Mars dunes + sand poeple could they be bunkers and geysers?

I like honest people so I have got to quistion one of my earlier posts.
live on mars no doubt
I just could not believe there where tree like structures and that we haven't heard about it from nasa etc. So I started investigating to know what is it why is it and after downloading many GB of pictures I think I found the truth and here it is I think.

I found an images with more detail and what shocked me that the Dunes (even named like that by Nasa etc.) look like bunker/pits like those in a golf course.

see image:

Arrow nr 1 shows direction of light.
Arrow nr 2 shows the shade on the wrong side of the hill that kan only be if its down hill. You see it immediately because when you have a dune picture en look from the point where the light really comes from AL dunes bekomme bunkers.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by johndoeknows]

Not convinced, sorry.

Why doesn't anyone read the Sun azimuth on the MOC web site? It's pretty easy to figure out. Please post the MOC page link.

In the MOC image link posted in the other thread, the azimuth of the Sun (296° clockwise from the right = top-right in the raw image) is consistent with dark stains on top of barchan dunes.

Edit: just realized the image posted in the other thread is rotated 180° relative to the www.msss.com image. Now I'm confused, which one is the non-map projected image?

For the non-map projected version of the "North Polar Site to Monitor Defrosting on Dunes" (PSP_007140_2640) image, the sub-solar azimuth is 309.8° from the image data. So the direction if the Sun is top-right too, and dark stains appear on the ridge or top of dunes.

[edit on 2008-4-10 by nablator]

Originally posted by nablator
Not convinced, sorry.

Why doesn't anyone read the Sun azimuth on the MOC web site? It's pretty easy to figure out. Please post the MOC page link.

In the MOC image link posted in the other thread, the azimuth of the Sun (296° clockwise from the right = top-right in the raw image) is consistent with dark stains on top of barchan dunes.

Edit: just realized the image posted in the other thread is rotated 180° relative to the www.msss.com image. Now I'm confused, which one is the non-map projected image?

For the non-map projected version of the "North Polar Site to Monitor Defrosting on Dunes" (PSP_007140_2640) image, the sub-solar azimuth is 309.8° from the image data. So the direction if the Sun is top-right too, and dark stains appear on the ridge or top of dunes.

[edit on 2008-4-10 by nablator]

I was confused also when the dunes became bunkers its the eyes playing tricks but watch this picture its much more to the right with a mountain in the light nr1 and the shadow on the dune nr 1 is on the wrong side again this can only be if its down the slope.


Its cant be denied its a fact dunes are bunkers sorry but its a fact.
I searched for all the dunes I could fiend and when I look to them correctly all become bunkers its like this picture.


Its the eyes playing tricks these blocks can do the same. when you look sometimes the top becomes the bottom. And with the know how of where the sun comes from you can determine what is up or down by using logic don't trust your eyes in this one.

Tip when you go out and search dunes don't look at close ups look for high altitudes and see where the light comes from. when watching a close up of a dune they always appear as a dune but if you tilt your head and concentrate they flip from dune to bunker!

reply to post by johndoeknows


I believe you are indeed right this time JDK! Gotta agree with you on this one - definitely pits as opposed to hills!

Kudos for making the truth your prime motivator!

IRM

reply to post by johndoeknows


I have no problem seeing them as bunkers instead of dunes. However, every evidence points to the contrary:

1. Sub-solar azimuth is 309° in the defrosting dunes image, i.e. the sunlight comes from the top-right. The image is rotated 90° clockwise relative to the one in the OP.

2. The white (snowy?) plain in the bottom-left corner of SP_007140_2640_RED.NOMAP.browse.jpg is higher ground as evidenced by the avalanche seen in the companion image, and since the cliff around it is brightly illuminated on the right and top side, the sun is shining from the top-right.

3. The crescent shape is typical of barchan dunes, shaped by the wind. Why would a bunker be shaped exactly the same?

I still see the dark stains on a dune, at the top or crest.

