My opinion, anyway.

I think people looking at any picture that is 'fuzzy,' that has too little information, tend to see what they want to see.

This Gilbert Levin guy, for instance, wants there to be - and believes there to be - life on Mars. He's convinced.

http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/rethinking_viking_010720-1.html

Maybe he's right. He has company. Some scientists share his view, but the majority are more cautious. As they should be. Levin's arguments could all be correct, but there simply is not enough good data at this time to back him up.

I hope there's life on Mars and believe there could be. Just wish NASA would figure out the right experiments to send and then send them. Something tells me that it will take more than robots to find any life that may be there. Scientists may have to go in person.

That's another part of the Rorschach Test that Mars presents. Some people see places like Mars and Europa as the best arguments available for manned space exploration. Others see just the opposite, that the hazards, distances and costs mandate a machines-only approach.

Thoughts, anyone? Astronauts are horribly expensive, but should they be sent to Mars? Or is that just an irrational desire fostered in many of us by visions painted for us by science fiction? We want Buck Rogers and Forbidden Planet and Flash Gordon, but does it make sense?

Maybe robot exploration really is the way to go, and humans should follow later? Maybe even centuries later?