There are numerous other problems, particularly with the identification of Martian ‘faces’. Firstly, it is too humanoid. Unless we presuppose that humans are not indigenous to the earth (a view that flies in the face of biological, fossil and genetic data as well as common sense), we have few reasons to suspect that alien intelligences will resemble humans. Whilst bilateral symmetry is a likely feature of most developed life forms, there is nothing about the human form that makes it the best (or most likely) shape to house intelligence; the fossil record demonstrates that not only is our species the result of numerous accidents of evolution, but also that the entire group of Vertebrata with its paired limbs fore and aft is equally accidental. Other groups—such as the Insecta, with three paired limbs, or the Arthropoda, with a pair of limbs for each body segment—could equally have provided the basis from which an advanced intelligence might have developed. Indeed, the human emphasis on eyes as the primary sensory organ (and it is the eyes that dominate in the ‘face’ on Mars) is a further accident of evolution; other mammals, such as dogs, place a greater reliance on scent and consequently have more developed nasal receptors. The list can be expanded easily, but the basic point remains the same: the view of Homo sapiens sapiens as the pinnacle of evolution and therefore as the model for extraterrestrial life forms is a Victorian perspective with roots in the Book of Genesis, not a universal truth.
Alien intelligences ought to posses a number of features that would make them discernible as intelligent to humans. These include the ability to make replicated tools, to follow mathematical principles and to produce functional constructions. All of these are characteristics that their artefacts and monuments ought to possess. One set of obelisks on the moon ought to have similar (but not identical) counterparts elsewhere; mathematical relationships between obelisks ought to be observable between other structures; as well as (presumably) symbolic constructions, there ought also to be (nearby) functional constructions. These are not unreasonable and anthropomorphised considerations, but the logical consequences of intelligent design. The isolation of the claimed lunar monuments is a strong argument in favour of their natural and coincidental origin.