Wow, talk about seeing what they "want to see," and not what's ACTUALLY there.

It's funny. You get the same fuzzy dotted-ness i nthe lake as you get on the nearby "ground." I'm not seeing any "water" "methane" "ethane..."

They sorely need to use better instrumentation. This photo is a Rorschach test. I see two relatively rounded-looking depressions. That's about it. It looks like you can vaguely see the bottoms of the depressions. I'd calk this up to "cratering" and most likely EDM. But nobody here will believe me, so I'll just leave it at "Rorschach test," to be validated when they take actual high-res photos and mysteriously don't find any liquids built-up... Or not enough to be properly called a lake.

I'll wait for newer better shots where you can actually make out DETAILS without squinting and tryingto IMAGINE what's there. Yet more examples of science-by-press-release-and-speculation. Not they don't say they SAW methane/ethane, but they "imagine" they're there, 'cause that's the only thing that could be there what with all the methane/ethane in the atmosphere.

I love how they BS when they can't make an actual measurement of something, so they just speculate as "fact" that it's there. That's what's wrong with sicence today. Too much speculating, not enough actual high res images to PROVE IT or DISPROVE IT... Granted, I speculated too, just trying to keep up with Nasa's speculators... ;)

Just my 2c.