Researchers link Martian surface "oddities" with subsurface water and impact craters

Jul 27, 2012 By Jeff Renaud
3D Image (Wide) of Tooting Crater

( -- Investigating extremely detailed images of Mars produced by the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera – the largest ever carried on a deep space mission – researchers from Western University have discovered further evidence linking subsurface volatiles, such as water or ice, to previously recognized (but thought to be rare) pits, which commonly arise on the floors of Martian impact craters.

Livio Tornabene, an adjunct research professor in Western's Department of Earth Sciences and an investigator at the Centre for Planetary Science and Exploration, says deciphering the origin of these pits assists planetary geologists like he and CPSX Acting Director Gordon Osinski in understanding how affect the hydrological and climatic history of .

3D Model (Closeup) of Zumba Crater. Credit: NASA/JPL/UA

The pits range from a few meters to three kilometres in diameter and are observed in more than 200 well-preserved Martian craters, which range from one to 150 kilometres in diameter. The pits possess only slightly raised rims and no sign of definable ejecta deposits around them, which would normally result from smaller impacts of heavenly debris and thus make them distinguishable from other common Martian features. Their attributes and occurrence in Martian craters of all sizes and the range of preservation suggests that the phenomena may have formed throughout Mars' geologic history.

"These images present evidence that there is a connection between volatiles like water and ice in the subsurface of Mars and the impact process," explains Tornabene, a former HiRISE operator and ongoing member of its science team. "A meteor impact obviously delivers a lot of energy and heat to the surface of Mars, so if you have frozen water present underground then heat delivered by the impact is going to react with it."

3D Model (Extreme Closeup) of Zumba Crater - Pits on floor of crater. Credit: NASA/JPL/UA

Tornabene adds that one of the difficulties with studying Mars' surface is that while it's not as geographically active as Earth, it still has some activity.

"Unlike the moon, it's hard to prove if craters on Mars formed the phenomenon or did they come later as a consequence of other geologic processes that occurred after the impact crater formed," says Tornabene, noting the closest comparison to these pits on Earth form when lava interacts with groundwater or icy substrates.

Explore further: How bad can solar storms get?

More information: "Widespread crater-related pitted materials on Mars: Further evidence for the role of target volatiles during the impact process" ( is featured in the August 2012 issue of Icarus.

Related Stories

Distal Rampart of Crater in Chryse Planitia

Nov 13, 2009

( -- Impact craters on Mars are kind of neat. Many of them look very different than impact craters seen on Earth's moon or Mercury. Fresh lunar and Mercurian craters have ejecta blankets that look ...

Layered Crater on Mars

Jul 18, 2007

This image covers an impact crater roughly 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) in diameter. The subimage shows just a small segment of the crater rim (1336 x 889; 3 MB). ...

Exhumed rocks reveal Mars water ran deep

Jun 28, 2012

( -- By studying rocks blasted out of impact craters, ESA’s Mars Express has found evidence that underground water persisted at depth for prolonged periods during the first billion years of the ...

Channels from Mars Hale Crater

Oct 28, 2009

( -- This image from NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter shows channels to the southeast of Hale crater on southern Mars. Taken by the orbiter's High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) ...

Recommended for you

How bad can solar storms get?

May 22, 2015

Our sun regularly pelts the Earth with all kinds of radiation and charged particles. How bad can these solar storms get?

Mars rover's ChemCam instrument gets sharper vision

May 22, 2015

NASA's Mars Curiosity Rover's "ChemCam" instrument just got a major capability fix, as Los Alamos National Laboratory scientists uploaded a software repair for the auto-focus system on the instrument.

GOES-R satellite begins environmental testing

May 21, 2015

The GOES-R satellite, slated to launch in 2016, is ready for environmental testing. Environmental testing simulates the harsh conditions of launch and the space environment once the satellite is in orbit. ...

User comments : 42

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2012
Interesting mind screw.

In the third photo, I could not visualize the structures as "pits" at first, and my brain somehow had a disconnect and saw them as "eroded hills and mountains".

Anyway, pits might also form from explosive out-gasing from the melted crust, as the surface probably cools faster than the interior, and you might get a gas buildup below this hardened layer which then explodes like a volcano or methane bomb.

On Earth I believe such fine structures are too heavily eroded in the larger craters so that you cannot see them.

