Talk:Skinakas (hypothetical basin)

Comment
The claim that MESSENGER conclusively proved anything about this feature is unreferenced and might constitute original research. According to the American Astronomical Society, the location of this hypothetical feature had as of January 2009 not been imaged yet. See http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009DPS....40.6301M 83.248.86.143 (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I'm not necessarily doubting the illusory nature of the basin, but if we're going to be stating it as an unambiguous fact I'd like to find some kind of "official" announcement of it. I just trolled through the first twenty Google hits on the subject and can't find anything, so until someone provides something I'm going to be a stickler and move the article back to its original title (after asking the original mover if he's got one, that is). Bryan Derksen (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any official announcement is unlikely, because Skinakas has been never officially recognized. The basin is not present on the map (near equator, 80 (east) longitude), only a pattern of dark/light spots is observed. Ruslik_ Zero 08:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want a paper that argue that this feature does not exist, see: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012JE004154.shtml (You may need to be behind the AGU/JGR planets paywall). I'm not making the edits since I don't have a NPV on this topic. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.110.75.55 (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Pareidolia or reality?
On topographic maps I see very old degraded huge multi-ring basin with superimposed smaller basins... Ultima Thulean (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)