They'd better be careful what they do--the Moon really is a harsh mistress...

Re: the Face on Mars, I am reluctantly forced to keep an open mind on this one. Many of the early denials by NASA were along the lines of "It isn't a face-shaped monument, that's impossible," "It's impossible because it couldn't be," and "We're from the government and we know better. You're crazy." Perhaps the guys pushing the story were crazy, but that is beside the point.

Then, around 1997 or 1999, they showed photos from the Mars Global Surveyor on the evening news, proving that there was no face. At the end of the report that I watched, Dan Rather (possibly another anchor, but probably him) said that in fact the pictures just shown were actually from another area, but still, there really wasn't a face. So based on the govt. response, I find myself wondering whether they're really not covering something up anyway. It's hard to imagine why they would, but it's hard to imagine why the federal govt. does many of the things it does.

As for the high-resolution image from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_face_HiRISE_MRO.png), I'd like to see that with the same lighting and camera angle as the 1976 pictures. If it turns out that it's a naturally formed mesa, then shame on NASA for being so incompetent.