Strange formation in NASA's Mars photo fuels claims of extraterrestrial life on the Red Planet 50%

By Stacy Liberatore0%

6/30/2026, 10:51:22 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 32.1% saturation with 162 hits. Analysis detected 1,178 faulty-reasoning hits from 505 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.9% and a BS Rank of 50% (11,147 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.90% of the article peer group.

A strangely shaped object photographed on the Martian surface has reignited bizarre theories about extraterrestrial life on the Red Planet. 
The picture, captured by NASA's Opportunity rover in 2014, recently resurfaced online after social media users claimed the object resembles an 'alien gun.' 
Scott C Waring, a Martian researcher from 'UFO Sighting Daily,' suggested the 'gun' is evidence of why the space agency sent a rover to Mars to retrieve alien technology. 
'Alien gun on Mars photos, only one still exists, others deleted by NASA,' Waring shared on X on Tuesday. 
The image was previously circulated by Waring, writing in a blog post that the supposed weapon was 'about one foot long. 
'I have to admit... 
It's incredible,' he shared. 
'The exact location of the gun is at SOL 3773, which is between Mt Edgecumbe and Wdowiak Ridge.' 
NASA's Opportunity rover landed on Mars on January 25, 2004, touching down in a small impact crater known as Eagle Crater on the Meridiani Planum. 
However, the robot fell silent in June 2018 during a severe, planet-wide dust storm that blocked sunlight from reaching its panels. 
After spending months attempting to re-establish contact, NASA officially declared the mission complete in February 2019. 
However, it seems the UFO researchers' claims are nothing more than a case of pareidolia, a psychological response to seeing faces and other significant and everyday items. 
NASA has also maintained that it has no evidence of extraterrestrial life and has yet to find any signs of current or past life on Mars. 
While Waring is sure Opportunity spotted a gun on the Martian landscape, others believe otherwise. 
One X user commented: 'I'm not an expert, but I believe this is a rock.' 
While another joked: 'Why would aliens have guns designed for human hands and fingers? 
lol. 
' 
Waring has been sharing bizarrely shaped rocks on the Red Planet for about a decade now, with one in 2016 that he claimed was a shoe. 
'While looking through some Mars rover photos, I found a lone shoe on the edge of the crater,' he wrote on his website. 
'This is probably a shoe of a species that was at war long ago, the shoe being the lone evidence that the person had ever existed.' 
The discovery was spotted on August 24, 2016, however, the original photo from the Opportunity was taken in 2013. 
The NASA image shows a cluster of rocks spread out across the dusty planet, and the lone shoe can be seen to the right among the rubble, which may simply be another rock. 
However, Waring is sure this ‘shoe’ is all that is left of a soldier who lost their life on the battlefield. 
'How many times on a battlefield or at a catastrophic event have we seen photos in the newspaper of the shoes of victims…alone…evidence of how hard they were hit, how fast they were taken from us? 
Well, this is such evidence,' he wrote. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.2%Stacy Liberatore: 3.7%Daily Mail: 3.7%Confirmation Bias20.2%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.9%Daily Mail: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Stacy Liberatore: 1.9%Daily Mail: 3.5%Availability Heuristic9.1%This article: 12.3%Stacy Liberatore: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic12.3%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%Stacy Liberatore: 3.2%Daily Mail: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias13.5%This article: 12.3%Stacy Liberatore: 4.3%Daily Mail: 9.1%Framing Effect12.3%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.2%Stacy Liberatore: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.4%Status Quo Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.8%Stacy Liberatore: 0.9%Daily Mail: 2.3%Optimism Bias0.8%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 4.8%Daily Mail: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.2%Stacy Liberatore: 7.1%Daily Mail: 12.8%Negativity Bias23.2%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.1%Daily Mail: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.5%Daily Mail: 4.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect3.0%This article: 9.7%Stacy Liberatore: 1.5%Daily Mail: 1.6%Recency Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.5%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.9%Stacy Liberatore: 5.0%Daily Mail: 4.0%Appeal to Authority10.9%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 1.0%Daily Mail: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 3.4%Daily Mail: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.9%Stacy Liberatore: 5.7%Daily Mail: 4.3%Hasty Generalization9.9%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.6%Stacy Liberatore: 1.8%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon4.6%This article: 12.5%Stacy Liberatore: 5.2%Daily Mail: 7.6%Appeal to Emotion12.5%This article: 6.7%Stacy Liberatore: 1.2%Daily Mail: 0.6%Begging the Question6.7%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.7%Daily Mail: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 2.8%Stacy Liberatore: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.2%Tu Quoque2.8%This article: 10.9%Stacy Liberatore: 2.2%Daily Mail: 0.6%Burden of Proof10.9%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 32.1%Stacy Liberatore: 8.2%Daily Mail: 3.1%Anecdotal32.1%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.5%Stacy Liberatore: 2.4%Daily Mail: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.5%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 5.1%Stacy Liberatore: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy5.1%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 3.9%Daily Mail: 3.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.8%Stacy Liberatore: 1.9%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection3.8%This article: 16.4%Stacy Liberatore: 3.3%Daily Mail: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice16.4%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 1.6%Daily Mail: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

505 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers38%attributed speech313writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageScott C Waring • 29 words • 0.0% coverageScott C Waring • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageScott C Waring • 4 words • 0.0% coverageScott C Waring • 4 words • 0.0% coverageScott C Waring • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageNASA • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageScott C Waring • 23 words • 0.0% coverageScott C Waring • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageScott C Waring • 36 words • 0.0% coverageScott C Waring • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Scott C Waring

98%flagged-word coverage
166 attributed words86% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-26.5 ptsWriter: 26.5%Scott C Waring: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+11.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Scott C Waring: 11.4%11.4%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.