>  JS> Well, what's the verdict on the Face? Tonight's newscast I
 >  JS> viewed (Peter Jennings) played it down, and talked briefly only
 >  JS> about how it now doesn't look like a face, so that it must have
 >  JS> been a couple tricks of light and shadow before.
 > Well with out a doubt no matter what they found I was sure that it
 > would not look like anything as the (in)famous pictures of past.
 >  JS> The viewing wasn't helped by the brighter swath that passed
 >  JS> vertically through the entire strip that was viewed. And some of
 >  JS> the brighter blotches on the "face" might possibly have been
 >  JS> Martian clouds.
 > I had to listen to Art Bell last night just to get his comment on
 > it,
 > as I had downloaded the pictures he had posted.  He had Richard
 > Hoagland as a guest speaker for a couple of hours.  Hoagland is
 > convinced that the area photographed is correct but claims that the
 > image processing was bungled/modified in some way.  Basically he
 > said
 > something to the effect that the pixel enhancement was sub par and
 > possibly manipulated.
I think it's time for the die-hards to give it up for now, unless future
pictures are more artificial looking. I hate to say this, but I'm starting
to think like the nay-sayers.
js
--- FMail 1.22
---------------