We at NASA are going to take this topic head on starting with you. We are going to try to make you think different about the "alien landform" you believe in. I will be the person you will tell about your theory and I will try to change you belief on the whole idea and if you don't it is just your loss. I will admit I would have loved it to have been an alien monument to some sort of king or ruler too, so we could of seen it more than what it was if it really was an alien monument. That is besides the point here that it is a natural land form like the mesas we have here on Earth.

The first picture had a terrible resolution of 43 meters per pixel! That is completely unaccepltable in today's terms for resolution. The first picture in 1976 was only speculated to be an alien monument was due to the shadows on the land and not the actual characteristics of the land. In 1998 the picture could have been altered due to fog, but in 2001 a clear picture proved that the "face" on the mesa was just nothing to be excited about. Also if it was some sort of landmark of an ancient civilization you probably could have seen houses or shacks somewhere near it. Also why would we cover up an amazing dicovery that could benefit us in the long run with more funding and credibility.

To put down the truth your theory is more like a thought than an actual theor a this point due to the facts that already prove that it is a mesa a lot like our in on earth. You have to support your statement with much more than an outdated pickture taken about 40 years ago and just accept the facts that are in your face laid out right now the unaccuracy f the first picture, the shadows only showing that if could have been a face, and how why we would cover up soming thing that could get us more publicity to the public eye and more funding. So I hope this discussion changed your mind anout this whole thing and if it didn't you are a stubborn person. So I hope this is the only time we have to correct you.