MARS DUST DEVILS &
WATER GEYSERS
Report #097
December 18, 2005
Joseph P. Skipper
J. P. Skipper can be contacted at: jskipper@marsanomalyresearch.com
This report is meant to bring awareness to an issue that could benefit from some independent thought process rather than the public just gullibly accepting official interpretations wholesale without question. The official general position constantly pushed is that Mars is a dry as dust freezing cold dead world. In line with that constantly pushed perception, whenever a bright highly reflective but diffuse object is observed in the Mars terrain casting a shadow indicating considerable height above the terrain, it is always characterized as a dust devil but you should be aware that it is striking how much a dust devil and a water geyser look alike when observed from a great distance above without the benefit of a oblique view angle revealing the object's underside and that is the thrust of this report.
In the above first image, the left split screen is an old 1978 Viking Orbiter satellite data image made in frame 775A11 of a what has been officially labeled as a water geyser or spout. In the right split screen is a 1999 MGS MOC M03-01869 data satellite image of what is at the following link www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/may_2000/layers been officially identified as dust devil. In fact, you should know that all such objects from the MGS MOC data forward are always interpreted as"dust devils," at least for public consumption.
Now the older 1978 Viking evidence was discovered by Dr. Leonard Martin of Lowell observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona and published in the December, 1980 issue of the NASA Activities Bulletin in Vol. 11, No. 12 identified as a water spout or geyser. If true, it is certainly the first discovery of liquid surface water of any kind on the planet Mars by someone in a official capacity here on Earth. For more information on this discovery, go to my previous Report #052 titled "First Liquid Surface Water on Mars." It will provide some other evidence as well.
The MGS MOC M03-01869 evidence in the right split screen was discovered by me very early soon after the MGS MOC data was released in early year 2000. However, after recognizing this as a huge water geyser, this is a discovery that I held back to go into my book on Mars surface water evidence. As is always the risk when delaying formal reporting, others did find it with some reporting it as a big dust devil following the official lead and a few others did speculate on it as a water geyser. I did not sort out who did what or when with this discovery, so I'm not going to go into that here. For two bigger and better images of this particular discovery, suggest you go to my previous Report #096 titled "Mars Glass Tubes, et al" and specifically images six and seven there.
In the above first image, I want you to compare these two side-by-side bright light reflective but diffuse objects and see what you think as to whether either one can be clearly and instantly identified as dust devils or not? Look closely. Note that each casts a dark shadow but that shadow is not to be confused with a trail of destruction and/or disturbance of the terrain in any way. Remember, dust devils are powerful but destructive forces also known to us as tornados. There is no path or trail of destruction associated with these objects and yet both are huge gigantic objects seen in this distant satellite imaging and that tells us that they are of considerable magnitude and not smaller whimpy storms that the term "dust devil" as opposed to tornados tends to convey.
Logically, if one assumes either are huge tornados, there should be a visible trail of terrain disturbance from compressed storms of such huge magnitude. Remember, that a tornado is a rising cyclonic air vortex that, when they touch down, picks up considerable debris from the terrain that they cross over. It is this accumulation of solid debris within the vortex that provides the light reflectivity in the top head of the tornado as seen from above. If this is debris in the vortex that is providing the light reflectivity here, then where is the evidence of the storm picking up that debris from the ground level? Also, note the shape of the top heads of these objects. Do you see any evidence of cyclonic action within it? No? Well I don't either and we should be seeing this kind of evidence from a huge storm of this magnitude. You should be aware that the lack of this kind of evidence is very typical of these Mars objects so often and consistently officially identified as dust devils here on Earth.
Now, in my opinion, the terrain all around the base of the Viking object is severely compromised by covering image tampering. That could explain the lack of a "dust devil" trail there as well as just about anything else including how the shadow itself is compromised and indistinct because of this. However, look carefully at the terrain around the base of the M03-01869 object. Take note of all that ground level detail. You should be aware that just being able to see this much ground level detail at all around the base of these objects is very rare in the satellite imaging because most of the time this detail is heavily and no doubt intentionally obscured denying researchers the ability to examine the terrain for ground level evidence that might be associated with the object in question.
