Carved head photographed by Mars rover

I am a sculptor and in my opinion the small piece in front is a part of the larger object.

originally posted by: Char-Lee
I am a sculptor and in my opinion the small piece in front is a part of the larger object.

I can see it.

originally posted by: angryhulk
a reply to: angryhulk

Further to that it would be wonderful to see a birdseye view of a much larger area to see the extent of the lines, if only.

I don't have that, but as this is from sol 184, I went looking to see if I had made a panorama with these photos and yes, I had, so here it is.

(click on the image to jump to the GigaPan site, where you can see it in full size)

a reply to: new_here

Interesting thing is I have kept copies of an area from many months ago that have similar looking "carvings" I can see they go together and the pieces are scattered, the style is exactly the same. i just can't handle the frustration of the blurred images I so wanted to take those pieces and put them together! I stopped looking just to frustrating maybe someday we will see clear images...doubt it though.

a reply to: ArMaP

Since I can't star your posts in this thread, I'll thank you this way.


What a great asset you are to ATS!

the eyeball is not a jpeg artifact. and for all we know, a higher quality photograph, sans jpeg artifacts, would still show what appears to be a set of teeth. we just don't know... [EDIT: Ok I saw the other angle- no seperate teeth just one solid ridge which may be their style of carving] for now its just something interesting. the "enhanced/manipulated" image does indeed appear to be photoshopped/highly manipulated.

I can't do it, especially not from my mobile device, but i would like to see a less manipulated version with an explanation of exactly how it was enhanced. Ex. "contrsst adjusted 80%/130%" etc...

And I'm sorru if I missed it but i would also like to know exactly how jim stone manipulated it so someone could try to duplicate the procesd and see if it shows the same results... Like I said it appears to be very highly manipulated...

Maybe I will see what i can do with some photo editing apps.

I would not totally discount this just yet. But I do have to agree that the high level of "enhancement" with no explanation or description of how it was manipulated does indeed designate this particular thread as hoax bin material.

Perhaps someone might decide to create a new thread without including the rediculously mutated image and only include the original and then maybe it will not end up in the hoax bin section. Or maybe include the image but only as a reference and not attach the claim that it is an accurate representation.

Or maybe not. Maybe this image will forever be associated with the "hoaxed" image and eventually be forgotten...

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: angryhulk
a reply to: angryhulk

Further to that it would be wonderful to see a birdseye view of a much larger area to see the extent of the lines, if only.

I don't have that, but as this is from sol 184, I went looking to see if I had made a panorama with these photos and yes, I had, so here it is.

(click on the image to jump to the GigaPan site, where you can see it in full size)

Wow, thanks. I'm sort of stuck on this gigpan site now because I don't want to leave! Ha

originally posted by: 3n19m470
the eyeball is not a jpeg artifact. and for all we know, a higher quality photograph, sans jpeg artifacts, would still show what appears to be a set of teeth. we just don't know... for now its just something interesting. the "enhanced/manipulated" image does indeed appear to be photoshopped/highly manipulated.

Yes, it has been manipulated, probably "played with for hours". From the source:

Go to the image I have linked above at JPL and crop out the section I have here to the left. Blow up the area that has this Mayan head to 400 percent on your computer screen. Capture it, then drop the capture into Gimp. Then do auto white balance and pull curves to how I have it showing above. It pops out that good in only two very coarse steps. If you are super careful about how you go through the steps (and use many steps with the various filters) and play with this for hours, you will be able to render the image at the top of this page.

www.jimstonefreelance.com...

it's not what we would consider a "Welcome" sign for any errant flyovers/uninvited guests

a reply to: 3n19m470

The link I provided to the article shows in depth on how he manipulated the image so others could do the same.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

SO,

I have a legit question to ask you. You are very proficient with photo shop and a plethora of other editing software programs, much like what you demonstrated here in this particular thread with your grid lines and what have you. You have taken time out of your day to debunk this finding and classify it as a hoax. It very well maybe a hoax, or not? Now, I'm in no position to argue whether or not it is real seeing I just don't have the knowledge to do so, but you do. You took the time and effort to "analyze" the original and load it into whatever program you have. You took the time to hammer out some words on a keyboard displaying your opinion and took the time out of your day to even contribute. But did you take the time to follow the steps given by Jim Stone?

This can be done as well as the image to the left with ONLY TWO STEPS. I spent hours on using Retinax, Unsharp mask, Curves, Levels, the whole 9 yards, but in only two steps you can pull this out of the murk well enough to know this is not a hoax.

1. Go to the image I have linked above at JPL and crop out the section I have here to the left. Blow up the area that has this Mayan head to 400 percent on your computer screen.

2. Capture it, then drop the capture into Gimp. Then do auto white balance and pull curves to how I have it showing above.

Two steps. Did you even bother to see if these two steps produced the resulting "artifact" ? I would think an astute video/photo editor much like yourself, and an owner of one of the most reputable websites to date would simply follow these instructions to prove or disprove such claim. You spent probably 45 minutes or less to draw grid lines along with a comparison of a secondary photo but did not even follow the instructions given by Jim Stone.

