Polls | Gaza | Fact Checker | Support Us
Sign In | Join Free |
UK FACT CHECK POLITICS

UK FACT CHECK POLITICS

 Voting intention Labour Lab 29% Reform Ref 27% Con Con 21% Lib Dem LD 8% Green Grn 8% Poll tracker

Menu

Topics
About
Get Involved
Follow Us

Account

Does this image show creepy 'spider' on Mars?

snopes.com 30 August 2026 at 10:57 View original article →

The original link is the material being checked. It may contain false or misleading claims — we link for transparency, not endorsement.

91/100
Verdict High Trust Highly Reliable — Verified fact-check with minor descriptive imprecision

The submitted text is, verbatim, the Snopes fact-check 'Does this image show creepy "spider" on Mars?', published in mid-August 2026 and syndicated to Yahoo News.

✓ 8 checks out ✕ 1 disputed ? 9 unverified
☰ Full analysis The complete summary ⌄

The submitted text is, verbatim, the Snopes fact-check 'Does this image show creepy "spider" on Mars?', published in mid-August 2026 and syndicated to Yahoo News. Its central verdict — that the viral 'spider-shaped rock formation' image is AI-generated rather than an authentic NASA Curiosity photograph — is consistent with all retrievable evidence: no NASA or credible outlet published such an image, and the checkable technical detail in the piece holds up. The article's key falsifiable assertion, that Curiosity's Sol 3987 corresponds to 24 October 2023 (not September or November 2024), is confirmed by NASA's own raw-image archive, which timestamps a Sol 3987 ChemCam frame at 2023-10-24 15:47:01 UTC, and by NASA's mission blog 'Sols 3987–3988: Short but Sweet' dated 25 October 2023. The methodological framing is unusually sound for the genre: the author explicitly discloses the fallibility of AI-detection tooling rather than treating a Meta detector result as dispositive — a caution independently vindicated by a Reuters analysis in July 2026 showing Meta's own identification tool failed on a majority of cropped Muse Image outputs. Emotional loading is negligible (emotion_score 0.03) and the 11 self-references are the standard first-person transparency convention of fact-checking, not rhetorical self-promotion. Deductions are modest and specific: (1) all hyperlinks were stripped from the submitted copy, so the primary artefacts — the Facebook 'Space Journey' post of 2 August, the Reddit thread, the archives and the image itself — cannot be independently inspected; (2) the closing reference to a 'fake image' of a SpaceX rocket hitting the moon is imprecise, since the corresponding Snopes fact-check concerned a video, and a genuine Falcon 9 upper-stage lunar impact did occur on 5 August 2026, a nuance the one-line callback elides.