As you can see in the M03-01869 image, the terrain around the object clearly consists of many parallel closely packed long runs of very sharp tall ridges. In the bigger and clearer seventh image in my Report #096, note that the ridges within the object's dark area shadow are clearly intact and undamaged revealing that this dark area is indeed shadow and not to be confused with a giant tornado's path or trail of destruction. In fact, there clearly is no tornado path of destruction or trail present at all. Further, do all those many sharp saw tooth looking ridges look like terrain that would support a tornado of such a magnitude and feeding light reflective debris solids into it?
What we have here in both this visual evidence with 20+ years separating the imaging and discovery are stationary objects that show no evidence of movement or travel across the terrain. In other words, the visual evidence available fits the surface water geyser interpretation like a well fitting glove and simply does not fit the official air vortex "dust devil" interpretation. Logically then both of these two evidence sites are not rising air dust devils or tornado vortex evidence but liquid geyser or spout evidence. This is what I mean about the danger of too readily accepting the official explanations and interpretations that consistently pushes one single agenda that Mars is a dry as dust frozen dead world whether the available evidence fits that conclusion or not. This caution is especially true of the official "dust devil" interpretations.
In fact, it would be a mistake to simply accept at face value that what appears to be surface water ice, especially at the Poles, is CO2 ice as per the official interpretation and therefore hostile to humans. This caution also applies to planet wide dust storms on Mars that may actually be changing atmospheric moisture sweeping temporarily around the planet. Remember that instrument generated numerical data so often associated with pure science and that supports the official view is the easiest of all to intercept and manipulate to fit secrecy agenda ends.
Another, is the sand "dune" over simplified interpretations and explanations. If it is a relatively smooth object or a collection of similar looking objects that are elevated up off of the terrain, then it is officially explained away a sand "dune" or "dune field" even when the visual evidence at hand clearly points in different direction and no loose particulate sand evidence is otherwise present in the terrain that could feed such a scenario. Some such interpretations may occasionally be true, just as is such evidence here on Earth with 70% of this planet being covered by water, but a great deal such evidence just doesn't fit such official explanations at all revealing a level of desperation in presenting such lame interpretive explanations as well as an arrogant lack of respect for the intelligence of anyone viewing such evidence with a halfway open mind.
On the other hand, speaking of dust devils not leaving trails, when some of this type of evidence that has been officially identified as dust devils, the official explanation is much easier to accept at first glance. The evidence in the above second image from the MGS MOC E16-01487 strip is like that. Here we have what appears to be dust devil or tornado down inside a fairly decent size deep crater apparently coming up the relatively steep northeast inside slope toward the crater top rim and leaving a long trail behind it deeper down in the crater. Here is the official description of this evidence and how it is characterized as a dust devil.
But, as reasonable as the official interpretation sounds, there are still some very serious inconsistencies that reveal themselves with closer examination. For example, they chose poorly when they selected this particular evidence to work with. Why? Well because this is one of those rare satellite images where a bit of the vertical column under the object's top head can be seen because this is on a steep slope providing such a view angle. Being able to see the side of the vertical column reveals the column's direction and note that the column's direction is clearly not an upright orientation with the planet but entirely at right angle with the steep slope. Note also that the top head of the column is larger tapering to a smaller base.
Since the air is clear here and this event is obviously not part of a greater visible weather storm pattern and a lone event, then the official dust devil explanation of a vortex caused by differential heated ground temperatures and rapidly rising heated air over it would logically seem to favor air rising more in a vertical column relative to the planet, not essentially sideways to the planet and relative only to this steep slope. At the very least, we should be seeing a blend of the two principles in the column's upward angle of direction. I might add at this point that on the other hand a column of liquid under pressure ejecting out from the slope's slanted surface under force would better fit this visual evidence than would a differential heated column of rising air.
