I found this interesting, however, what I found more interesting was that the Mecurial north pole is still yet obscured and hidden in the shadow (!!) and not at all given in any visual context. It seems like a deceptive share by the European Space Agency:
This article by the ESA purports to showcase the "shadowy north pole" of Mercury, yet upon close inspection of the provided image, it becomes evident that the pole itself remains enshrouded in darkness. The terminology used, such as "revealed," feels misleading. Instead of revealing anything substantive about the north pole, the image simply captures the general region with no actual visual insight into the pole or its shadowed craters.
Are they still trying to obscure the actual structure and potential openings or structures that might be indicative of a thinned crust as we have seen from Mars images? (Such as here and elsewhere as we've before discussed?)
Just a reminder: ALL PLANETS ARE HOLLOW!
ESA's Framing and Public Perception
By framing the article as though it provides a direct view or new information about Mercury’s north pole, ESA creates an expectation that is not met. For casual readers or even enthusiasts unfamiliar with planetary dynamics, this could lead to the false impression that we now have direct imagery of the north pole’s hidden features. This is compounded by the article’s focus on the presence of water ice in permanently shadowed craters. The implication is that something groundbreaking is being visually shown, even though the image merely hints at the existence of these areas without providing clarity.
And does this mean it looks similar to the MARS images from above??? HMMMMMmmmm. Compelling evidence of a thinned crust with water vapor escaping and freezing if that's the case....
Implications for Science Communication
This kind of misrepresentation—intentional or not—undermines public trust in scientific organizations. Accurate and honest representation of scientific data is crucial for maintaining credibility and fostering informed engagement with the public. ESA could have framed this release more appropriately by emphasizing the spacecraft’s perspective, technical capabilities, or the scientific potential of studying Mercury’s north pole, rather than claiming it was "revealed."
Moreover, given the apparent parallels to similar imagery from Mars’ poles, it raises important questions about whether features such as potential crust thinning, water vapor release, or even other geological phenomena are being intentionally downplayed. Could these shadowed regions be indicative of subsurface activity or structural anomalies consistent with hollow planetary models? It’s a missed opportunity to engage with deeper questions about planetary formation and evolution... But we know why. LOL...
A Missed Opportunity
Rather than using language that overpromises, ESA could have focused on the unique challenges of observing Mercury’s polar regions. For instance, highlighting the interplay of Mercury’s axial tilt, the behavior of light near the pole, and how these affect shadowed regions would have been a far more honest and educational approach. Further, ESA could have provided annotated comparisons or simulations to illustrate what’s hidden beneath the shadows based on current data.
Instead, we’re left wondering if this presentation is a calculated effort to avoid speculation about what might lie beneath the shadowy pole. For those who are curious about planetary dynamics and alternative theories, this lack of transparency only fuels deeper skepticism about the motivations behind such framing...
IF people can simply see or think for themselves, which I fear is doubtful today.
ESA’s "Mercury’s shadowy north pole revealed" clearly and evidently does not deliver on its promise for those who have eyes to see and minds to reach.