Barringer crater is the youngest "larger" terrestrial crater on Earth, and It may not even be big enough to produce these structures anyway, and in any case, if they did exist they've been eroded. So unfortunately, we have little to no Earth analog to study, and hopefully we never shall have "new" ones, since anything large enough to produce this will be devastating to our civilization.
3 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2012
There are features somewhat like this here on Earth which remain unexplained. Look up Carolina Bay on wiki. They are oval shaped depressions found along the US East Coast, and they are all aligned in the same direction, and usually in clusters. Kinda creepy.


1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2012
It's worth nothing that these features can be created in very simple garage-scale experiments, without any serious funding ...

3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2012

I think those are a somewhat different structure since many of them have convergent orientations, as well as higher rims in the direction opposite the convergence.

This suggests material cast-off from a large volcanic eruption or air burst at the point of convergence. Although the climatological pattern of Derecho events would also explain the larger rims on the SE side as the wind would presumably tend to pile sediment up against the far rim, while eroding the near rim, I think.

In any case, this is quite a different structure than the pits seen inside of the craters on Mars.

Of course, if there was an air burst it would need to be like 100 times larger than Tunguska, and you should be able to find remnants of any rocky material or exotic metals piled up on the opposite side from convergence, assuming they exist because of material being ejected or pushed in that direction during the secondary impacts of these cast-off debris from the initial explosion.

3 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2012
It's worth nothing that these features can be created in very simple garage-scale experiments, without any serious funding ...


With such little erosion on mars compared to the Earth, probably about 1/3rd the average rate, it's entirely plausible that these structures are the actual meteors resting on the surface of the craters.

Escape velocity of Mars is much lower than Earth, and therefore so should be the average impact velocity, at least adjusted for change in slowing due to atmospheric density being much lower.

Imagine dropping a pebble into a sand box on Earth from several meters up. It can create a crater much larger than itself, while still resting harmlessly at the bottom of said crater. Since meteors are often made of solid metallic crystals, they would erode far more slowly than the surrounding soil and rock, particularly on a planet with little water and most O2 consumed as CO2 or rust already...
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2012
I suppose proving the features on Earth come from an air burst would require taking deep core samples and looking for "shocked" nano-crystals, such as ultra-hard diamond allotropes, or shocked corundum forms. Although if I'm correct, these should be found only from the center of the ponds outwards towards the opposite side of the common focus point, and only in the most undisturbed soils relative to the creative event. Although you might find some of such crystals imbedded in soils or sedimentary rocks "downstream" from these ponds in some situations where transport and deposition may have occurred shortly thereafter.

Shocked crystals and vitrification at micro and nano scales would be a smoking gun, especially if it was accompanied by a slight change in the ratio of rare or exotic isotopes. This is quite a different study than looking at radio dating, since an exotic isotope need not be radioactive, and will be in trace amounts difficult to discern from natural abundance.
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2012
Additionally, if the impactor on Earth came in from the Northwest, it could have broken up high in the atmosphere with the larger piece n a slightly slower and southerly track, exploding over Indiana, while the larger piece exploded or impacted near Maryland or New England. There is a large crater in Chesepeake bay after all.

This might even explain some of Minnesota's lakes if some of the cast-off flew backwards hitting that region.
2 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2012

How many times must we ignore evidence that bodies in space can acquire and exchange electrical charge? It might help to remind people that the Deep Impact mission exhibited two separate flashes between the impactor and Tempel 1, precisely as we would expect in the event of a charge neutralization. That impactor was traveling far too fast for different layers of the comet to induce separate flashes. This is covered extensively by Wal Thornhill, who was the only person to predict two separate flashes...


Another important clue which people are quick to ignore is the saturation of Gaileo's cameras -- which I believe would be the first time in recorded history when a camera was claimed to saturate from observation of a lava flow ...

We need to be critically thinking about these press releases, instead of just figuring out ways to save conventional theory.
3 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2012

Well, the sort of core sample and sedimentation tests I suggest should be able to tell the difference between these processes. If there was a large electrical disturbance involved, you'd expect exotic chemistry, depending on the initial soil composition, and perhaps if you could find an undisturbed sample, there may even be some sort of halo or corona effect if an electrical disturbance was involved.

Unfortunately a chemical signature associated with an electrical disturbance would be much harder to track than a nano-crystal or isotopic signature, because it's much more likely to be decayed or consumed through some other organic or chemical process since it's creation.

In order to prevent contamination of such a signature, it would need to be truly undisturbed, and perhaps even protected from water intrusion, which is going to VERY difficult to find in a crater environment on the Earth, if not completely impossible.
2 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2012

What should be just a little bit scary to people is this apparent requirement by mainstreamers that the proof for large-scale electrical machining precede the search for its evidence. This is hardly a new debate by now, and yet, we seem to continue to treat it as one. In fact, the notion of interplanetary discharge was at one point in time a topic which was worthy of a national best-seller (Worlds in Collision).

