Take a look at the lower left corner of this image. There is an object highlighted in light blue, and boxed in a green rectangle.

Be sure to expand it to full size or save it, and view it under zoom on your imaging software so you can see the details.

I find this object interesting.

Comments?

Enlarged image:

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Thanks for letting me know, though.

I'll try to fix that.

Why do you call it "sculpture"? What makes you think it might be a decorative stone column? What is interesting about it to you?

Just so everyone's on the same page, the image in question, and others like it, originally came from these NASA/JPL Spirit Sol 93 thumbnails. The raw image appears to be here.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Here is the enlargement:

Now that you can see it, what do you think?

It's a rock that bears a superficial resemblence to a human profile when viewed from a particular angle. As such is no different from the hundreds of similar rock formations found all over the earth. Sorry to be blunt, but I frankly see nothing special about it.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

It would be nice if you would provide a link to the original as well.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I'm posting another image to help you guys see this one.

In the following image, I've changed the orientation of the object, so that it looks more upright. (This may help some of you who did not see that the thing had toppled to the ground).

I have drawn a yellow line through the object to divide it so that you can see where the dividing symetrical line should be. (This should thwart the optical illusions of a crazy mass that some of you may be seeing).

I have also drawn blue lines to indicate corresponding symetrical points.

One set of blue lines show an ornamented "hershey's kiss" shaped object just above where the nose would be. (There is no nose- as this is not a human face). Note not only the symmetry of this specific ornament, but that the location is centered on the object.

Another set of blue lines has been drawn to indicate the location of the top and bottom of an orb (a sphere) that seems to be in the thing's mouth. Note also that the orb is located along the symetrical axis.

There are numerous other symetrical points, and "beads" which are of even number, twists and curls, and a perfectly formed half-goblet like shape in the center of the forehead.

I could go on, but I think the picture would be more helpful:

Oh my God! It is... It looks like... It could be...

...another rock.

__________________
-- Jumpjack --

It looks like my tennis sports bag

No way. It seems like your reasoning on this "line of symmetry" is that the part we cannot see must be a mirror-image of what we can see, because this rock is an image of a face.

But, why is it a face? Because it is symmetric!

Come on. The part of the rock we can see on the far side of your line of symmtery isn't even symmetric. As best I can tell, the blue lines only point to symmtery that is in your mind.

Do you have any evidence this is not a natural rock?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Looking at the raw image, without all of the coloring and blurring effects ........... it looks like a rock. Granted, an interestingly shaped rock, but a rock none the less.

__________________
Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

Just another proof that the brain tries to identify faces in everything it sees. Is pretty important for survival, at least, has been. Maybe they should send politicians into the imaging teams. Those are highly trained to remember faces.
If you look at all the different morphologies animals have developed here on Earth, I'd say it's highly unlikely that any aliens morphology would resemble the human one. The difference will be much larger than just a boney forehead...

Harald

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

I don't understand why you would ask if it is a natural rock. Of course it is a natural rock.

In order to be a carved rock - it would have to be a natural rock.

In fact, it would remain a natural rock, even after the carving takes place.

You seem to suggest it could only be a carved stone column if the substance of the carving was not natural stone.

There are numerous examples on earth, of human beings carving into natural stone. If you are not aware of these, go googling. They often used a hammer and chisel, and other such tools for the task. Believe me, it was not uncommon, particularly before the advent of concrete.

I also don't understand why you think the symetrical points can't be seen. There are thousands of symetrical points in view on both sides of the object. (Simply because there are still points out of view, does not mean you shouldn't consider the numerous points that are in view). In a single view, there will always be points of a 3-dimensional object that can not be seen.

The many symetrical points are there for you to see if you simply look. A few are even labeled. I've noted several for you.

I suggest you pull it up in some good imaging software and zoom in on it so you can see it better. Then study it for awhile before you comment further.

As I stated in my previous post, I did take a look at the raw image. It looks to me like your "color enhancement" filled in a bit more that the original image shows.

