Comment: Interesting

(See in situ)


Something didn't look right about the matchup between the crash site and the pre-existing feature, although the video doesn't make it easy to do a careful comparison, or cite the sources to make it easy to go check independently. But a bit of searching found this:

He's arguing for a different theory entirely about what really happened, and I'm not saying anything pro or con about that (I only skimmed the rest of the page). But he seems to have done a careful job of matching up aerial photos of the crash site and the 1994 Geological survey. The road makes it easy to align the photos. See especially the last ones in that section (just before the "Crater is Too Small" heading that begins the next section), but to his credit he shows all the work, with multiple photos from multiple sources for comparison. Looks like a pretty solid debunking of what this video is claiming.