How can ANYONE continue to spew this garbage about collapsed lava tubes?

Did anyone LOOK at the picture? There is no evidence of collapse ANYWHERE in this image. The closest thing I see are about 4-6 minor bumps in the center of the channel in the larger image. Certainly NOTHING large enough to have ever enclosed a lava tube. The emperor needs new clothes... Or in this case a new lava tube roof. If this was a collapsed lave tube, where is the collapsed material? There's nothing even close to resembling the pile of rubble that should be there if this was a collapse.

Am I the only one who DOESN'T see a collapsed lava tube? I mean there's basically no jagged edges, no discernible rubble pile over the entire length of the "channel." We are all talking about the same basically completely smooth channel in the middle of the larger valley, or whatever right? The one with a basically rounded floor with all but NO debris, relatively scalloped edges (you can see it best around the purported "bridge"; frankly I think that's just a trick of light and shadow, like so many other "lava tubes" that are DISCONTINUOUS when you actually get to the high res shots)...

If one wanted a better view of the contextual image, one might try here:
http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/PSP/PSP_001420_2045/PSP_001420_2045_RED.browse.jpg

And notice how the "lava tube" comes out of nowhere and goes into nowhere... At the upper right it basically just peters out... And at the lower left...? It also seems to basically peter out... How odd. Though it looks like it may continue as two separate wide channels, but it looks like the whole thing is basically a big flood plain, so who knows.

Anyway, most "lava tubes" on Mars tend to utterly and completely FAIL under high res scrutiny. I have no clue how anyone can keep putting out such claims when the high res shots themselves basically refute it.

I'd love to see an actual lava tube with ACTUAL collapse/rubble in it. So far, high res shots of just about every purported "lava tube" I've been pointed to reveals nothing of the sort. Rather, nicely cleanly cut channels, often discontinuous, often petering out into a chain of craters, also nicely and cleanly scooped out. Many also tend to criss-cross each other in ways that utterly defy how fluids tend to act.

Case in point Arsia Mons "volcano."
http://themis.asu.edu/zoom-20050613A

Note the claimed "lava tubes" in the upper right doing things that you won't ever catch lava on earth doing... You've got "tubes" crossing each other at right or near-right angles. You've got "tubes" disintegrating into crater chains. You have some tubes that are obviously only COMPOSED OF crater chains. You have some "tubes" (more realistically channels or rilles) which terminate in a large crater. You even have one or two examples of "tubes"/rilles with crater chains running right down the middle of their twisting, cleanly sculpted paths.

Put simply, electrical arc scarring does this. Fluid dynamics does not. Period.

Electrical arcs have no compunctions about crossing previously scarred terrain and re-scarring over the top of it. Fluids, on the other hand, tend to follow pre-existing channels in a "path of least resistance."

Electrical arcs tend to sputter, grow and shrink in intensity, thus leaving larger and smaller craters, wider or narrower furrows in material as the arc wanders (often over other features). The sputtering may cause discontinuities (untouched ground between otherwise continuous furrows). In extreme cases, it creates so many furrows so quickly it's basically just a crater chain. There are several examples in the above photo of growing and shrinking channels, some of which are discontinuous over their length, many of which terminate in crater chains, many of which are ONLY crater chains (not completely/smoothly excavated, hence the scalloped look).

All the things that fluids, including lava, basically have no way of explaining the electrical model explains easily. I've seen enough now to say that with confidence. I've even seen some simple CRT discharge experiments (dust on a charged screen) which cause crater chaining. It's really quite fascinating to watch, though the lighting was a bit so-so, it was still enough illumination to see what was going on in the shot. It would also be better if my associate didn't have to resize the video to make it small enough to work over his dial-up connection (a lot of detail was lost, but enough was present to see exactly what was going on). Very cool stuff.

Anyway, I know this kind of thing tends to receive lukewarm or downright cold reviews. Nonetheless, gotta' keep it real. Know what I mean? The more images I see coming back from Mars (and from associates' labs) the more apparent it becomes just how correct the electrical model is.

Granted, electrical arcing takes a plethora of forms based on materials, charge, etc. So, it's not quite as simple as X amount of charge creates Y form of crater or rille. Charge/discharge is a finnicky beast. But most of the forms I've seen from friends in the lab (craters, chains, etc.) generally finds an analogy on Mars. Point being that the electrical model is simply an acknowledgment of the electrical forces acting on and sculpting planetary bodies. And many if not most of the scarring on Mars can be matched to images created in the lab.

Long and short, Mars has been electrically etched, at the VERY least in small part, more than likely on a fairly massive scale. I know that's hard to accept without dead-on catching it in the act, but the sheer amount of pictorial evidence put through the right filter is overwhelming.

Anyway, didn't mean to get completely off topic of the image that originally sparked the excursion. Just had to say it. 'cause someone's got to. As to what caused the particular features in the "bridge" image, it's hard to say. Would be easier with closer shots in higher resolution, and from different angles. I have a sneaking suspicion that if you were to walk up to it, you'd actually see two discontinuous rilles without a gap beneath. But, who knows, they may have found the ONE real tube/arch on the face of the planet. If so, congrats. 'cause the others have come up sorely empty.

I might add that the linked photo of arsia mons' "tubes" actually discredits the "tube" interpretation completely. It's high res enough to show there is no continuous "tube" under any of it. It's all cleanly scooped material with high sharp walls or craters. There is no extension beyond the end of the scalloping. It's simply a wall, a smooth wall, an etched wall. IF you look at it in the highest resolution available currently, it clears all doubt. There is no "tube" present. I'm looking as hard as I can, and there's not a single "tube" jumping out at me. They're just not there. These are all cleanly ejected/scalloped formations. "Tubes" have been myth-busted!

Seriously, look at the data then come back... Look at pretty much anything that was once listed as "lava tubes" in high resolution, and the "tube" disappears. There is no tube. Just a clean scoop. No rubble. Sometimes a mini rille in the bottom, sometimes just a crater chain along the bottom (I can guarantee that random impactors didn't hit exactly along the bottom-center of some of the twisty rilles I've seen with crater chaining in the bottom). Time to abandon defunct models. They just don't hold up under newer, bigger, better (higher resolution) scrutiny. Seriously.

And also seriously, don't take my word for it either (taking others' word for it only leads to problems; you need to look at the data), go look at the high res images yourselves. The data speaks for itself.

http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/
http://www.lpod.org/
http://www.msss.com/
http://www.martianspiders.com/ (Greg, love the site, good stuff!)
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/index.html
http://themis.asu.edu/

Look with untainted eyes. Lava tubes? Show me the tube or the rubble from the collapsed ceiling (hint: smooth rounded floors with no rubble and no exit hole generally don't count)... Volcanoes? Show me the magma dome or collapse pit(s) with rubble... I mean these are the simple things to look for to confirm or deny the theory. So far it's lead to a lot of denials...

Okay, I guess I'm done for now. That wasn't so painful was it? Well, I'm sure that for some it was... ;o] Seriously though, I hope I wasn't TOO vitriolic. I just can't see people clinging to outdated ideas that are simply WRONG and there are high res pictures to prove they're wrong. Period. It's both funny and sad at the same time.