Vitrone's observation.

Tom,

I think the tetrahedron is a better candidate because of it's stark symmetry and the way it stands out from it's environment. Virtually none of the "faces" are symmetrical. Most are profiles, even, and most of them blend in with their environment in such a way that you have to stare at the for a while in order to "see" them, and then mentally crop out the areas that blend in with the said face. Faces also easily lend themselves to the pareidlia effect, given our brains' hardwiring to see faces. The tetrahedron, however, does not require any imagination, nor any cropping of surrounding blended-in areas (because there are none).

Anf btw, who made the dolphin key in your slideshow? I've posted the image below before, but nobody commented on it. The upper image is the original "dolphin" image. The key on the bottom left is from your slideshow, and the key on the bottom right is my own, which I think is more accurate given the original. I'd like to know who made that key because I'd like to ask them how they came up with it. To me there is no upper fin at all. There are rabbit ears. This detracts from the artificiality hypothesis for this image.



Thanks,
Emanuel

[emanuel] "To me there is no upper fin at all. There are rabbit ears. This detracts from the artificiality hypothesis for this image."

Not if Martian dolphins have (had, that is) ears or antlers.

Clarification of my position - I think it will be easier to convince skeptics of an artificial origin (<b><u>OR</b> to convince supporters of a natural origin</u>) for things like the tetrahedron than for things like the face.

Not easy, easi-ER. But until we put boots on the ground, and even for some time after that, the debate will rage.