Carved head photographed by Mars rover

originally posted by: angryhulk
Basically the thread lasted 5 minutes until a mod decided it was a hoax and binned it. A geniune photo was being discussed it was hardely a photoshop of darth vader standing on Mars.

It "lasted" nearly two hours.

It was always about this "carved head" insanely modified image.


Which is completely debunked by this second angle…


The original premise presented on the site linked in the opening post is proven to be false… hence, this thread belongs in the hoax forum.

Because the thread author did not create the hoax on purpose, the "[HOAX]" indicators were not added to the thread title.

Here are three 3D versions of that image, but, as the images from the left camera are much smaller (it uses a different lens) I had to make the image from the left camera bigger and the image from the right camera smaller.

Animated GIF


Freeview

(I resized this even more because the rock is too small)

Red-blue anaglyph


Not much help, as I was expecting, but I haven't made these for a long time, so I grabbed the opportunity (no pun intended ) to make some 3D views.

originally posted by: karmicecstasy

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: karmicecstasy
I would say because the thread was about Jim Stones version of the picture and Skeptic did a pretty good job of proving that version is a hoax. Especially in regards to the teeth.

Don't feel bad. These mars rock picture threads all get sent to the hoax bin eventually.

How did he do a good job? By uploading a different version of the original, which looked no different?
Am I missing something?

Basically the thread lasted 5 minutes until a mod decided it was a hoax and binned it. A geniune photo was being discussed it was hardely a photoshop of darth vader standing on Mars.

The first picture not touched up still left the impression that there may be teeth. The second picture showed that there was definitely not teeth. Anywho I was not trying to defend the hoaxing of the thread. Just trying to share why I thought it might have been hoaxed. That its nothing against the poster but against Jim Stones version of the picture.

Aha, yes the teeth and I agreed with Skeptic, however there was 90% more stone to discuss.

a reply to: Downturn

Yeah ok...but we can see it is a hoax...you fell for it we all make mistakes.
Make another thread if you want with the un doctored image and guess what most will say....wow you found a rock on mars....

Well we know for sure you will say that.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: angryhulk
Basically the thread lasted 5 minutes until a mod decided it was a hoax and binned it. A geniune photo was being discussed it was hardely a photoshop of darth vader standing on Mars.

It "lasted" nearly two hours.

It was always about this "carved head" insanely modified image.

Which is completely debunked by this second angle…

The original premise presented on the site linked in the opening post is proven to be false… hence, this thread belongs in the hoax forum.

Because the thread author did not create the hoax on purpose, the "[HOAX]" indicators were not added to the thread title.

Fair enough, I think we all know the doctored image was a little over the top, and the teeth were an addition. The original however is still absolutely fascinating, and I like to think I'm not an idiot

a reply to: angryhulk

I agree with you and thats why I tried to focus on the original image. oh well so much for my first post heh

originally posted by: Downturn
a reply to: angryhulk

I agree with you and thats why I tried to focus on the original image. oh well so much for my first post heh

No worries, it caught our attention. Looking forward to your second.

originally posted by: Downturn
a reply to: angryhulk

I agree with you and thats why I tried to focus on the original image. oh well so much for my first post heh

I think that, when making threads about topics that grab more the attention of the members, we have to be careful about how we write it, as it's easy to write in a way that makes one side or the other (in cases like these there always two sides, at least) interpret what we wrote in a different way.

Don't be discouraged, as long as you make your threads in good faith keep them coming.

I find the rock fascinating. The second view gives a clearer view of the other 'eye' which is mostly obscured in the first view posted.

I can see how the 'teeth' do not show up in the second view... yet, what a smile.

I do not pretend to know the mysteries of the Universe, but I do love to dream, and imagine the what-ifs. Your first thread was not for naught in that respect.

So thanks for sharing!

How come I can't star any posts on this thread? Weird. Is it just me?

I think everyone has missed the much more interesting aspect of the original NASA image, especially when combined with the additional angle.


The apparent grid of what looks like very nearly parallel groves/joints in the surface rock.

originally posted by: new_here
How come I can't star any posts on this thread? Weird. Is it just me?

It is because it is in the hoax bin.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
I think everyone has missed the much more interesting aspect of the original NASA image, especially when combined with the additional angle.

The apparent grid of what looks like very nearly parallel groves/joints in the surface rock.

I was wondering who was there before US ?

Was the old rover anywhere near this site ?

I swear, It feels like they think we are stupid.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
I think everyone has missed the much more interesting aspect of the original NASA image, especially when combined with the additional angle.

The apparent grid of what looks like very nearly parallel groves/joints in the surface rock.

I didn't miss it, but that's very common on Mars' photos.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
I think everyone has missed the much more interesting aspect of the original NASA image, especially when combined with the additional angle.

The apparent grid of what looks like very nearly parallel groves/joints in the surface rock.

That is also interesting. What would cause that?

originally posted by: ArMaP
I didn't miss it, but that's very common on Mars' photos.

I know. I've seen it before.

Having seen some ancient ruins, the first thing that comes to mind is very, very old and weathered paving stones/blocks.

But we're not geologists studying Mars strata, so we don't know if nature likes straight lines on Mars for certain.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
I think everyone has missed the much more interesting aspect of the original NASA image, especially when combined with the additional angle.

The apparent grid of what looks like very nearly parallel groves/joints in the surface rock.

Nope, didn't spot that. Looks very odd, nice find. Even though it was staring us in the face

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
I think everyone has missed the much more interesting aspect of the original NASA image, especially when combined with the additional angle.

The apparent grid of what looks like very nearly parallel groves/joints in the surface rock.

Nice... So when the building was blown to smithereens, only a statue's head remained in the dust, haha.

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.