Did/didn't you? Why not? Simple simple stuff for a programmer like you. If you didn't follow these instructions but instead spent 45 minutes using your own method to refute the photo, well, I would have a serious problem with that. However, I am not a millionaire nor a reputable person in society, only an anonymous contributing member on your site. Who cares about what I think right? I surely hope you don't just ignore my question because of this..your site, your credibility. It would be a shame if you allowed cognitive bias to reject real findings. Again, not saying this isn't a hoax but I would expect "serious" efforts to determine such things. Otherwise, well, why am I or anyone else coming here? What's the point? Just another website with their own agenda and that to me is the biggest atrocity and injustice to the free thinking mind.

Peace.

a reply to: FlySolo

I know you were not talking to me, but I would like to point to one thing: those two steps are not really two steps but an unknown amount of steps, with several possible differences.

1 - By saying "blow up the area that has this Mayan head to 400 percent on your computer screen" without specifying in which program, it looks like he means to do that on the browser the person used to see the image, and that brings the first problem: each browser uses its own way of resampling images, so resizing the view to 400% in Firefox is not the same thing as doing it on Chrome or Internet Explorer. With that, the first step becomes an unknown, as it depends on the browser. If he saved the image this problem would not exist;

2 - The "pull curves to how I have it showing above" doesn't result in the image at the top of his page but on the image from the screen capture in Gimp. I did what he says and this was the result:


3 - You are ignoring the "If you are super careful about how you go through the steps (and use many steps with the various filters) and play with this for hours, you will be able to render the image at the top of this page" part, in which he talks about "filters" without specifying which and about "many steps", so the get the image that he has at the top of the page there "many steps" that remain unspecified.

PS: if he was worried about losing quality when saving the image he could have saved it as a PNG, like I did.

a reply to: ArMaP

Thanks for taking the time but let me address a few things in your comments:

By saying "blow up the area that has this Mayan head to 400 percent on your computer screen" without specifying in which program, it looks like he means to do that on the browser the person used to see the image, and that brings the first problem: each browser uses its own way of resampling images

Then Jim Stone (if a deliberate hoax) wouldn't be assuming everyone's browser would achieve the same result. Clearly, if you were hoaxing, then you as the hoaxer would know what you said thereby automatically showing that you can not achieve the same results merely by increasing to 400% and thereby achieving exactly the opposite. I hope I articulated that alright. He did say those two steps wouldn't be as nice as the above picture, however.

You are ignoring the "If you are super careful about how you go through the steps (and use many steps with the various filters) and play with this for hours, you will be able to render the image at the top of this page" part, in which he talks about "filters" without specifying which and about "many steps"

No, not ignoring anything. I know he said he spent hours using Retinax, unsaharp mask etc. but the two step process is just a basic result. But here's the thing. Why not use due diligence and try to recreate the image as per Jim Stones final result and come back with what was needed to "hoax" it or whether or not there is some veracity to his claims? I know we ALL like to think we have a superior intellect, myself included, but I would never just outright dismiss someone's claims because it goes against my own belief system. Unless of course, it was the flying spaghetti monster. SO has higher standards and I hold him to not outright dismiss claims without any further investigation. Admittedly, I am growing tired of arm chair analysis here at ATS when it "apparently" prides itself as an unbiased conspiracy site with a fountain of T&C polices we must all adhere to. I am the only honest person left in the world? I think so. I just wish for once everyone was just as honest with themselves as well.

Investigate, prove without a doubt then label hoax or I'll keep my long awaited ufo landing on the white house lawn to myself because ATS will just label it a hoax. Know where I'm coming from?

Thanks.

originally posted by: FlySolo
Then Jim Stone (if a deliberate hoax) wouldn't be assuming everyone's browser would achieve the same result. Clearly, if you were hoaxing, then you as the hoaxer would know what you said thereby automatically showing that you can not achieve the same results merely by increasing to 400% and thereby achieving exactly the opposite. I hope I articulated that alright. He did say those two steps wouldn't be as nice as the above picture, however.

It's also possible that he hasn't noticed or that he doesn't know that different browsers use different ressampling algorithms, but what I find stranger is that he says for people to do the resizing and capturing the image instead of telling them to save the image, as saving an image that we are seeing on a browser creates a copy of the image, it's not the same thing as recompressing it (with the resulting loss in quality). The fact that he presents himself as "an experienced photographer who can get the most detail out of a photo possible" and misses pointing things like that makes doubt his knowledge or intentions.

Another thing I remembered while posting the above is that some people get reduced quality images on their browsers to save bandwidth, so using what we see on the browser is never a good idea. I don't know if those ISPs that reduce the image quality apply that to all images, so when downloading an image those people will never get the image other people are looking at.

No, not ignoring anything. I know he said he spent hours using Retinax, unsaharp mask etc. but the two step process is just a basic result. But here's the thing. Why not use due diligence and try to recreate the image as per Jim Stones final result and come back with what was needed to "hoax" it or whether or not there is some veracity to his claims?