The evidence for electrical machining is currently strongest when the evidence is looked at in a holistic manner -- rilles which travel both down AND UP planetary terrains, the mystery of what happened to the Grand Canyon's contents, Martian rilles which are in fact chains of craters, the numerous forms of Martian scars which match simple electrostatic experiments (Martian spiders can also be easily recreated), the observation of dust devils on Mars which have electrical discharges at their cores ...

The list is quite long by now ...
2 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2012
One could be forgiven for thinking that many researchers are simply averse to the notion that we may live in a catastrophic universe, and that they act out this subconscious fear by refusing to create additional evidence for it.

One of the strangest clues of all is the morphology for Zeus' thunderbolt, which he is shown holding in his hand. David Talbott has shown rather clearly that the various forms which the Greeks used to represent "thunderbolt" looked nothing at all like the terrestrial lightning we see in our sky. But, these forms do instead perfectly match the forms which we see in high-intensity plasma discharge laboratories. Anthony Peratt has taken this evidence yet further by showing that there exist 85 separate classes of petroglyphs which can be explained by high-intensity electrical discharges over plasmas ...

2 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2012
As many of you likely know, the Grand Canyon punches straight through the Kaibab Upwarp plateau. Since when do rivers go straight through plateaus? This is really quite unusual, and like the Baltis Vallis on Venus -- which rises and falls dozens of times, with some two kilometers separating its high and low points along its 6,800 kilometer length -- complex theories involving uplift are required to save conventional uniformitarian assumptions.

That people can look at some of the images from Mars, and not even have the thought of a welded joint, is really testament to the power of conventional wisdom over peoples' minds ...


What has happened to following the evidence where it leads us?

Sorry if I sound a little bit upset. It just seems like people are incapable of considering alternative scientific paradigms.
2 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2012
It should be somewhat haunting to people that when Einstein died, Worlds in Collision was left open on his desk. Einstein and Velikovsky in fact engaged in civil, intellectual discourse for a number of years. What people fail to realize today is that when Einstein proposed Relativity, the widespread belief was that space was largely a vacuum, occasionally populated by liquids, solids and gases. Plasmas (charged gases) were just a blip on the radar at that point. But, once we started sending probes into space, we saw charged particles wherever we went (plasmas). In due time, astrophysicists would come to recognize that 99.99% of what we see with our telescopes is matter in the plasma state. It appears that since Relativity, we have completely switched the universe's preferred state for matter. The widespread, collective assumption that this change of state should have no crucial impact upon our theories for the universe is really quite extraordinary.
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2012
The heck is the United Arab Emirates region doing with a petroglyph with an nearly identical symbol to New Mexico, the Navajo and Valcamonico? This suggests identical root language, or else a depiction of an identical phenomenon with identical perception and interpretation of that phenomenon.

Just taking the stretch that these glyphs are some sort of record of observation of plasma behavior, why leave these rocords as paintings or engravings in stone, unless it was meant to be some sort of time capsule?

Are we to assume this is a "non-volatile" record of a prior technology, or is it a record of an cataclysmic event that the people could not explain, but tried to document so that future generations might figure it out?

In any case, if it is simply a coincidental symbol in language, why does it exist in so many different cultures which mainstream archeology and anthropology claims had no contact with one another?

Evidence of trade forgotten even by the traditions of the descendants?
2 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2012
And, when one digs a little bit deeper, it's quite easy to find modern papers which question the magnetohydrodynamics models which are currently in vogue amongst astrophysicists today ...

Why space physics needs to go beyond the MHD box

There are yet other similar articles behind paywalls which question the plasma models -- which appear to have been tailored to suit the notion of a universe dominated by gravity. That assertion is incidentally made even though the electric force is 10^36 times stronger than the gravitational force. If one is to follow from the other, we'd be wise to bet against the mainstream on this one.

Worse yet, conventional astrophysicists don't even teach their students the extended history of the MHD models. Most astrophysical students will not know that the man who created the MHD models -- Hannes Alfven -- distanced himself from the way they were being applied by astrophysicists.
2 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2012
Re: "or is it a record of an cataclysmic event that the people could not explain, but tried to document so that future generations might figure it out?"

