Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The "Face on Mars" is not a face. The face is just a natural landform on Mars. It might have look like one in the 1976 picture of it. The "Face on Mars" is a natural landform.

In the 1976 picture of it, might have look like a face since we didn't have the technology to see it better. It resembled a human head, but it was the shadows that gave the illusion of eyes, nose, and head. Then in 1998 the NASA went back to mars to take more pictures and it turn out be a natural landform. From far away it might have look like a face, but close up it was a mesa. Somepeople wasn't satisfied about it intill we saw what it really was in 2001.

In 2001 NASA sent a drone to take picture of the Face on Mars. It turn to be a Matain mesa which was common around Cydonia. In article it states that that that shadows made the illusion that it was a face. NASA wish there was a n acient civilization on Mars, but wasn't. The finding of the Face on Mars spreaded to books magazines, radio talk shows and more.

The article states that MOc team snapped pictures 10 times sharper than the oringinaland got a natural landform.

It might have been cool that the "Face on Mars" was really real. There are times that we think it was a face but it wasn't took at the right angle to see the face. Somepeople think it was because of the time and date when the picture was taken. They say that the alien markings were hidden by the haze. On a cloudless summer day MGS drew close enough for a second look. When they took the picture on montier it shown that it was lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa.

The "Face on Mars" is a natural landform. When the "Face on Mars" became a pop icon. Alot people thought it was a actually face. They might just send another drone to take another picture just make sure its an natural landform. In my opioion I did not what it was intill I read this article. Now we know that the Face on Mars wasn't a face after all.

Score: 3