Here is the source picture directly from NASA........ http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00184/mcam/0184MR0925102000E1_DXXX.jpg
The Mayan/Aztec statue head is seen at the middle to the right side of the picture.
Continue below with an article written by Jim Stone that shows how filters were used to bring out the details of the photo. You can do it yourself to produce the photo that Jim has displayed.
~e
*****************************************
My worries in posting the stone head on Mars were centered around
absolute confirmation the original image really did come from the Mars
rovers.
I
was not concerned with whether or not it was in the picture (it so
obviously is) and instead focused on making sure I was getting a genuine
image from JPL and that Nasa does not do these types of things as a
joke. They do not, and the image really is from Mars.
The carved head image now circulating the web was rendered by me over
several hours from the original Nasa photo using only standard filters
(not edited, only rendered) and did not come from elsewhere.I originally thought the Mars rovers were a hoax running around the desert in Arizona. This is because there were coins, bones, an obvious animal skull and other things showing up in the Mars rover photos. I thought it was all a psy op. But there are no Aztec style carved heads in North America, especially none based on faces that look like they are white,
and
because one was photographed by a rover I changed my mind - the rovers
really are on Mars and they are driving around the surface of a recently
destroyed planet that was very much like Earth not so long ago. There
are coins from whatever civilization was there showing up in the rover
photos, bones, animal skulls and now this carved 
head.
No doubt about it, Mars was inhabited and the superb condition of the
relics that have turned up proves Mars was destroyed only a very short
time ago.The subsequent posts on this page go into more detail on this topic.
Discuss this on the Forum
..
.
Make sure you see the updates to this top posted Mayan head report that will drop in (out of date line) below it. The first one is a hoot!
Dec 28 2014
A brief statement about the Mayan/Aztec style head on Mars: If the rovers are really on Mars, then there
really is an old statue (and probably thousands) of Aztec style carved
heads on Mars. Period, end of discussion. The trolls will be fools
once word gets out despite their efforts, the cold hard facts are simply
too obvious. NASA SCREWED UP, THEY MISSED THIS AND FAILED TO CENSOR
IT.
Why were the rovers sent there anyway? Certainly not to just look at the landscape! NASA - Never A Straight Answer.
I have information and opinions regarding previous civilizations I have never discussed because there was no hard proof. Now that we have it, I will begin to say a few things over the coming days.This information and the following report will be permanently posted HERE
ORIGINAL REPORT FOLLOWS:
Not a hoax. Mars rover photographs Mayan/Aztec style head
Trolls are going to have a tough time when ANYONE can take the original image, apply standard filters (no editing, only filters) and pull the detail out and see it is real. All it takes to get the basics and confirm this really is a stone carving is levels or curves. This is going to screw the trollage.
This
is a bona fide image from the Mars rover. This came straight from JPL.
It proves a civilization did indeed exist on Mars, and that Mars had
to have been destroyed.
I had my doubts the rovers were ever real. I thought they were really
somewhere in the desert South West. But there are no Mayan heads to be
found in the U.S., and I doubt NASA would try to pull a fake rover stunt
elsewhere. Obviously NASA is mum on this, stupidly stating
that it is a natural rock formation (don't ya know that's a plagioclase
feldspar mixed with calcite, quartz and bauxite, (the miraculous
combination that always spits out a carved head) so you saw nothing
there . . . . . . . RIGHT. ANYWAY,
It is easy to prove this is real. You can do it yourself. Download the original image from JPL at: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00184/mcam/0184MR0925102000E1_DXXX.jpg and scroll to the correct rock (middle right side, as shown in the capture to the left) and do a little image processing.
This can be done as well as the image to the left with ONLY TWO STEPS. It is not as nice as the one at the top of this page that 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.
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.The image at the top of the page was rendered using only completely standard filters. This means that if the camera that shot this picture only cared about the Mayan head and put all it's processing ability on that one rock, it would have rendered it this clearly to begin with.
And now I would like to rant on what IS a hoax - OUR HISTORY.
We have here an obvious artifact from a lost civilization photographed by a rover that was sent there to find it, and NASA is still puffing B.S. about it. Why would they want this buried? I am sure this will stay buried, I will be labeled a kook for mentioning it, and that all the talking heads will convince the sheep IDIOTS that this rock formation is natural. But it is not, you can see
this
stuff down here in Mexico and it is by no means natural. When
archaeologists dig up stuff like this they do not sit there and spew
stupidities about erosion, they know it is not natural and it goes in a
museum. Drop this down in the middle of the Amazon jungle and
archaeologists will call it a treasure. No ifs or buts it is . . . . . and if NASA and the talking heads cannot be honest about this, what else are they lying about?
