And they liken these 'lakes' to permafrost marshes in Alaska, suggested that water ran from the high point lake to the low point lake. However, the high point lake apparently has a deep end farthest away from where the sinuous rille... I mean- sinuous channel connects. Also, the 'channel' is apparently as deep as the lake is on that side. How do they presume that the water confined itself to that one narrow 'channel' to drain the whole lake? Especially when it appears that the 'deep end' was on the other side of the lake from there?? There's no terrain to confine a drainage stream to a particular path so that it could carve the stream to the depth of the high point lake? Why didn't the lake just exceed it's banks and recede again?In the new study, the researchers analysed the depressions and discovered a series of small sinuous channels that connected them together. The researchers say these channels could only be formed by running water, and not by ice turning directly into gas.
This article is just the epitome of wishful thinking and flights of fantasy.
As for 'convincing people', well... how many people will believe that a lakebed was carved by a giant electric tornado to begin with? :\
I guess the one way that you could tell would be to look at the channel, in closeup, and see if the channel is a V-cut, with a darkened cut along the middle of the channel. Next, look to the sides of the channel, and see if there are berms of equal height on either side. If you're good at estimations and math, you could check to see if the amount of material missing from the channel is indeed held by the berms on either side of the channel.
If both of those two criteria are true, I think you have pretty much proven that it was created electrically, and not by any running water.