Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Yes, the idea of the face being a creation of intellectual life, outside of our planet, is certainly quite intriguing. However, the idea isn't entirely ethical, and I do not agree with the theory that it is a product of martian life. However "uncanny" the face is, and aidmittedly, it is quite detailed, so I could see how one would think that it was constructed by intellegent life forms, but it just isnt logical.

We have yet to recieve any other signs of current life on mars, and why would this be the way of reaching out? As far as we have found (although, i would love for this to be incorrect) there is currently no life on mars, intellectual or otherwise, and with no one around to construct it, obviously all fingers point twards it being a natural land form.

There are many other examples of images, resembeling human faces showing up throughout space (although the "face on mars" is quite detailed compaired to some of the others). one common example would be the "man in the moon", which was likley formed by either asteroids, or other natural happenings that occur on the moon. Obviously the face on mars, is not the product of an asteroid impacting the surface of the planet, because an asteroid would imprint, but the face is raised, but it does show that sometime things that look human, are simply a product, caused by nature.

The first picture ever captured of the face, was taken in 1976, by the ship "Viking 1" as we all know the technology (cameras, and photo quality included) wasn't the best, and the article tells us that the resoloution was limited, it says "43 meters per pixel in the best 76' Viking photo". That was when the theory of the face was most avid, and it could very well ahve been partially due to the limited resoloution and quality of the photo. however in the 2001 photos of the face, which were used to conclude that it was simply a mesa, and not an alien artifact, the quality is much higher, which would obviously enable them to reach a far more sound conclusion, than any based off of the 76' photos.

Like I said, the idea that the face could be an alien artifact, is entirely unfounded. The idea that NASA would cover up a discovery like this

is entirely lewdacris, because a discovery of this nature is not only pretty much the entire point of th eprogram, but it would aso attract more attention, and taxdollars.

Score: 3