Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing unatural about the supposed "Face on Mars". Though many would like to believe in the supernatural, this oddity is nothing but a rock formation. There are several reasons as to why the theory of aliens making this formation is preposterous, each reason stronger than the previous.

First and foremost, if these photos of the alleged face were the work of possible Martians, NASA would have found further evidence by now. Even if the cameras used to take these pictures weren't of the highest quality, said cameras would have been able to at least catch some photos of further signs of life. Things such as houses or buildings, for example. Now, if some one would like to argue that the aliens lived in caves or other natural formations of the sort, how would those people like to argue the fact that there are no visible creatures in any photos? Do they expect people to believe that every living thing on Mars decided to hide from a satelite they would not even be able to see from the surface?

Additionally, even if NASA had found this further evidence, why would the company try to hide it? Not only would releasing such infrormation to the public leave NASA with all sorts of world renouned achievements, it would be more than beneficial for the company's financial standpoint. Releasing statements as big as signs of life on Mars would do wonders for the company. The more achievements, the more sponsors will see the potential in investing money in a program such as NASA. Adding to that, the more sponsors, the more projects NASA can fund, and by extension, the more the foundation will be able to learn and teach the public.

Probably the most obvious piece of evidence that busts the idea of unknown life, is that these photos were taken in 1976 (according to paragraph 5 of Unmasking the Face on Mars) . Technology at that time was still fairly primitive, especially for space travel. The photo just happened to be taken at the right time, at the right angle, by a pilgrim piece of technology. Further pictures, such as the ones taken in 2001, reveal that the "face" is just a mesa, with next to no details that resemble that of a human complextion. Think of it as the

"...Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho..." (paragraph 12)

All in all, this "face" on Mars is no different from other conspiracies. Things like the picture of the Loch Ness Moster, the famous photo that was confirmed to be faked. Another good example is the "Bigfoot" craze. Both cases are similar to this one because all are just photos that are hard to be certain about, that sparked international interest. Not only are they similar that way, but each one has been debunked with solid evidence. The face on Mars is simply a clump of rock, nothing to be even slightly concerned about. Unless, of course, you are an individual who likes to be concerned about clumps of rock.

Score: 5