This would seem to be the claim being made: That there are two ways to explain many of the geological features we see: the uniformitarian and the catastrophist. Conventional theorists simply choose to refuse to participate in the elaboration of the electrical-catastrophist scientific framework. There is more than enough evidence by now to make the case that we should be investing in attempts to elaborate a second scientific framework, which we can then use to contrast against the first for each new observation.

We don't need definitive proof to invest in a theory.

If there is evidence to suggest that the sky might have dramatically changed in human historical times, it seems to me human hubris to repeatedly ignore this line of investigation. After all, a catastrophic universe would seem quiescent for most of the time.
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2012
The best biography of Hannes Alfven ever written ...


What many people don't realize is that our MHD models for cosmic plasmas make sweeping assumptions about the plasma's ability to sustain an electric field. It's currently acceptable in astrophysics to basically model the plasma, under ALL circumstances, as though it's a superconductor with zero electrical resistance, and that its magnetic fields are essentially frozen-in like fossils. But, in the laboratory, there is ALWAYS some tiny electrical resistance. Eliminate these unsupported assumptions, and the universe becomes fundamentally electric.

Making matters worse, one of the world's most famous radio astronomers - Gerrit Verschuur - notes that the interstellar "clouds" are not at all cloud-like. They are highly filamentary, like a novely plasma globe ...

3 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2012
Well, what is your interpretation of how enormous quantities of isotopically biased (or distilled by Oxygen isotope or Hydrogen isotope,) water could become trapped underground near some subduction zones, even with no apparent meteor or "special" volcanic activity involved?

How could the temperature be maintained at an exact range so as to allow one isotope's water molecules to boil away in such huge quantities, while leaving the other behind in an underground lake or aquifer of enormous proportions?

This would seem to require eons of time through conventional means, and yet it would seem far more likely that during this time earthquakes and volcanism would fracture the crust and re-mix natural isotope abundance water back into the system anyway.

I considered microbial life, since lifeforms sometimes use molecules of one isotope and leave the other behind, but what happened to the microbes, and how did the "used" isotope get transported away from the aquifer(s) in any case?
2 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2012
Red flag
Red flag
Red flag


If a person adopts a specialist's perspective, they will not notice the interdisciplinary collection of evidence which is amassing on this subject. It is only when people make a commitment to treating the subject as an interdisciplinary topic that the number of coincidences starts to rise beyond believability.

We specialize in order to fit into the job market. But, specialization seems to undermine our attempts to understand the big picture of what's going on. All complex topics demand an interdisciplinary approach.
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2012
I will admit that I am (currently) out of my league on isotopes, but I can point you to interesting sites which are worth checking out.

I see alarming hints that we have made an unsupported assumption about radioactive decay rates ...


And, as you possibly already realize, there appears to exist a small sidereal component to decay rates which has been validated by additional investigators ...


I am NOT a creationist, but I can see that most discussions of isotopes rest upon a bedrock of shaky assumptions -- which, to be clear, few of us have actually validated. The only people really validating our assumptions about isotopes seem to be the LENR experimentalists. And that is a whole different story.

So, I apologize, but this is something which I am still learning myself. There's just so much to digest that it's overwhelming.
3 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2012
Why does the pacific and Atlantic oceans contain different isotopic abundances for water, even though there is mixing between the two over multi-year time scales in both the northern and southern hemisphere?

Take a look at a world map, and the passage between the two is not small. In the S. Hemisphere it's about 10 degrees wide near S. America, and a massive 35 degrees wide near Africa. In the N. Hemisphere it is admittedly limited to the Bering Straights. There's a 2000 mile wide channel for mixing. You would think that after a few years, certainly a few centuries, the ratios would be evenly distributed.

There is no event in recent "conventional" human history large enough to explain the introduction of "new" water of non-natural abundance.

Barringer Crater


Yet the "event" would need to be very recent, else it should have mixed out by none of those nor even the sum of their effects, would be large enough anyway...
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2012
@ Lurker2358:

"we have little to no Earth analog".

Fortunately the article suggested one.

"... it's entirely plausible that these structures are the actual meteors resting on the surface of the craters. Escape velocity of Mars is much lower than Earth, and therefore so should be the average impact velocity, ..."

No, it is not. These are claims fundamentally ignorant of the nature of impactors.

Most planetary impactors hit with a relative speed set by the planetary orbital speeds, as it is unlikely an asteroid "catch up". For Earth it is ~ 30 km/s.

Comets do fall, but in the gravitational potential of the much larger Sun. They hit Earth at ~ 50 km/s upwards.