What checked out (8)
  • Sol 3987 fell on 24 October 2023, not September or November 2024 — NASA's Curiosity raw-image archive records a Sol 3987 ChemCam frame taken at 2023-10-24 15:47:01 UTC, and NASA's mission-update blog 'Sols 3987-3988: Short but Sweet' is dated 25 October 2023. The article's central date-error argument is therefore correct.
  • Curiosity did return imagery on Sol 3987 — the NASA raw-images repository contains Sol 3987 frames (ChemCam and others), supporting the article's statement that the rover transmitted images that day but not the alleged spider formation.
  • Meta operates an AI identification tool at meta.ai/identification: Meta previewed a web-based tool in July 2026 that checks for the invisible 'Content Seal' watermarks used by its Muse Image model, matching the article's description of uploading the image to 'Meta's AI identification tool'.
  • The article's caveat that AI-detection tools are fallible is independently corroborated: a Reuters analysis reported that Meta's detector identified only about 45% of 40 Muse Image-generated pictures after simple cropping.
  • Facebook/Instagram apply AI labels on the basis of machine-readable provenance signals rather than editorial judgement — Meta stated it labels video, audio and image content when it detects industry-standard AI image indicators or when users self-disclose, consistent with the article's account of the 'AI Content' label.
  • SynthID is a real invisible watermarking technology and the article's coupling of Google and OpenAI is accurate for 2026: OpenAI joined the C2PA steering committee and committed to embedding Google DeepMind's SynthID watermark alongside Content Credentials in May 2026.
  • The article exists as published journalism and is not a fabricated artefact: it appears on Snopes.com at snopes.com/fact-check/image-mars-spider/ and in syndicated form on Yahoo News, both dated approximately one week before this assessment (late August 2026).
  • A genuinely related and authentic Mars phenomenon exists — NASA/JPL reported in February 2026 that Curiosity had spent roughly six months exploring 'boxwork' formations, low ridges 1 to 2 metres tall that resemble spiderwebs when viewed from orbit — which is consistent with the article's premise that real Martian geology is mundane rather than arachnid-shaped.
✕ Disputed claims 1 claim ⌄
  • PARTIALLY IMPRECISE, NOT FALSE — the closing line describing an August 2026 Snopes debunk of a 'fake image supposedly showing SpaceX's rocket crashing into the moon': the corresponding Snopes item is titled 'Does this video show SpaceX rocket crashing into the moon?' and concerned a video, and a real Falcon 9 upper stage did strike the Moon near Einstein Crater on 5 August 2026, leaving a crater imaged by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The medium descriptor (image vs video) and the absence of the 'the crash itself was real' context make the sentence loose, but it is not demonstrably false, since Snopes may hold a separate image-based item not surfaced in research.
? Unverified claims 9 claims ⌄
  • That the Facebook page 'Space Journey' shared the image on 2 August 2026 with the quoted caption — the submitted text has all URLs and archive links stripped, and the specific post could not be located or inspected during research; the claim is plausible but unconfirmed.
  • That the image additionally circulated on a second Facebook account and on Reddit, and that archived captures of both exist — not independently retrievable without the removed links.
  • That Snopes readers contacted the outlet asking whether the image was authentic — an internal, non-auditable editorial statement.
  • That the reverse image search via Google Lens and the DuckDuckGo/Google/Yahoo searches for 'Mars spider rock formation' returned no NASA or credible-outlet results — the negative-result methodology is reasonable and my own searches likewise surfaced no NASA publication of such an image, but a null result is inherently non-reproducible with certainty.
  • That Meta's tool returned a positive 'created with our generative AI tools' verdict for this specific file — the tool exists and the workflow is credible, but the individual query result cannot be re-run without the original image.
  • The forensic shadow analysis — that the rover's underside casts no shadow while the 'spider' formation does — cannot be adjudicated because the image itself was not supplied with the submitted text; the reasoning is internally coherent and consistent with standard AI-artefact detection, but is here an unverified observational assertion.
  • That both Facebook instances carried an 'AI Content' label at the time of review — label application is dynamic and post-specific, and could not be observed.
  • The original source and creator of the image remain unknown — the article's own admission; no research contradicted or resolved it.
  • The image text's stated date and its ambiguity between 11 September and 9 November 2024 — depends on the unavailable image; only the corrective NASA date was independently confirmed.
⌕ Sources & how we checked Search journal, source grades, confidence ⌄
Confidence

High (87%) — Confidence is high because the article's single decisive, falsifiable claim — the Sol 3987 date — was confirmed against a primary source, NASA's own raw-image archive, with an exact UTC timestamp, and was independently reinforced by NASA's mission blog. Every ancillary technical claim (the Meta identification tool, platform AI labelling by watermark signal, the SynthID attribution) was corroborated by dated first-party or reputable secondary reporting from 2026, and the article's most methodologically important gesture — disclaiming detector infallibility — is validated by independent testing rather than merely asserted. The overall verdict is further supported by convergent negative evidence: no NASA publication, no credible outlet coverage, and no dissenting analysis surfaced. Confidence is held below 95% for three reasons: the image itself was not supplied, so the shadow-inconsistency forensics and the embedded caption text remain unauditable; all hyperlinks were stripped from the submitted copy, rendering the social-media artefacts, the archives and the reader-tip claim unverifiable; and proprietary detector outputs are inherently non-reproducible by third parties. The identified imprecision in the closing cross-reference is minor and does not bear on the central verdict, warranting a modest deduction rather than a downgrade in classification. Per the guardrails, unresolved items are marked Unverified rather than False, and no adjudication rests on model knowledge alone.

