Keoler.com

Come on, Keoler.com.  Who are you trying to fool?

Your article from May 12 was titled:
"Ancient Mars impacts created tornado-like winds that scoured surface"

A Phys.org article from May 11 was titled:
"Ancient Mars impacts created tornado-like winds that scoured surface"

Your first two paragraphs:

Brown University geologist Peter Schultz observed sets of strange bright streaks coming from a few large-impact craters on the planet’s surface. The streaks are strange because they extend much farther from the craters than normal ejecta patterns, and they are only visible in thermal infrared images taken during the Martian night.  

Using geological observation, laboratory impact experiments and computer modeling, Schultz and Brown graduate student Stephanie Quintana have offered a new explanation for how those streaks were formed. They show that tornado-like wind vortices created by crater-forming impacts and swirling at 500 miles per hour or more, scoured the surface and blasted away dust and small rocks to expose the blockier surfaces beneath.

The first two paragraphs from Phys.org:

In looking at NASA images of Mars a few years ago, Brown University geologist Peter Schultz noticed sets of strange bright streaks emanating from a few large-impact craters on the planet's surface. The streaks are odd in that they extend much farther from the craters than normal ejecta patterns, and they are only visible in thermal infrared images taken during the Martian night.  

Using geological observation, laboratory impact experiments and computer modeling, Schultz and Brown graduate student Stephanie Quintana have offered a new explanation for how those streaks were formed. They show that tornado-like wind vortices—generated by crater-forming impacts and swirling at 500 miles per hour or more—scoured the surface and blasted away dust and small rocks to expose the blockier surfaces beneath.

You're just taking the words from Phys.org and changing a few of them.  AND you're making money with Google AdChoices?  That ain't right.  Not to mention, you've got 40,000+ pageviews on your ripoff article?  That's no small bananas.