<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cosmic Quiz: How Many Craters?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.clarkplanetarium.com/blog/cosmic-quiz-how-many-craters/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.clarkplanetarium.com/blog/cosmic-quiz-how-many-craters</link>
	<description>Clark Planetarium</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:47:11 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Seth Jarvis</title>
		<link>http://www.clarkplanetarium.com/blog/cosmic-quiz-how-many-craters/comment-page-1#comment-8962</link>
		<dc:creator>Seth Jarvis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:10:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clarkplanetarium.com/blog/?p=898#comment-8962</guid>
		<description>Hi Malenna,

Upheaval Dome was studied rather extensively about 15 years ago and two important new pieces of information were discovered.

1)  Samples of rock from the vicinity of the dome reveal a type of mineral called &quot;shocked quartz&quot; that is strongly indicitave of a major impact event.

2)  An analysis of the rock far beneath the dome showed no deformation of the rock strata that would be expected if the dome were caused by a rising salt dome.

These two findings, one strongly supporting the hypothesis that Upheaval Dome was the result of an ancient meteor impact, and another that strongly casts doubt on the hypothesis that the dome is the result of rising salt, give me good reason to believe that Upheaval dome is indeed a scar from meteor impact that occurred tens of millions of years ago.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Malenna,</p>
<p>Upheaval Dome was studied rather extensively about 15 years ago and two important new pieces of information were discovered.</p>
<p>1)  Samples of rock from the vicinity of the dome reveal a type of mineral called &#8220;shocked quartz&#8221; that is strongly indicitave of a major impact event.</p>
<p>2)  An analysis of the rock far beneath the dome showed no deformation of the rock strata that would be expected if the dome were caused by a rising salt dome.</p>
<p>These two findings, one strongly supporting the hypothesis that Upheaval Dome was the result of an ancient meteor impact, and another that strongly casts doubt on the hypothesis that the dome is the result of rising salt, give me good reason to believe that Upheaval dome is indeed a scar from meteor impact that occurred tens of millions of years ago.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Malenna</title>
		<link>http://www.clarkplanetarium.com/blog/cosmic-quiz-how-many-craters/comment-page-1#comment-8953</link>
		<dc:creator>Malenna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:12:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clarkplanetarium.com/blog/?p=898#comment-8953</guid>
		<description>I was watched a movie about Canyon Lands National Park and it said that no one knows how Upheaval Dome was formed. It did say that there were two different ideas about what might have happened. The first said that it was a crater, but the secound said that it might have been caused by an underground layer of salt. I was wondering what side you agree with considering what I just read. I would also like to know what side you think is most likely. If this information is wrong then I would like to know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was watched a movie about Canyon Lands National Park and it said that no one knows how Upheaval Dome was formed. It did say that there were two different ideas about what might have happened. The first said that it was a crater, but the secound said that it might have been caused by an underground layer of salt. I was wondering what side you agree with considering what I just read. I would also like to know what side you think is most likely. If this information is wrong then I would like to know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Glen Rasko</title>
		<link>http://www.clarkplanetarium.com/blog/cosmic-quiz-how-many-craters/comment-page-1#comment-5306</link>
		<dc:creator>Glen Rasko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Feb 2011 02:44:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clarkplanetarium.com/blog/?p=898#comment-5306</guid>
		<description>http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/showFullWatermarked.html/S800021-SEM_of_crater_in_surface_of_Space_Shuttle_window-SPL.jpg?id=838000021</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/showFullWatermarked.html/S800021-SEM_of_crater_in_surface_of_Space_Shuttle_window-SPL.jpg?id=838000021" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/showFullWatermarked.html/S800021-SEM_of_crater_in_surface_of_Space_Shuttle_window-SPL.jpg?id=838000021</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Glen Rasko</title>
		<link>http://www.clarkplanetarium.com/blog/cosmic-quiz-how-many-craters/comment-page-1#comment-5289</link>
		<dc:creator>Glen Rasko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 22:29:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clarkplanetarium.com/blog/?p=898#comment-5289</guid>
		<description>&quot;Impact crater on a microscopic piece of lunar glass&quot; - this is an obvious forgery! Admit it!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Impact crater on a microscopic piece of lunar glass&#8221; &#8211; this is an obvious forgery! Admit it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

