I recently read this in the "Sunday Times Magazine". It seems that the rock everyone thinks looks like a face appears to be a "worn
geological formation" when magnified. Or maybe it was a face originally but has just been eroded away?.................
Face on mars... heard that from Richard Hoagland. He's the guy defending it. He claims that NASA nuked it and that's why it didn't look the same as
the old photos.
If it was a face, the proportions are all wrong, all of the parts of the face are scrunched up in the middle, and the eyes are too far up the
forehead. It looks like a mesa to me.
This face is a product of Richard Hoaglands imagination. It may be a message from our Marsian cousins, but it seems like its just a neat arrangement
of shadows and shapes.
If your interested, there is allready an ATS thread here on the Martian 'face'.
And Hoagland's not the only guy talking about this, and certainley is more than just a figment of his imagination(artificial or not). Read
the thread for some good links and photos.