Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
NASA's scientists are adiment that "the face on the mars" is actually a face. First of all, why would there be a face ON THE GROUND. Do they really think that some nonexisting extra-terrestrial decided that he wanted to put his face on the ground and leave a mark that he was there? Probably not. Also, none of these "faces" actually look like a face. It looks like a rock fell or something.

Nothing about these pictures are authentic. If you look closely, it clearly is not a face. I'm not going to go into details and try to figure out what it is myself, but that is definitely not a face. This "face" is a natural landform . There are plenty of places on Earth that looks like faces, but are just patches or grass, or dirt.

How can NASA try and conclude that some life form decided to put their face print in the dirt? They really can't.

In conclusion, The face is not a face, for it is a natural landform. A rock must have fell on the mesa. But it will never be a face. Never has, and never will. Nobody has actually been on Mars to even back up this evidence, so what proof do they really have??

Score: 2