Due to lack of basis for this analysis I feel that this particular breakdown should be considered as an art critique rather than scientific evaluation.

Clearly this ether stream is coming to terms with the idea of identity, of body and home, constrasting our place in our space with theirs in theirs.

The fact that the human figure has been:

1. Reflected as a double shadow in one case
2. Projected as a flat image upon a wall in the other
connotes that either:
1. They have still not come to terms with our identities as physical beings

   or

2. They are aware of our physicality, and by projecting our images as 2D facades on the structure built to house our identities, seek to explain their own circumstances.

The use of [imperfect and ill-informed] perspective in ZONE (B) tends to support the 2^nd theory. Taken in a nutshell, they seems to be saying that in their existence, their identities have been reduced to mere image, an image that makes up the very structure of their ether and their existence. This theory is also supported by the first textual stream. An identity reduced to the ether in which it resides (like wind) would indeed exhibit these characteristics.

If we look at

1. ZONE (A) as the placement of our identity in their circumstances

   and

2. ZONE (B) as their identity in our circumstances

the message behind the image becomes more comprehensible. The use of my lingo — THEY & SAY & SMALL — means that they are aware of the analysis I am doing. By showing their ether streams as

1. The earth upon which we walk

   and

2. The structures in which we live and work

they seem to be saying that they exist with us, but in a format normally indistinguishable to us. In other words, they are our ether, yet we cannot normally see their identities within this ether. We, on the other hand, live separately from our ether. For the time-being, at least, because other evidence suggests that they are our future.

The meaning of the spindly machine is utterly incomprehensible to me.