I have to admit that I too am a skeptical about this article. While a lot of interesting "facts" are noted, and, taken at face value this appears scientific, I do not take it at face value.

The 14:1 ratio is interesting but why would the ratio exist, also the tetrahedral equation brings two totally unrelated curiosities to point to one "Miraculous" circumstance. So we have the latitude, what about longitude. Even if that evidence is there it points to no specific place on the planet but a circular line extending around it. Instead of using enclosed angles any other feature could have been used to come up with any number of latitudes or longitudes. Why multiply by Pi. It is not the only universal constant it is simply one of them, e is the most common constant found in nature, not pi, it is the basis of the natural logirithm found to be the cornerstone of most engineering especially ancient engineering.

Similarly if size were to be the same since Mars is somewhat smaller than Earth why isn't the ratio such that the size of the site is related to the size of the planet? From the photo's I found it hard to determine if the photo had to be rotated. I am not saying it is but the original shadow on the face shows a definate angle different from what it seems it would be by the N-S facing of the picture. This could be due to seasonal positioning so it should not be taken as anything conclusive. Since the lattitude is fairly far north there could be some distortion and I don't have the resources available to determine the actual angle of the photo. I just not this because the axial offset of Mars is only slightly different than the axial offset of Earth.

Personally, while I find the article to be less than scientific in its presentation I also couldn't find much trying to debunk the whole scope of the writing just the "Face". I want to see someone discuss the dimensional parallels. So what if the formation isn't a face, if the geology still holds up and the comparisons are significant this can still mean intelligent design rather than geological randomness. While I am a sceptic I love the idea behind the article and find myself wishing someone would really prove my scepticism to be false.