You and your friends and family could often have arguments on whether something is real or not, such as in movies. Some might think one thing is special effects, others will think it is real. In Unmasking the Face on Mars, the author explains controversy of the "face" found on Mars' surface. It became an icon once it was released to the public. It was highlighted for decades and the society argued over it being an alien making, or just a land form called a mesa. The face was just a natural landform and it shouldn't have been thought as an alien form.

The most logical answer to this was that it was a mesa, and that the shadows on the surface happened to make it look like a human face of an egyptian pharaoh. This struck civilization in the late 70s and caused a lot of arguments. The people that thought is actually was an alien structure were just people of the press who just wanted attention. A Mars Global Surveyor " snapped a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos. Thousands of anxious web surfers were waiting when the image first appeared an a JPL web site, revealing... a natural landform. There was no alien monument after all." This quotes directly states and gives evidence that it is just a natural landform.

There isn't even any true or logical evidence that the face on Mars was an " alien artifact." It was just a rumor that went around to keep things interesting and intrigue big movie companies. The cameras even took a picture with a ten times better resolution than the 1976 picture of the face. In addition, the new picture even had each pixel in the image span 1.56 meters in comparison to the original 43 meters per pixel. Garvin talks that " As a rule of thumb you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size," and that " if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!" Garvin directly states here that no matter what, the formation couldn't have possibly been an alien formation or even a pyramid. This is even more proof that it is ridiculous to think that the formation was an " alien making ."

Although the face was thought to be alien, there is too much evidence that denies it, and that it isn't. Scientists would wish that it was an extra terrestrial sign, but the odds of that are too scarce to even consider. This was a very controversial topic, as I have stated before. All of the theorists out there had many different and unique opinions of it. The narrator says what the image " actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa - landfroms common around the American West. " It remeinds me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho," says Garvin." This evidence gives even further support that it isn't extra terrestrial, and states that it isn't, shich exposes that it is a fluke.

The face on Mars was an ongoing argument for years to come once it was released to the public. There was no reason to do so. There was already valid points that gave proof of it being just a mesa. Things like this occurence happen all the time, even in your daily life. If things like this run across your mind, think about it the logical way and not a very, very unlikely path about it. There may be similarities between the sides, like in this argument. But, there was too much to show that it favored the more realistic side of it. The passage has multiple occurences where it directly states just that.