Those two protutions along the top part of the rock have very distinct seperations that do not appear in your image.

__________________
Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

Confusion in definitions. We would define a natural rock as one that has only natural weathering and no artificial alterations.
Don't need to google; I went to Egypt a little over a month ago. The carvings there are just incredible.
I would disagree. You have drawn some lines on an irregular looking rock and called them symetrical points.
I suggest you look at this picture and you will see it's just a normal (uncarved) rock.

BTW, blowing up jpeg's are not a good way to analyze photos.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

This image was cut from a larger panoramic image from the Keith Laney site. This is an image that he colorized, and I think it is interesting.

The website source of the larger panoramic image is:

http://www.keithlaney.com/spirit_color_images.htm


This is the cut out version which I uploaded to the web so you can see the specific rock at issue:

Looks quite different now.
Now I can actually see... a colorized rock. #-o

__________________
-- Jumpjack --

As hard as I try all I see is a rock.
(I work with images every day and use high edit editing software.)

__________________
http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats...630/prj:6/.png

Call me crazy, but shouldn't a line of symmetry be, in fact, a line? As in one straight line? Your "line of symmetry" is a hodgepodge zigzag through the features on the rock. That in itself is a very strong indication there is no intentional symmetry to the rock, but it is an artifact of your imagination, picking and choosing what you want to be.

A look at your marked "symmetrical points" shows they don't look very symmetrical at all. The top of your image, the left side has a smooth curve, the right has a step function - it zigzags. That's not symmetry by any definition I'm familiar with. Your second points down from the top, one is a smooth edge and the other is a corner. Symmetry? How?

The two points at the top of the face region, first they are dramatically offset from the features above. Second, they don't correspond well in size - the right corner is longer and higher than the left.

There's only an eye socket on the left, the right has filled in texture. Maybe he's a Borg, but otherwise I can't see symmetry of two eyes.

There's no nose, which you point out, but where the nose should be you shift the "symmetry line" over to the right. On faces, the symmetry line bisects the nose (or nose region). ???

The mouth is nowhere near where the mouth should be. There is a crevice that sticks from the centerline up to the left at a diagonal. It's like Sammy Davis Jr. to the max. The mouth runs up to the left cheekbone. That face looks like something by Picasso. Picasso's faces are not known for symmetry.

There's very little symmetry in the image. The points you mark as corresponding don't match each other. The line of symmetry you define is a zigzag through random features. The features that resemble facial features are misshapen, non-symmetrical, and out of place. Or missing.

In short, this is a game of "Fill in the Features" to make a face.

Beads? Twists and curls? I can't locate them.

I see the half-goblet shape. Now why should there be a half-goblet shape in the middle of the face? In fact, the half-goblet shape is not very good. It consists of a curve (the bell of the cup) and a straight line (the stem) with an edge for the bottom of the goblet. That's a pretty simple shape, not very complex. However, note that the curve for the side of the goblet extends up to the left, without a break, just a corner. This goblet has a protrusion on the lip. Hmm, not very goblet-like.

Instead of looking at that face, I point out just above the corner of the goblet. Three dark holes in the rock. OHMYGOD, it's a human skull! See, eyesockets and the nasal cavity.

When I look at the colorized version, it takes on the appearance of The Joker (from Batman). See his pointy nose to the right, the crooked smirk, the slashed brow and sharp chin? It's the Joker.

Your face is bilaterally symmetrical, but if you draw a line down the middle of it, it's not a straight line.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I understand your concerns and confusion and I appreciate you giving it your best effort to see what I am showing.

However, you must understand that the photo of the object was not taken head on. It was taken from the side of an object that has toppled over onto the ground, with the "face" of the object only slightly tilted toward us. The purpose for the yellow line, is to help you orient yourself to the object. In order to follow it, you must visualize the object in the correct orientation. You also have to take into account that objects further away from you will appear smaller.

