Revisiting Sol 528 - PIA17931 - Statue and Building ruins

Why you may ask am i covering already covered material, well when this photo 1st came to light i spent some time trying to work out 2 area's of the photo, namely the head in the bottom right front of the photo and the large building ruins in the distance of the photo. I did these a while ago and have finally decided to post them. I hope this thread can add a little more info about the photo.


Lets start with the statue head pictured below (and yes i have enhanced the circle with brightness)



Now how do we work out how big this thing is ???
well we have to find an annotated version of the photo from NASA showing a measurement of some kind. Below is that version.
(this picture has been heavily edited for use in post, The area was selected, cut and put into a new J-peg, The 2 vertical black lines are additions by myself as well as the long black line reaching to the object in question. The Red line is also my addition. The 2 black & white measurement lines are by NASA.)



Now the red line underneath the black one represents 2 meters (this is by no means 100% accurate) which would suggest our statue head to be around just under 1 meter in length. A reasonable size for a carved head but by no means huge. As you can see from the above method it is possible to roughly gauge distance,perspective and measurements of objects as long as we have a base reference in the photo.

OK so onto area 2 of the photo, the ruins in the background or what some have called a square block, but i believe there is a lot more definite evidence than just a block.
Below is a close up of the area



And here is 3 Edited versions of the same area (The Colour difference of photo's here is down to NASA, my additions are only the black lines and arrows. They are different versions of the same photo all from NASA)







My theory on this is that lava flow devastated this area.

So as you can see from the above i have added a fair amount of lines. The arrows represent the lava flow and as you can see from the close up (3rd photo of 3) we even have a broken off wall that has been shifted in angle by the force of the rocks/lava that hit it.
you can also see how the lava/rocks/dirt coming from above has gone in 3 directions on coming into contact with this building. Left,center & right which is exactly what one would expect to see from a large volume of liquid pouring into/over a building.

The white wall (1st photo of 3) i have marked out further to the right is much less definite and could well be nothing more than natural. but at the same time worthy of examination.

I also could not work out the measurements to the ruins from NASA's annotated version as they are to far into the distance to get a useable reference to my knowledge. If anyone else can that would be much appreciated.

Below is the whole Image



If you right click on the photo's and view photo in your options they are easier to see

a reply to: JokerThe1st

Here's what I posted on the original thread:


Full size


Full size
Original image

I was hopeful for this one, but as you can see, it's just a rock.

Original post

It definitely looks like a mudslide destroyed what looks like what used to be a fortification of some kind.

I tried using some paint programs to mirror the half of the face and see what it would look like:



Now I did airbrush in the gaps between the two halfs, but it does look somewhat monkey-like.

a reply to: lemmin

Hi and thank you for you addition i missed it the 1st time round.

I would be interested to find out which photo was taken/released 1st, i may well be clutching at straws here but on close examination of the rock/head in question something seems very off.





The white box marked out is done so because there is a definite stitching/glitch in the image here.
as you can see the 3 main features are still there, what is odd about this image is the wavy groves running from the front of the rock/head into a smooth rounded area at the back.
In my opinion it looks stretched.

if one was to move the front back, removing the elongated wavy lines,the area marked out with the red line would appear to make the back of a skull/head.
Also if you notice the rock just under the chin in the front facing image, and then look at the side profile image the latter version appears to be much closer to the head/rock of course this could be down to perspective.

The statue could well be real still even if the side profile is correct, if this was in a wall rather than on it or carved into rock face it could well explain the odd looking side view.

Or there is the possibility these dudes had some madly shaped heads our brains can't quite grasp lol

a reply to: stormcell

That's what i was looking for! when i was writing this post i had a complete blank as to what to call the liquid/rubble/lava/ and Mudslide is much more fitting

And nice work on the image a very interesting looking being.

Thank you

Can you post the link to the nasa photo itself please?

a reply to: JokerThe1st

Here is the Annotated version. sorry i forgot to post it yesterday.

a reply to: HomerinNC

Which one ??? lol
If you right click on the images and view image. The 2 panoramic photo's posted are the originals. one with measurements the other without.

If you really want to go to NASA's site just search the photo number and name easy to find through Google etc...

and there was me thinking i was being helpful so people did not have to visit NASA's site lol

a reply to: JokerThe1st
Why don't I see the statue head in the nasa photos?

a reply to: JokerThe1st
Why don't I see the statue head in the nasa photos?

a reply to: HomerinNC

Because you are looking in the wrong place lol

Look at the edited version in the OP there is a black line pointing straight to it!!!

a reply to: JokerThe1st

I would be interested to find out which photo was taken/released 1st

The photo in color (the one you cite) was taken first on SOL528 (2014-01-30 15:50:12 UTC). The greyscale photo was taken seven days later (after navigating over Dingo Gap) on SOL535 (2014-02-06 20:44:17 UTC).

there is a definite stitching/glitch in the image here.

The greyscale photo I used was from Navcam Right. There was another image taken simultaneously from Navcam Left where you can see that the contours of the rock in question are not due to any digital artifacts.

Nice work OP. That pic is certainly among the most interesting ones.

I just don't see any evidence of lava though...

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Yeah i tend to agree, on the day of writing the thread i had a complete blank as to what to call the liquid flow evident in the pic so i opted for Lava which in retrospect was probably a bad choice.
and thank you

a reply to: lemmin

Thank you for the information and the response.

is much appreciated