Search journal

Snopes spider-shaped rock formation Mars AI image

NASA Curiosity Sol 3987 date

Facebook AI Content label SynthID watermark policy

Meta AI identification tool image created with Meta AI

"Sols 3987-3988" Curiosity blog Short but Sweet date

Curiosity Sol 3987 October 2023 raw images

Snopes fake image SpaceX rocket crashing into the moon 2026

SpaceX rocket crashed into the moon 2026 real event crater

SynthID Google DeepMind watermark OpenAI C2PA metadata difference

NASA Curiosity Martian spiderwebs boxwork ridges February 2026 JPL

Snopes AI detection tools fallible caution authenticity

Snopes image-mars-spider published date August 2026 author

Article metrics

Emotion 3% · Reading grade 9.6 · 531 words

≡ The article we checked Full text as retrieved ⌄
Claim: An image authentically showed a “spider-shaped rock formation” on the surface of Mars. In August 2026, an[image]( circulated online that supposedly showed a "spider-shaped rock formation" on the surface of Mars. For example, the Facebook page Space Journey [shared]( the image on Aug. 2([archived]( The caption read: > A strange rock on Mars sparked curiosity after its leg-like shape resembled a giant spider. NASA's images show it's an unusual rock formation shaped by natural geological processes—not evidence of life. The image also appeared elsewhere on [Facebook]( ([archived]( and [Reddit]( ([archived]( Snopes readers[contacted us]( to ask whether it was authentic, meaning not created or editing using artificial intelligence. We first uploaded the image into Google Lens to perform a[reverse image search]( Next, we used search engines such as [DuckDuckGo]( [Google]( and [Yahoo]( [archived]( [archived]( with the search term "Mars spider rock formation." If the scene in the image were authentic, it would likely appear on NASA's website, seeing as it allegedly came from the space agency's [Curiosity]( rover. Reputable media outlets might also have reported on it. That was not the case. We did not locate any examples of NASA or other credible outlets publishing the image, nor reporting on the alleged sighting. The image did not authentically show a "spider-shaped rock formation" on Mars. It was created using artificial intelligence tools. Therefore, we've labeled the image fake. The original source of the image was unknown. However, Facebook marked [both]( we found on the platform as "AI Content." According to the platform, this is a label Facebook [applies to items]( when it identifies a signal added by the AI tool used to create the content. This could be digital watermarks like Google or OpenAI's [SynthID]( This label, alongside other elements of the image, helped form our conclusion that it was fake. We uploaded the image into [Meta's AI identification tool]( which said it was created using its generative AI tools, further supporting our conclusion that it was fake. Let us note here: These types of AI detection tools are fallible. Snopes cautions people against using them for definitive answers on media's authenticity without supporting evidence. In this case, visual signs of the use of AI included inconsistent shadows. For example, the image showed that the bottom of the "rover" in the image did not cast a shadow. The "spider-shaped rock formation" did cast shadows, meaning the rover should, too. That was not the case. According to the text at the bottom of the fake image, NASA's Curiosity rover took the image on Sol 3987. Curiosity did send back an [image]( on that Sol, but it was not the one of the alleged spider rock formation. Additionally, the image text incorrectly translated Sols, meaning solar days on Mars. According to the the image text, Sol 3987 was either Sept. 11 or Nov. 9, 2024 (depending on whether the date listed month or day first). Sol 3987 was actually Oct. 24, 2023, [according]( to NASA. It was unlikely that NASA would make such a mistake. Snopes has debunked similar pieces of media before. For example, in August 2026, we traced the source of a [fake image]( supposedly showing SpaceX's rocket crashing into the moon.

Share this fact check

← Check another article or image