I bet they know it all
I bet there was a civilization on Mars not long ago, and that Mars got destroyed by a huge impact. Mars is a shattered planet. Something devastated Mars in the not too distant past. Whatever it was that wiped out Mars blew away the atmosphere and left everything to die. There was life there, this stone statue proves it, advanced life, with humanoid form. Why would NASA not mention this? What is the big secret?Let me take a guess:
I would bet our real history goes something like this: There were two planets with life on them circling the sun. Whatever civilization developed on them stepped out of bounds and angered a greater civilization elsewhere. Mars was destroyed as a warning, and it's inhabitants were allowed to go to Earth. Ever hear of the Annunaki? A lot of that "myth" is likely to not be myth at all. This stone statue on Mars came from somewhere. An advanced somewhere, what happened to it? Interesting it is that because we would have the same roots, exactly the same types of artifacts can be found on Earth as well. What is our real history? A stone statue on Mars begs to differ with what we have been told.Discuss this on the Forum
UPDATE: The most widely used trolling method to debunk this is for shills and trolls to not use the original Nasa image, and then compress the image down to where Jpeg artefacting makes it look like that is what the teeth really are. To see what is really there, download the ORIGINAL image from NASA and nowhere else. Use a high quality rendering engine to view the image. There is some artifacting in the Nasa image, but it cannot be used to debunk this. Jpegs are encoded many different ways, and this one when received directly from NASA was encoded without chroma division. If your viewer can only show to chroma halved or less, (many only show to chroma quartered, which means the Jpeg pixels have 25 percent detail) you will not see the image as it was originally encoded. However, unless your point is to troll this topic, any Jpeg viewer will show you this is real, the Jpeg artifacting is simply not bad enough to wreck the original FROM NASA. If trolls wreck it by taking a crop out of the Nasa photo and then mega compress it from there, obviously you will not see what was in the original. The enhanced image took the best from Nasa, rendered it with the best Jpeg engine and then enhanced it from there to reveal all detail. I am an experienced photographer who can get the most detail out of a photo possible. The Martian statue is simply what happened when the best standard filters were applied to pull max detail, and then re-render it so anything could read it clearly.Paul lost his girlfriend over the above report, (no kidding!) read the following:
Paul short posted the following to the forum:
I was reading Jim's main site earlier and saw his analysis of the NASA photo of what appears to be a stone artifact on Mars. I have been seeing someone for a short while who is an afficianado of ancient civilizations and stone artifacts in particular. She was on her way over to my place so I downloaded the photo from the source and when she got here, I showed it to her, without telling her it was taken by a Mars rover. The ensuing conversation, paraphrased, went something like this: Me: Have you seen the new discovery scientists made in a desert recently? They think it's a new ancient civilization they discovered. They found this... and I pointed at the screen and zoomed in on the head.Her: Ooh, nice, yeah it's definitely man made. Looks a bit like Mayan or those stone heads on the Galapagos Islands. Yeah definitely, nature can't make a perfectly round eyeball and teeth like that since erosion is so random and unpredictable.
She talked for about 10 minutes, tossing around an impressive array of facts, then cocked her head and asked:
Why is the pic so brown? What desert did they find it in?
Me: The pic was taken by the Mars rover and I downloaded it from NASA's site.
She flipped, said that I tricked her and insulted her intelligence and that I was a donkey kicking crackpot who 'believed' in aliens.
I protested: But you just spent almost 15 minutes using your own knowledge to swoon over the new finding! What changed? How can you flipflop like that and now be trashing me. It was taken on another planet by f'ing NASA!
She grabbed her coat, called me a string of derogatory names and left.
Thanks for that, NASA.
Edit: I posted this earlier and deleted it so I could repost and pin, and add this.
The moral of the story is twofold:
1) The purpose for tricking her like that, is I wanted to see if someone with an above average knowledge of ancient civilizations and artifacts would recognize the artifact in the NASA photo as being man made, or in this case, made by something with intelligence. It sucks for me right now, but I do feel somewhat vindicated because until she found out the source of the photo, there was no question in her mind whatsoever as to whether that stone thing was man made or not.
2) If you don't enjoy being alone, don't trick your girlfriend.
http://jimstonefreelance.com/mayanmars.html
