Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
"Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo."

This statement would lead anyone to believe that the details and magnification in a camera 25 years younger and improved would lead to better and more eye capsuring photos right?

Right.

So, why would there be controversey over the likelyhood of the face actually being real?

Here's why: people see something one time and they are automatically drawn into the idea that it has to be real. The Martian Mesa was said to look like a Egyptian Pharaoh. That statement leads people to believe that there had to be life to build something like that. But, with the shadow showing groves perfectly and the holes in the mesa made it look real. The "Face" is just another Mesa on Mars.

First, the pixels and the picture produced by the camera at that time weren't as developed as the camera used in 2001. You also have to take into account that, as time goes on, most products will be improved and made better, in this case that's how it was with the cameras, with a 25 year gap in between.

The text says, "And so on April 5, 1998, when Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time, Michael Malin and his Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) team snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos." The text also supports the claim by stating, "Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared on a JPL web site, revealing . . . a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all."

Additionally, the shadows had appeared to be hitting the natural landform just right. The scientists belive this because, they have seen many other mesas while traveling in space, this on just happened to have a interesting impression at first sight.

The text proves this by including, "A few days later NASA unveiled the image for all to see. The caption noted a "huge rock formation . . . which resembles a human head . . . formed by shadows giving the illusoin of eyes, nose, and mouth."

The text also says, There must have been a degree of spurise amoung mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Lab when the face appeared on their monitors. But the sensation was short lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia only this had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh."

Believers in this "face" may claim there was never a clear picture of the "face" taken after the first photo.

To support this they may think that the photographer taking the picture may not be able to see the clouds. The text says, "But not everyone was satisfied. The Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north martian latitude where it was winter in April '98 - a cloudy time of year on the Red Planet. The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to the Face."

However, NASA was able to take another picture of the Face when the clouds weren't in the way and it wasn't winter. The text says, "Nevertheless, on April 8, 2001 - a cloudless summer day in Cydonia - MGS drew close enough for a second look. What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa."

The Face captured on Mars has proven to be a natural landform. With shadows covering it and dips to make facial features it can across as an Egyptian Pharaoh. This is proven because, of the high tech cameras and the shadows only lasted one day allowed scientists to prove their claim - the Face was just a normal mesa landform.

Score: 5