Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
So the other day I was working at NASA just like everyday and something was brought up that I had never heard before. What was brought up was that back in the 70's, NASA's Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet snapping photos of possible landing sites for its sister ship Viking 2, it spotted a shadowy likeness of a human face. An enormous head nearly two miles away from end to end seemed to be staring back at the cameras from a top region of the Red Planet called Cydonia. The person who said this out loud said it was just formations called butte or mesa's which are very common around the American West. What happened was pretty normal at NASA. One of my co workers blurted out it was probably created by aliens. More people started agreeing with him because how else could a human looking face get on a planet that nobody ever talked about. It started to have me thinking about space and all the crazy things that happen, so I decided to do some research when I got home. I looked around the internet, and went to the public library to look for some books about rock formatons on different planets. Once I got those, I finally began research and what I found was shocking. I believe that the face on Mars is not and ancient alein artifact because rock formations form on every planet, pictures can be deceving, and there is no scientific proof that aliens have ever existed.

I believe that the face found on Mars is not an ancient alien artifact because rock formations form on every planet. research has shown that the face found on Mars looksv like lanforms common around the American West. As far as people know, that face could have just gotten there from some sort of sand storm on the big red planet back in the 70's. Another thing that people shold know is that pictures can be deceving.

I believe that the face found on Mars was not an ancient alien artifact because pictures can be deciving. What scientist knew back then, and what they know now is a lot different. There is much more technological advances now then there were back then, so the picture quality from space wasn't very good. It was very pixelated, not clear, and didn't give very much information. It is understandable that people thought it was an alien head but thats just not the truth. The picture quality now is at the highest its ever been so people can see pictures a lot more clearly. Each pixel in the 2001 image spans 1.56 meters, compared to 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo. That proves that the image was very deceving and not many people could figure out what it most likely looked like. One more thing that people should really know is that there is no scientific proof that aliens ever existed.

I believe that the face on Mars was not an anciet alien artifact because there is no scientific proof that aliens ever existed. Back in the 70's people thought that aliens were real because the technology wasn't very good, and people olny believed what they were told. In the latest years though, Scientists have no evidence that aliens are real. This proves that there couldn't have been an anciet cicilization of aliens.

Because of these facts, I believe that the face found on Mars was not an ancient alien artifact becaue rock formations can be found on every planet, pictures can be deceving, and there is no scientific proof that aliens ever existed.

Score: 5