-=> Quoting Craig Meekins to Jack Sargeant <=-
 
 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.
 CM> 
 CM> Well with out a doubt no matter what they found I was sure that it
 CM> would not look like anything as the (in)famous pictures of past.
 
Naturally, since the resolution was improved 1000%.
 
 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.
 CM> 
 CM> I had to listen to Art Bell last night just to get his comment on it,
 CM> as I had downloaded the pictures he had posted.  He had Richard
 CM> Hoagland as a guest speaker for a couple of hours.  Hoagland is
 CM> convinced that the area photographed is correct but claims that the
 CM> image processing was bungled/modified in some way.  Basically he said
 CM> something to the effect that the pixel enhancement was sub par and
 CM> possibly manipulated.
 
Hoagland's comments are nothing new.
He's making a mint selling videos about a "face" on Mars, and now NASA
has thrown a monkey wrench into this scheme.
So it's only natural for Hoagland to whine and cry about the picture
having been manipulated, since the truth about this "face" demolishes
all of Hoagland's fantasies he was peddling to the gullible.
 
      Ross Sauer    patch@bbs.sts.net    patch@bytehead.com
 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]
--- TriToss (tm) 1.03 - (Unregistered)
---------------