I would first remind them that when the face on Mars was first shown in a picture, we did not have the greatest technology. This tells us that we cannot assume any thing in the picture to be definite because things may be blurred. This is not a major point to go on, but it is just the beginning.

Next, I would explain that messas are very common on Mars and that the shadows are the only factor that are actually giving an illusion of a face. This strays from from their belief that the face on Mars was created or planted there.

After that, I would simply point out that clearer pictures and better evidence have proven the face on Mars to be "a huge rock formation....formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth."

Also, Hollywood has been known to dazzle the mind with some unlikely but fascinating thoughts. Such as the many movies aout the face on Mars pointing the attention to aliens to gain more supporters and the good ratings from the audience. It is basically science fiction. They only provide a perspective from which the human mind can comprehend imagination. Imagining is good, but not with false hope. Books, magazines, and talk shows will do the same thing for similar reasonS. And other propositions from ordinary people for this face on Mars have surely been made over the last twenty-five years.

These things point to the fact that the face is merely a coincidence in a messa formation.