The images you use based on MOLA data are wonderful, and they are somewhat wildly deceptive. But then, that's been standard in Mars study for quite a few generations. Still, they can be useful.
Regarding the "buried crater being exhumed" ( It has a name, Felix! A name, dammit!): There is really no evidence at all that the formation is due to impact. The "rim" on the northern margin may well be nothing more than part of the rolling plains. In fact, if you smooth over the formation, and then rough it up a little bit, there would be no sign of a circular formation at all. The pitting here actually suggests collapse and outgassing and some fluid flow. We can't tell, however, from our distant position, and it can be hard to speculate, too. Nevertheless there could have been an impact crater here, couldn't there? Well sure. But we don't know that is the origin -- or any part of -- the formation in question.
The whole concept of "buried craters being exhumed" needs some better supporting evidence.
For example, what causes the complete burial of impact formations in the Southern Highlands? How and why are they then exhumed?
Cheers, BRF
Space/Science » in reply to re: The secondary argument
Love that MOLA!
The whole thread (52 posts)
- Bill Hartmann (Scientist, textbook/fiction Author, & Painter)
- More B*** S*** impact "science"
- Sense of humor, too
- re: Bill Hartmann (Scientist, textbook/fiction Author, & Painter)
- re: Bill Hartmann
- Hartmann's Travelers Guide to Mars
- re: Bill Hartmann (Scientist, textbook/fiction Author, & Painter)