What would the source of water be that would produce a river that wide near the top of a mountain? Rivers only get that wide once they've gone far from the top of a mountain and have picked up water from other sources. If you're going to say that erosion of the original area is the explanation, that much erosion would have destroyed the riverbeds too.
You know I have no way of knowing where it might have been taken.
https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
-------------------------------------------
Maybe it was a wide two-lane logging road before all the trees were cut down, or a mining road.
The whole picture might just be bogus and it's not a picture of anything from Earth.
That's NASA's official story. The whole issue is about whether NASA lied. A possible lie is not proof. That's like NASA's using it's own data on space radiation to "prove" that the levels in the Van Allen belts were low enough for the astronauts to pass through.
Same as above . NASA is the source for that picture. It might be bogus.
