Is the question that the pictures didn't show anything clear enough for your's or anyone in particular's perception, or whether there could actually be cities on Mars?
Sorry, I'm so open minded I'm not sure where in the possible sequence the debate is?
Christian von L?hr
I forget the term for it, but it basically comes down to how one can subjectively see a recognizable object in an abstract form/shape that will inevitably be recognized as something else entirely by another person.
As mentioned, looking at a cloud results in one person seeing a fish and someone else seeing a rabbit.
I haven't checked out the link Frys Girl posted, but I'm assuming it contains some images that Hoagland claims as indisputable evidence of mars monuments/cities.
Generally speaking, looking at these images invokes the same subjective response as the cloud analogy.
If you R E A L L Y want to see something, chances are you will.
The best example of this was what Hoagland deemed a topographical picture of Mars showing what he claimed were 'obvious' geometrical gridlines denoting evidence of a foregone city grid. This was back in 2001 or 2002, so I don't have the pic (maybe it's still up on his website).
At any rate, the picture was so abstract and ambiguous that it didn't prove a damn thing! lol
The show where he kept going on about it (while art blatantly dismissed it as I have) pretty much summed up (to me) just what an idiot Richard is.