That's what I was saying, if we don't know what he did how can we reproduce his steps? Whenever I apply some filters or actions to some image I say exactly what I did, I don't just throw the names of the filters without saying how I used them.

a reply to: Downturn

Wow that's kinda weird!!! So what you're saying is that that's the head of a robot? It looks real. But the only thing is would they really make a robot with big teeth like that? Seems kinda far fetched. It's like a CT that can't be proved or disproved. So

I have a better theory. Lets say I was the farmer in control of all these dumb retarded sheep that believed everything I said as gosple truth. Lets say I was working on ways to get more wool from the sheep. Well what I'd maybe do is come up with some cockamainia story as to why I need more wood.

But the sheep need proof that they're wool is gonna go to some "good project" right...

So what I do is I go into the back pasture where they keep all the broken down trucks. I'd gather some parts. Then for no money build this contraption I call the "Mars Rover". Again I spend not 1 single dime building it. It just took me a weekend and a case of beer to build.

So then I tell the sheep that I'm gonna lauch this thing all the way to mars. It will be used to take pictures, because me and the sheep are gonna go there eventually together, and we need to start our research right.

So the sheep are like "baahhh bahhh bahhh yes!!!! lets do it, here's all the wool you need!!!". So I get the extra wool from the sheep and tell them it will be used to fund my mars rover project.

So now they need proof. So I go drive out into the near by dry lake bed and take a few snap shots. I bring that back and show the sheep the evidence that these photos were taken on the plant mars by the Mars Rover you paid for.

meanwhile the rover is in the barn collecting dust. It never worked anyway. There's no mars mission. The extra wool I sold to buy more beer, buy a new truck, and improve my house. The sheep are stupid anyway. They believed my moon landing, now mars, now I'll come up with some new cockamainia story next month as to why I need more wool from them!!

DO YOU GET IT??? hello! it's a scam! It's already proven it was likely filmed on some island in the north of canada. that or it was filmed near area 51 out in the desert somewhere. There's no mars rover up there. The money was stolen by some elaborate hoax. Just like the moon landing. These are just a series of big scams that tptb use to ciphen off extra money from the hard working tax payer. wake up.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Pathetically inept unqualified people creating link-bait without the technical knowledge to know what they're really seeing. The "head" has been ridiculously modified in Photoshop (or similar) by Jim Stone.

No, no...don't hold back, tell him what you really think and T&C be damned.

Pathetic...Inept, Unqualified (for what? Making assumptions about what they see? O...K..) And you egt the right to say this because of what...your position here, or because you don't agree with the OP's view?

Either way, terrifically dodgy reply...IMO.

If i'd have posted what you did, it would have been removed almmost immediately...oh, how the other half live eh.

BTW OP...I see the face / head without the original NASA image being processed by anyone either pathetic or inept.

Which of course, is NOT to say i think this a part of a carving, except perhaps by natural erosion and weathering...but that's not really the point since we cannot go and physically check it out, the point is that it "looks like a head"...and that was the subject of the OP..and it does indeed look like one.

The biggest wrong on this thread isn't whether the OP might be right or wrong, it's how he was initially supported by a number of early posters and then rounded on and attacked quite rudely, once SO rather nasty post appeared, and for what? For having the boldfaced temerity to actual post a picture that he thought may contain atificiality where there ought to be none?!

Shocking.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Pathetically inept unqualified people creating link-bait without the technical knowledge to know what they're really seeing. The "head" has been ridiculously modified in Photoshop (or similar) by Jim Stone.

No, no...don't hold back, tell him what you really think and T&C be damned.

Pathetic...Inept, Unqualified (for what? Making assumptions about what they see? O...K..) And you egt the right to say this because of what...your position here, or because you don't agree with the OP's view?

Either way, terrifically dodgy reply...IMO.

If i'd have posted what you did, it would have been removed almmost immediately...oh, how the other half live eh.

BTW OP...I see the face / head without the original NASA image being processed by anyone either pathetic or inept.

Which of course, is NOT to say i think this a part of a carving, except perhaps by natural erosion and weathering...but that's not really the point since we cannot go and physically check it out, the point is that it "looks like a head"...and that was the subject of the OP..and it does indeed look like one.

The biggest wrong on this thread isn't whether the OP might be right or wrong, it's how he was initially supported by a number of early posters and then rounded on and attacked quite rudely, once SO rather nasty post appeared, and for what? For having the boldfaced temerity to actual post a picture that he thought may contain atificiality where there ought to be none?!

Shocking.

Thank you , I appreciate you having my back. Appearently when you post something on a "Conspiracy" website that cant be proven 100%, and it was a mere observation worth sharing to the open minds out there, you are deemed a shill and a fool. I learned my lesson from the "owner", that unless you have 100% proof of what you bring to the table you are ultimately wrong and your post thrown out.

My bad. I thought Rover had photographed an ISIS beheading.