position.

If the subject is a statue it must have been formed by some person,
who once lived, and had an object or motive for making it. Who
can say what that object was? It must have been formed by a
person of wonderful genius and skill. Where and when did such a
person exist? History gives no account of him. Its formation and
object must have been known to many persons who assisted in its
manufacturing and transportation. Where are those persons?

The objections to the theory that the figure in question is a
statue, may be briefly described as follows:

1st. This figure, if made by human hand, was intended to be
exhibited; otherwise there can be no motive for making it. If it
was intended to be exhibited, it was also designed to assume some
position, either an erect or recumbent one. The reasons for
keeping it in that position would have been provided by the sculptor,
by either making a pedestal for it to stand upon, a tablet for it
to lie on, or forming the body on the stone out of which it was cut,
so that it would lie upon a flat surface. Nothing of this kind is
visible. There is nothing about the figure remaining except what
belongs to a man who has lain down alone in solitude and agony to
die and has died, and the story of whose death has been preserved
by the miraculous agencies of nature.

Second, if designed by man as the representation of man, the head
would have been covered with hair, the most beautiful ornament of
the human body, yet no trace of hair is found on this subject.