Since the sound of velocity in rocks is ~ 2 km/s of crystals, these are hypervelocity impactors, making shock waves and throwing up ejecta.
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2012
lurker on your carolina bays theory.

a smallish, acute impact angle, bolide collides with a 2.5km thick ice sheet somewhere around the southern tip of Lake Michigan. Rather than rock coming in on a ballistic trajectory to the east coast, it was chunks of ice.

also there are "carolina bays" in Nebraska. Their convergence angle is close to those in the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, and New Jersey.

just a thought
2.3 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2012

I will put these findings past Rpenner and others on the physforum site, because I have suggested issues like this in the past, and find it interesting that experimentalists have actually found physical proof of at least some change in decay rates under various situations.

Honestly, the second article you linked to seems to indicate radioactivity is somehow influenced by changes in neutrino flux or some other exotic particle, having been perhaps slightly shielded by the Earth's mass during the "down" phases.


I have been banned and censored at times for suggesting similar phenomena as even an remote possibility, so to see articles claiming their existence was discovered many decades ago only encourages me, yet infuriates me that the western scientists appear to have censored or ignored these findings maliciously.

If these findings are true, it would even suggest the ability to produce variable output RTGs with much longer lifetimes for space and medical applications.
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2012

A typical crater is therefore ~ 20 times the diameter of the impactor (huge energy), round (most impact angles erased by the energy dominated impact), little remains of the impact mass which gets ejected, vaporized or buried, and have a central upcast from rebounding rock flow if they are large enough.

I have to know this because impactors and their dating is important for studying astrobiology.

@ HannesAlfven:

The EU universe is an idea that doesn't predict anything observed. That is why it isn't science and have been rejected by any and all who knows a tad physics even outside the science community.

For example, astronomical bodies aren't net charged from electrostatics because electron loss would make a sheath neutralizing the effect. (They are _slightly_ charged from their magnetic fields rotating in the presence of the solar mag field. For example, Earth acquire ~ 40 C. That is the same charge as you get when you charge 1 F capacitors, 40 of them.
4 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2012
@ Lurker2358:

Decay rate changes in certain cases are of course well known, look at fission reactors that takes radioactive isotopes and transform them before they can decay and hence change the effective rate.

That doesn't change radioactive dating methods that are cross-calibrated and often internally calibrated, see isochron methods.
3 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2012
A head on collision can be very high velocities, but a gravitational capture collision is limited by the gravitational potential found along a hyperbolic curve representative of escape velocity's curve.

You would not expect very many head on collisions in the modern solar system, since most matter orbits on similar planes and directions.

A "T-Bone" collision doesn't have nearly as high of a velocity as a head one collision either.
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2012
Re: "The EU universe is an idea that doesn't predict anything observed."

Journalists are expected to validate claims before passing them on. The net would be a far better place if regular folks did the same. Google "electric universe prediction". It's the second link there.


Also, it's worth mentioning that Velikovsky predicted that Venus would be riddled with volcanoes. Sagan and others did not.

Re: [... electrostatic analysis ...]

The EU is not an electrostatics theory. It's electro-DYNAMICS, for which electrostatics cannot help us much at all.

You might want to very carefully contemplate what a plasma double layer is. It's widely admitted that the ionosphere is a series of double layers. A double layer necessarily involves positive and negative electric charge right next to one another, which refuse to combine. There's nothing about electrostatics which will help you to understand that phenomenon.
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2012
Also, few seem to realize that nearly every single probe we sent to Venus back in the 70's reported back that Venus' temperature was originating from its surface. Researchers decided to normalize or reject each of those reports, in favor of assuming that Venus is in thermal equilibrium. Alongside their theory of a Super-Greenhouse effect was an expectation of a desert-like landscape. When the results did not confirm their expectations, they acted like children and just rejected the findings.

It's similarly worth noting the widespread belief amongst numerous cultures of the world that Venus is a young planet. There is an enigmatic correspondence in these stories where Venus transforms from a beautiful woman with long-flowing (comet-like) hair, to an angry medusa which rained fire upon the Earth.

We are playing with fire when we treat all ancient people as idiots ...

2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2012
Re: "That doesn't change radioactive dating methods that are cross-calibrated"

This idea that we can shelve the observations of a sidereal influence upon decay rates while expressing great certainty in our absolute dates is problematic. The authors of that report I linked to were *speculating* that neutrinos were to blame. Nobody actually knows how the two can influence one another, and that matters a LOT. In fact, it's clues like this that can lead to new science.

