<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Why are there two different interpretations coming out about the liquid methane of Titan.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Because nobody's totally sure. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Okay, that was the smart-alec answer. The real answer is that the scientists are talking about two different things. There isn't any surface liquid visible in the images taken on the actual surface of Titan. However, there's strong evidence that there's recently been liquid there, not only in the erosion patterns around those ice pebbles, but also in the apparent nature of what it landed on -- the surface behaved like sand that's saturated with water, except that this being Titan, it's actually saturated with liquid hydrocarbons. (Based on the methane "steam" that rose up around Huygens, it's evidently methane, putting to rest some of the debate over whether it would be ethane or methane that would dominate.) So there was liquid there recently, but it has soaked into the soil, and/or run away downstream. It's very much like a riverbed in Arizona, not long after the wet season has ended and the water has all sunk into the soil or flowed away downstream.<br /><br />Meanwhile, there are these pictures of what looks very much like a lake, with rivers flowing into it, and islands poking above the surface. There seems to still be debate over whether there is standing liquid there, or whether it recently sankinto the soil as happened at the Hugyens landing site. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>