But the thing of it is, there are many thousands of similar formations, most still by convention interpreted as impact formations, as the Meridiani formations is.

There are also hundreds if not thousands of formations which are conventionally interpreted as "buried craters being exposed..." This one is frequently used as an example:

from: http://ida.wr.usgs.gov/html/m20015/m2001550.html

but what proof is there that this was ever an impact feature at all, "buried" or not? Basically, there is none. It's "always been called a 'buried crater being exposed' so that must be what it is." Well, maybe it is something else. I suspect it is a collapse formation generated by internal forces, but that would mean the Martian interior is or was active.

Some people get really tense about that.

Many of the large circular formations in the southern highlands show no particular evidence of impact formation at all. They are classified as impact formations because... what? No one has yet been able to mathematically describe how such formations might result from internal dynamics? Why should anyone bother to do it, or even consider alternative formation scenarios, if the impact hypothesis satisfies most of the field?

Is anyone in the field investigating sinkhole formation on Mars and other bodies? Who is paying attention to alternate formational processes? Everyone agrees that features and formations on Mars often mimic semi-familiar features or formations elsewhere though they are generated by different processes, or they give rise to "illusions," but what if large parts of our understanding about Mars right now is based on that Martian quality of mimicry and illusion, such that we really don't understand Mars much better than previous generations?

I believe we must keep asking questions and keep hammering away at conceit and complacency.

Cheers, BRFelix