This is a three dimensional shape. The yellow line will have to zig zag as it goes over the shape. (Try this yourself with your own picture of a person lying on the ground). This is due to the object's position. If I could go out there and pick it up, and turn it toward the camera in perfect balance, I would do that for you. However, I am limited to accept the photograph as I find it.

I have pointed out before that there is not enough of the "face" to even consider the symmetry there. (In fact, it is more of a tribal grimace than a face). I'm not sure why there is so much discussion about that aspect of the image.

The symmetry I am finding is in the ornamental parts of the object, and in the shape of the object above and below the "face." (There is a large ornamented head dress above the "face" of the object).

I am glad you see the half-goblet which is above the head and funnels down into the center of the forehead of the grimace. There are a number of beads just below that.

I have collected a great deal of additional evidence that this is a sculpted object. After further analysis, I will post it in an effort to help you see the object.

I have nothing to gain or lose by giving my efforts to show others what I see. But I do appreciate the fact that many of you are giving it your honest efforts to try to understand the image.

I have shown the image to others in person (along with some of the other evidence I have), and while they are standing beside me able to ask questions, they are able to see the image as it is.

You may be interested to know, that they have a more difficult time believing that the image is actually a thing on Mars, than that the thing is a sculpted stone.

Unfortunately, in showing this image over the internet, there is information that does not seem to come across in the written word, or straight lines, that I can better get across with the spoken language, and my fingers to point out the symmetry and the correct orientation. The dimensions of this thing take some time to see.

Again, I do appreciate your honest and detailed feedback. It helps me understand what I am failing to convey.

You are making way too many assumptions, or believing someone who has made way too many assumptions.

If it takes that much effort, coloring, pointing, and line drawing to get people to see an ornamental carved statue that fell over, it's probably not an ornamental carved statue that fell over.

The test should be blind.

I only see some rocks all jpegged and zoomed up.

1: If you're trying to see detail in an image, get a higher-resolution version; low-res jpegs are not something that you can extract any amount of detail from.

2: If you're trying to see detail in a low-res jpeg, fuggetaboutit. You can't magically increase the amount of detail in any image by blowing it up. Jpegs use pixels (they're raster graphics), they are not vector graphics.

3: Your yellow lines are along some very randomly placed ridges in the rock. If you look closely at your image from Keith Laney's site and of your own, you'll notice that this rock isn't symmetrical. Where the "forehead" would be (that smooth highlighted part above the rest of the "face") is all screwed up. The far ridge that looks like an eyebrow is at a very different angle than the other one, and it's also taller. The area beyond the far eyebrow ridge also seems to meld with it instead of what you would think it would do (look like a seperate piece)

You'll notice that the area in the following image that's in a box is not in shadow. In fact, the rest of the rock isn't in shadow either.

If you look at any of the rocks in the original image, found here, you'll notice that the light is coming from a very distinct direction: approximately the upper-left corner. Furthermore, the rock in question is angled towards the camera. This seems to imply that the "eyebrow" ridge that is closest to the ground is a ridge that is being lit by the sun followed by more ridges going towards the right of the image.

If you look at this image you'll notice that the rock has a point on its upper-left corner, if I'm not wrong about the lighting. If I'm right about the lighting (which wouldn't be hard to get right, considering the abundance of shadows), then it has a sort of point that is protruding towards the camera. Why is this significant? If that point is casting a shadow in the rest of the rock like that, then shouldn't it stand to reason that any other rock with a protuberance sticking towards the camera should cast a shadow on itself in the same way? What I'm trying to say is that, based on the rest of the image, that "face", or whatever it's supposed to be, is angled towards the camera and it's casting shadows on itself, thereby making seem like it's slightly symmetric (which it's not*).

*See third paragraph.

__________________
h00!

And still nobody has spotted the bunny.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

i just spent 3 hours in a lab looking at rocks, i get home looking to relax, and what do i see.......another rock

__________________
Why do they call it 'common sense' when it isn't all that common?

He's still hiding under the lander

__________________
http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats...630/prj:6/.png

Only coming out in the evenings, just like Earth bunnies.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Yep, works for me.