Talk:Upheaval Dome

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Upheaval Dome is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Utah Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Utah portal This article is supported by WikiProject Utah (assessed as Low-importance).

POV assertions

Scientists do not agree on what caused the upheaval dome, and in spite of wishful thinking, it most certainly is not for sure an impact crater. The National Park Service gives equal weight to both theories. 70.131.100.193 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually multiple types of evidence have been found that prove it is an impact crater. NASA was involved in the studies that found this evidence. Sorry, but I am more inclined to believe NASA than a park ranger from Moab. I grew up there and know from experience they are all idiots. 74.214.250.169 (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a POV balance issue any more. The proof of an impact isn't even new any more. Once the evidence of shock was found in the rocks, that was proof of an impact. Even the biggest, meanest volcano can't make enough pressure to do that. So there is no longer any scientific reason for doubt about the impact origin at Upheaval Dome. The park service just hasn't updated (or hasn't properly updated) their literature. Ikluft (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, geologic evidence is heavily in favor of impact origin. Jstuby (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the new evidence for impact origin of the dome. I wasn't aware that the issue appears now to be resolved, or at least heavily leaning to Impact as the origin. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC), retired geologist.[reply]