If we only learn one scientific framework, and only attempt to roll every new observation into that framework, we will find precisely what we expect. But, these are games we play with ourselves. Real science involves treating anomalies seriously, and suspecting that there are errors in the textbooks. In fact, it's when we treat science like it is an assortment of facts that students get turned off to science. We should be seeking out anomalies. People used to.
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2012
I don't understand why the roundish formations in the crater are called "pits". They are clearly convex and resemble somewhat a smallpox vaccination site. Perhaps the article should have been reviewed first before publishing for correct wording? Please explain if I have misunderstood the article's "pit" reference.
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2012
I don't understand why the roundish formations in the crater are called "pits". They are clearly convex and resemble somewhat a smallpox vaccination site. Perhaps the article should have been reviewed first before publishing for correct wording? Please explain if I have misunderstood the article's "pit" reference.

The second picture is best for seeing "pits".

If you stare at the third picture, your mind will play tricks wit you and you can see both hills and "pits" in the same structure.
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2012
If radioactive decay is modified by changes in Neutrino flux, then it would totally undermine the Schrodinger Cat paradox, by proving that the problem is in fact a problem of partial knowledge regarding "unknowns" and "unknown unknowns," rather than a quantum superposition or randomness problem, since there would then be no such thing as the "random" decay of an radioactive atom at all.
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2012
Vendicar Iscariot:
I don't understand why the roundish formations in the crater are called "pits". They are clearly convex...
They are pits nonetheless. Seen from straight overhead, with a monocular camera, concave surface features can easily look like convexities. To see these properly, note that the illumination is from the lower right, toward the upper left of the images. This shows that the dark areas are shadows on slopes in depressions, with the opposite (upper left) slopes illuminated.
2 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2012
oh ok....thanks, I couldn't tell if my eyes deceived me on that. But I thought that the HiRise camera was stereo-optic, not mono, and the camera itself can be turned to take oblique pictures of hillsides, etc. by turning the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter so that both the orbiter and the camera have turned together as a unit. I think the same holds true for Themis.
But you're right. It had to be taken from directly overhead. That is one terrific camera.
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2012
It's worth nothing that these features can be created in very simple garage-scale experiments, without any serious funding ...


wow, an accurate statement for once. you are right, that is worth nothing.
3 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2012
Vendicar_Iscariot is a troll imitating Vendicar_Dacarion.

Now that I'm paying attention, I've realized the real Vendicar almost certainly would have known what he was looking at.
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 28, 2012
I don't understand why the roundish formations in the crater are called "pits". They are clearly convex and resemble somewhat a smallpox vaccination site. Perhaps the article should have been reviewed first before publishing for correct wording? Please explain if I have misunderstood the article's "pit" reference.

The second picture is best for seeing "pits".

If you stare at the third picture, your mind will play tricks wit you and you can see both hills and "pits" in the same structure.
QC gets duped by p/r/r/p troll humor. Ahahahahaaa.
1 / 5 (5) Jul 28, 2012
Hello Lurker. I liked Vendicar's name so I copied it. I'm sorry that you do not like my name. My parents bought me a new computer for my 13th bar mitzvah. One of my classmates from last semester said that I should look at this website if I want to become an astronaut.
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 29, 2012
Hello Lurker. I liked Vendicar's name so I copied it. I'm sorry that you do not like my name. My parents bought me a new computer for my 13th bar mitzvah. One of my classmates from last semester said that I should look at this website if I want to become an astronaut.
Ahaahaahaaa pirouette/ritchieGuy/russkiye/pussy/dumbass is already a greasy asstro-something-or-other heehee.
2.5 / 5 (19) Jul 29, 2012
Drink your Haterade today, Oddo? Jerk
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2012
I think those are a somewhat different structure since many of them

I wasn't suggesting that Carolina bays are related to the pits on Mars in any way. My point is that it is very difficult to determine the cause of some geological features, even when you can walk into your back yard and see them.

I was just using the Carolina bays as an example of a feature which remains a mystery here on Earth. Totally off topic, but they are a cool thing to read about. I think it's neat that they exist in many different types of land cover. Here in South Carolina, you can see them in high sand/clay areas as well as low wooded swamps and coastal wetlands. Farther north the ground is fertile soil and rocks. They can't be too old either, or there would be nothing left of them.

hannesalfven: give it up already. nobody wants to read another wall-o-text about crackpot nonsense. It's not even worth thinking about. That doesn't make me blind, it makes me a good critical thinker. Try it.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.