I'm probably going to get kicked up the backside for saying this, but I can't entertain anything Hoagland says as fact. I've had an open mind on the possibility of artificial structures on Mars, and was initially attracted to his work, but some of the garbage The Enterprise Mission posts as "evidence", plus the National Enquirer/Sun style rantings and character assassinations (IMHO) that appear there have been a real turn-off. It's becoming difficult to sift through what is, and what is not, viable "evidence". Hoagland seems to leap from one theory to another as new "data" becomes available (the result of putting all theoretical eggs in one basket, I guess), but as I say, that's just my little personal opinion. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>
As regards the latest data, I'm always wary of images which have been "enhanced" (= fooled around with), especially after some of the startling results which were achieved with the original "Face" image when compared to the later, more detailed NASA photographs.
Rob - I'd be interested to know what the procedure was for processing the image, using the ENVI software, as I find myself strangely attracted to the idea of tinkering with the pictures myself! Might be worth having a crack at some other non-Martian images as controls, to see if the same blocking effect is achieved - who knows, there may be Martian cities hidden under the Australian outback...
My mind's still open though, it's just a pity that Hoagland and his peoples' approach is so over the top.
