The ESA's article claims to "reveal" Mercury's shadowy north pole, yet the image provides no actual insight into the pole itself, which remains shrouded in permanent darkness... The term "revealed" feels more like marketing spin than substance, as the image merely captures the general area around the pole.<p>This framing is reminiscent of similar oversights in planetary science, such as the perplexing case of Mars' north pole. Studies suggest a cyclical process where subsurface vapor escapes through a thinned crust during colder seasons, freezing into massive ice deposits, like those seen in the Korolev Crater. These ice layers, some over 1.2 miles thick (see the ESA Korolev Crater Study), challenge the traditional narrative of Mars' geophysical activity. Observations from missions like Mars Express and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter reveal hints of dynamic interactions between the crust and atmosphere, yet much of this is glossed over in mainstream discussions.<p>Why is there a persistent pattern of incomplete or opaque presentations regarding planetary poles? The public deserves transparency and detailed interpretations, not handwaving claims. If the evidence of crustal thinning and volatile release is as compelling as the imagery suggests, why the reluctance to address it head-on???<p>A commitment to clarity would foster trust in scientific institutions, rather than leaving informed observers to speculate about what's being left unsaid. This is frustrating.