This seems correct to me:

Originally posted by nablator
reply to post by johndoeknows

 

I have no problem seeing them as bunkers instead of dunes. However, every evidence points to the contrary:

1. Sub-solar azimuth is 309° in the defrosting dunes image, i.e. the sunlight comes from the top-right. The image is rotated 90° clockwise relative to the one in the OP.

2. The white (snowy?) plain in the bottom-left corner of SP_007140_2640_RED.NOMAP.browse.jpg is higher ground as evidenced by the avalanche seen in the companion image, and since the cliff around it is brightly illuminated on the right and top side, the sun is shining from the top-right.

3. The crescent shape is typical of barchan dunes, shaped by the wind. Why would a bunker be shaped exactly the same?

I still see the dark stains on a dune, at the top or crest.

Nope i have to disagree the snow plane is in the sun and behind it the lower ground is in the shadows.

Let me give you a close up of my nr 1 arrow.


Tel me why does the cliff drop a shadow in the direction to where u say the light comes from and why is there no shadow where there is a gap in the cliff.

Don't get me wrong I hope your right because then there is definitely something strange on top of the dunes. But I am not convinced that there dunes. You did almost convinced me but its still bunkers to me.

I am open minded and if I think your right I will say so!

[edit on 10-4-2008 by johndoeknows]

[edit on 10-4-2008 by johndoeknows]

reply to post by johndoeknows

After debunking the bunkers , let's address the main issue: how did you decide they are geysers and not vegetation? NASA calls them dark stains from defrosting. Why is everything you believe without presenting evidence "fact"?

Originally posted by johndoeknows
Nope i have to disagree the snow plane is in the sun and behind it the lower ground is in the shadows.

We agree, then!

Let me give you a close up of my nr 1 arrow.

Tel me why does the cliff drop a shadow in the direction to where u say the light comes from and why is there no shadow where there is a gap in the cliff.

I believe light is coming from the top-left of this close-up, there is no shadow cast from the ridge because the sun is too high, or the slope not steep enough.

Don't get me wrong I hope your right because then there is definitely something strange on top of the dunes.

Yes. There are 2 dark stains on the ridge, 2 elsewhere. Most dark stains are on the ridge or near the top of dunes everywhere else.
Maybe there is a simple explanation: the top of the dune stays in the sun longer than the valley, and unfrozen water flows inside the dune until it reaches frozen ground below, which prevents it from going lower. So it leaks out of the dune.

I was confused with the different versions of pictures rotated 90° and 180°, however, there is only one non-map projected image linked from the PSP_007140_2640 page and the 310° azimuth in the non-map projected image is always defined as a clockwise angle starting from the horizontal-right direction.

Originally posted by johndoeknowsNope i have to disagree the snow plane is in the sun and behind it the lower ground is in the shadows.

Oh I see what you mean. I think the dark zone near the cliff can't be the shadow of the cliff, it is far too large, and its outline is not sharply defined. If you look at the companion image with the avalanche, it is obvious the dust cloud is extending towards the dark zone (lower ground). Why is it dark then? It could be because it is a different type of rock, or because we see a valley with a cliff on the sunny side and a gentle slope on the dark side.

[edit on 2008-4-10 by nablator]

Ok.. how many threads do we need to keep creating about this topic.. I would think one is enough... and no.. nothing has been "debunked" or any of the such.
the FACT is all you guys have to go on is not really hi-res pics taken tens of thousands of KMs above a planet you have never been to.... and I will tell ya, im really F'n tired of hearing this statement on here: "Its cant be denied its a fact dunes are bunkers sorry but its a fact."
You have ZERO proof of facts or anything else.

now, im not saying the fotos aren't intriguing... they are and I would love to know whats up... but none of what has been discussed are FACTs.. so stop forcing it on everyone.. or selling like it is.

sand bunkers? no..
dunes.. yes.
water geysers? possibly maybe.. guys got proof? (to me, if they were geysers, why is there no "hole" where the water comes out.. and why are there no mineral deposits around these areas?

seems to me, ATS keeps getting bogged down with multiple posts on the same thing... and everything with in the post is always considered FACT by the op..
*sigh*