Carved head photographed by Mars rover

a reply to: Blue Shift

I simply said this is what I see, and asked what others saw.

originally posted by: Downturn
Could you please elaborate further on how it is "Link-Bait" ?

Link bait articles are just that, extraordinary and often times false or grossly exaggerated claims solely for the purpose of attracting traffic though links… like right here in the opening post of this thread.

and how do you know?

Already showed that Jim Stone is applying a ridiculous amount of Photoshop (or similar) editing to the original, and grossly emphasizing the JPEG compression artifacts in the source image to make his point.



I say it is not a carved head, but just a rock. Likely a small one at that.

I don't care what anybody says, I think the original photo without any manipulation at all is outstanding.

originally posted by: Downturn
I simply said this is what I see, and asked what others saw.

Yeah, yeah. But the implication is that you go along with the "explanation" wholeheartedly, and use the links and examples as proof. Otherwise, why post?

You think it's a carved head, right? With nothing to really prove it. It's okay. You believe it's a carved head, created by some ancient intelligent life on Mars, with a possible link to the Aztecs, or the Eskimos and their totem poles. You believe because there is no proof. That's pretty much the definition of belief.

Am I misrepresenting you?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Fair enough, but you can see I am not trying to bait anyone to see the link, and as much as I search that link I cant debunk it.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

and grossly emphasizing the JPEG compression artifacts

How do you emphasize compression artifacts and make them look more clear and pronounced as something else?

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Downturn
I simply said this is what I see, and asked what others saw.

Yeah, yeah. But the implication is that you go along with the "explanation" wholeheartedly, and use the links and examples as proof. Otherwise, why post?

You think it's a carved head, right? With nothing to really prove it. It's okay. You believe it's a carved head, created by some ancient intelligent life on Mars, with a possible link to the Aztecs, or the Eskimos and their totem poles. You believe because there is no proof. That's pretty much the definition of belief.

Am I misrepresenting you?

You believe it isn't, without any proof, hence the forum we are using.

a reply to: FlySolo

You can't compare and see that it's exactly what was done?? Especially in the "teeth?"

a reply to: Blue Shift

Completely misrepresenting me. You are the reason I didnt want to post on ATS, I simply provided a picture , said what I saw and asked what other people thought, then it become an attack on me. I sat on this picture and this story for 2 days looking, reading and researching before I brought it here. I was just looking for discussion on the topic at hand and if someone could de-bunk the photo or links etc etc.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: FlySolo

You can't compare and see that it's exactly what was done?? Especially in the "teeth?"

I see the teeth in the original, and I'm just zooming in on my iphone?

a reply to: Downturn

You have to understand, that often times a harsh tonality isn't a reflection on you, but on the source material you presented. Please try to accept that.

Also, there are many people on this site who take these subject matters seriously, and have become exceptionally frustrated with the hoaxers and fraudsters, of which Jim Stone looks to be firmly among. That frustration can manifest itself in curt responses, that again, are likely not intended as a reflection on you, but on the subject matter.

a reply to: angryhulk

The teeth are defined by the JPEG compression artifacts. It's much easier to notice on a larger screen.

OK, lets say this guy submitted the picture, however never exaggerated the 'teeth' area. Wouldn't you still find this fascinating?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I do understand that, but in the context of his (or her) post it was directed at me not at the subject at hand. I too take this very seriously as well otherwise I wouldnt have brought it forward.

As a side note I did a Tineye search on the linked image to see where it shows up and it is definitely from NASA, in case someone else decided to say otherwise.

Tineye

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Well, like the other guy said, I can see the lines between the teeth on the original. Without literately taking the original and "faking" or adding detail that isn't there, I don't know what you mean by emphasizing artifacts. I'm no photoshop guy but I would thing that emphasizing artifacts would only make any discernible images worse, not better. hmph what do I know?

a reply to: angryhulk

Not really. There are so many geological/physical factors that could make a ragged rock look very slightly/hardly like a one-eyed face, I think it's absurd to think so.

I'm agnostic on this ---- can't prove it --- can't disprove it.

My personal belief, and yes I understand what belief is --- is that Mars once had life and may still have.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Downturn
I simply said this is what I see, and asked what others saw.

Yeah, yeah. But the implication is that you go along with the "explanation" wholeheartedly, and use the links and examples as proof. Otherwise, why post?

I post a lot because I find something interesting, and not being an expert in said field, I appreciate the many replies from the ATS community. Many of whom ARE experts in said fields. Even and especially when it points out flaws in my reasoning.

I don't see the OP posting this saying LOOK.....PROOF.

He found something interesting and wanted to share it.

You have a choice to read it or not, why attack the OP?

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: angryhulk

Not really. There are so many geological/physical factors that could make a ragged rock look very slightly/hardly like a one-eyed face, I think it's absurd to think so.

Maybe, but given the strange photos being sent back every day by the rover, so much so having created numerous very active threads on this forum such is the doubt in the objects, I find it absurd to blame everything we see on geographical factors. It's like those guys who say every single UFO case is a weather balloon, and every single light caught in space is a cosmic ray. I also find myself asking "why are all the rocks where I live boring old rocks?"... Theres a few wierd heads on Mars now, so I'm going to say at least one of them is exactly that, a carved head haha.

There are a few people in this thread that I feel are trying to disprove this picture for their "own" personal or another agenda or reason, and I feel/bet this picture will be modified or taken down from the official NASA link (that was provided) and given some sort of bs explanation.