Recently in conversation, "The Face" was brought up.
Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't recall the "catbox" fiasco ever being discussed around here.
NASA vs. Artificial Structures on the Surface of Mars.
To me, this is a well reasoned argument for why "the face" issue persists.
I find myself frustrated upon hearing someone say matter-of-factly "it is just a hill with tricks of light and shadow coupled with pareidolia" or some other such.
Now, while I allow the ETH and consider it plausible that beings once inhabited Mars, in no way do I consider it proven.
So is it wrong to agree, as concluded in the article, that the question is yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years?
"For the time being, the conclusion must be that the basic question of whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered. Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered. NASA's irrational, even bizarre behavior in this matter, which runs counter to the most basic scientific principle that conclusions are drawn based on examination of the evidence, not on a priori beliefs, could simply be motivated by a desire to "save face" (pun intended) after firmly and repeatedly committing itself to a premature dismissal of the formation as natural in 1976. However, significant evidence suggests a more sinister explanation involving a long-standing policy of the US government to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts from the public."