i'd heard you mention the differences in how galactus is drawn, JB, and the page of art showing that every sentient species sees/perceives galactus differently.

that made me think (awhile back) that galactus's look shifts constantly but subtly depending on the mental state, biology and physical capabilities of the one seeing him. in short, i guess i figured he was always "morphing" somewhat but since we're seeing snapshots of the process, the change can be more clearly identified.

does that make sense?

that made me think (awhile back) that galactus's look shifts constantly but subtly depending on the mental state, biology and physical capabilities of the one seeing him. in short, i guess i figured he was always "morphing" somewhat but since we're seeing snapshots of the process, the change can be more clearly identified.

does that make sense?

••

The latest issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN has a very strange article about some new thinking on the whole "observation defines observed" notion. The suggestion has been made that this should be taken very literally, and the state of mind of the observer would actually have an influence on how the subatomic particles appear. Thus, a "true" picture of what's going on at that level could only be had by "averaging" the reports of several observers, taken under different circumstances, at different times.

That would be Galactus in a nutshell. (With the provision that humans would most likely see Galactus in some variant of a human form.)