Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Is the "Face on Mars" real or not real? Some may argue against this, but I feel that there isn't enough proof to conclude that the "Face on Mars" is real. There are many reasons behind this statement. The original picture was taken during the cloudy Martian winter and the photography business has improved so much since then that the new image are proof that there is no face. I feel that the "Face on Mars" in not actually an alien-made structure because The original picture, which is what started the theory of Mars having a "face", was taken during the very cloudy Martian winter, the photographs taken of the "face" have changed a lot over time, and the newest 2001 image has basically proven the "Face on Mars" not to be real.

First off, the original picture of the "Face on Mars" was taken during the Martian winter which was very cloudy at the time. The photograph had obviously had to have been different than the actual so-called "face" because of this. If you were to try taking a picture when it is very foggy outside, would you be able to get a clear picture? No, you would barely be able to tell what the photograph was supposed to be of. Imagine taking that same photo from several hundred yards away. The picture would be even worse than before.

Secondly, the photograpy business has changed a lot from 1976 to 2001. One of the most well known atributes of a camera is its pixel size. The more pixels you have in a certain area, the better the photograph. The original image from 1976 had pixels that were 43 meters per pixel for the photo. 25 years later, during 2001, the new photograph taken of the "Face on Mars" had pixels that were nearly 30 times smaller than the original. This image's pixels were 1.56 meters per pixel.

Finally the most recent photo of the "Face on Mars" has basically proven the theory of the "Face on Mars" to be unreasonable. Afterall, the new image shows that valleys and craters in this structure. You can now tell that what was thought to be the eyes, nose, and mouth of the "Face on Mars" are just mere indentions on the structure. The "Face" really looks nothing like an actual human face. There just simply isn't enough proof in the new photograph to logically think that the "Face" is alien made.

As I said at the beginning of this explanation, there is still a lot that can be argued about. The fact that this structure os probably at least several thousand years old plays a huge factor in the theory. Mars's winds and stroms could have possibly worn away the details on the "face". Also, the valleys and craters could have come because of an earthquake or some other natural event. This is an argument that may last forever.

All in all, there is simply not enough proof to make the conclusion that the "Face on Mars" is alien-made. The time period has changed. The photography has changed. In fact, NASA wishes that there was enough proof to call this alien-made, but they think that there just isn't enough yet. This may truely be a mystery that will never be solved.

Score: 5