>I've looked into the face on mars nonesense in detail over the years
>(I was at Case For Mars II in '84 when Richard Hoagland was first
>He's a crank.
Agreed! Why can't you understand that acknowledging that an enigma exists on Mars is not in any way buying into the theories of a single nut?
Hoagland has done a lot of damage of late. When the AP ran a piece about the Mars face last year, who did they interview? Hoagland, of course... It's a self-defeating cycle that demands fresh thought. Hoagland is but one voice among many. Do yourself a favor and listen to some of the others.
(Can anyone honestly pretend that a subject as potentially explosive as possible ET artifacts wouldn't attract crazies? It comes with the territory.)