What mystery? It's obviously the mouth of a space leech that attached itself to the viewport just when the astronaut clicked the pic.
The article specifically mentions the presence of limestone, dolomite, and breccia. They don't form out of magmas or lavas. They were never molten, or they would not be limestone, dolomite, and breccia.anymore.
And I see The Beave has invoked his usual lightning bolt explanation for everything too. Discussing any scientific matter with you two is like talking to parrots: only a few things to say and you say them over and over again, without any real comprehension.
Perhaps I've done a disservice to parrots. My apologies to them all.
The article specifically mentions the presence of limestone, dolomite, and breccia. They don't form out of magmas or lavas. They were never molten, or they would not be limestone, dolomite, and breccia.anymore.
And I see The Beave has invoked his usual lightning bolt explanation for everything too. Discussing any scientific matter with you two is like talking to parrots: only a few things to say and you say them over and over again, without any real comprehension.
It seemed apt to me. Maybe I'll switch to mynah birds after Spade's lesson though.This parrot thing you've taken up of late is a bit odd don't you think?
But it sells more print than just saying "oh yea we found another hole in the dirt"The story at the "geologists have said" link doesn't really support the claim that its origin is mysterious. It's an eroded circular anticline created by an igneous intrusion from below pushing up sediments. Eroded anticlines are quite common surface features. Such near perfect circularity is unusual, but there's nothing particularly mysterious about it.
The article specifically mentions the presence of limestone, dolomite, and breccia. They don't form out of magmas or lavas. They were never molten, or they would not be limestone, dolomite, and breccia.anymore.
And I see The Beave has invoked his usual lightning bolt explanation for everything too. Discussing any scientific matter with you two is like talking to parrots: only a few things to say and you say them over and over again, without any real comprehension.
I've never done any such thing, that's just a transference of your insecurity in the face of someone who understands far more than you ever will, and expresses it much better.Why would you attempt to show yourself as 'all knowing' ...
Yes, there are multiple origins for breccias, but an igneous breccia would have caused significant metamorphosis, which I didn't see mentioned, so it seemed reasonable to assume its a sedimentary breccia. That's the usual default when it's not qualified any other way as, for instance, a tectonic breccia or a pyroclastic breccia. Or at least it was when I was learning this stuff.What about igneous breccia? it really can be formed in many ways to make it a breccia.
I've never done any such thing, that's just a transference of your insecurity in the face of someone who understands far more than you ever will, and expresses it much better.
Yes, there are multiple origins for breccias, but an igneous breccia would have caused significant metamorphosis, which I didn't see mentioned, so it seemed reasonable to assume its a sedimentary breccia. That's the usual default when it's not qualified any other way as, for instance, a tectonic breccia or a pyroclastic breccia. Or at least it was when I was learning this stuff.