Now note the short dark area in the terrain to the immediate right of and up to the base of the column. This is officially reported as the column's shadow. Note that the column has a very pronounced clearly symmetrical tight shape while the shadow's shape seems quite different than that. Now a visual shadow is formed at the speed of light from moment to moment striking the object throwing the shadow and that's plenty fast, so delay would not be a factor here the shadow shape. So how can the shadow, if it is a shadow, not be consistent with the vortex column's shape? On the other hand, if this is dark stains of liquid building up on the terrain surface beneath the column and on the lee side of the wind direction, such stains would continue to visibly exist for a time and of course represent the fluctuations of the column's liquid output over time as well as minor fluctuations in wind direction.
While we're on the shadow business, there's another point to consider. As you can clearly see, the shadow is thrown to the right of the column and yet the Sun angle as per official statement is suppose to be very much high overhead relative to the planet's surface. In other words, if this is a shadow, it is being cast completely at the wrong angle! The shadow should be down slope below this nearly horizontal column (relative to the world) on this steep slope and not to the right of it.
What you can't see in my imaging here is that there is a small but still sizable crater in the outside terrain just above this much larger crater as well as a smaller crater out of sight in the bottom of this larger crater just below this dust devil site. Now most of the craters in this overall strip show evidence of smudge image tampering covering their interiors so that shadow evidence has been mostly eliminated. This is also partially true of the two craters that I mention here. However, there is still enough shadow evidence left in the north to just a bit northwest interior side of these two craters to indicate a sun angle from the south. That is completely inconsistent with the shadow being through by this object's column.
Now I must tell you that both of these craters show a raised center area in the overall crater depression. Since there is so much tampering in the other craters in this strip, this raised area may itself be creative tampering and therefore perhaps not real. If so, then the thin strip of shadow evidence in the north side of these craters could be telling us that the true Sun angle is actually from the north casting a shadow of the north side crater rim into the bottom of these two craters. That to would make the sun angle inconsistent with the official Sun angle identification but consistent with the column's shadow angle. However, that would only be the case if you accept and take into consideration the image tampering factor in this strip.
Please also note what is suppose to be the trail of the dust devil coming up this slope. Examine it in detail in the right split screen closer view image. Note that there appears to be no path of tornado destruction of the terrain within the visual confines of the dark trail. Further, note that the normally very light color highly light reflective large ridge form field here at this site but within this dark trail are themselves turned slightly darker as well as of course the already dark shadows they throw. I suspect that this broad dark trail is not real at all but a artificial illusion meant to mimic and artificially create the path of dust devil "streak" created by the application of a semitransparent dark stain.
One final point before leaving this particular evidence site. Those of you who have followed my reporting on the "ridge form" evidence can see that the lower regions of this crater are full of a very large field of this evidence. Remember how my reporting has connected such evidence to the shallow water flowing down a slope scenario? The direction of the slope and the water that flows down it can always be determined by the orientation direction of the parallel ridge forms as they try to husband but not impede the water flow. Their presence here indicates that shallow water flowing down the inside crater walls is a factor here.
Note that from the top cut off point of the ridge forms extending on up around and past the column in question here to the top rim of the crater is relatively smooth and featureless. This very much appears to be the result of extensive smudge image tampering applications. If so, then the terrain base area of the column in question here cannot be trusted at all and the dark area at the right side base of the column may well be an automated recreation of the dark staining there rather than something visually real.
This is the way that it is in this planetary satellite imaging and why it is so difficult to bring any accuracy to the interpretation of the imaging evidence. Natural real evidence fits the image but artificially introduced evidence usually does not and thereby reveals itself. But, from the secrecy agenda point of view, even doubt and suspicion on our part out here in the great unwashed masses is more acceptable than any form of outright truth. Truth only represents trouble and difficulties to them because they would have to deal with us in relation to it and they don't have all the answers. As long as we suspect but can't really get a grip on what we suspect them of, then it's still we've GOTCHA!
The above 4-way split screen image just shows some additional examples of dust devil and/or water geyser evidence. Note that each these image's clarity is compromised in some way, usually either by very poor resolution and/or image tampering applications. I've included this material to show you how this type of evidence is most often obscured by either distant poor resolution and/or by the terrain having been compromised by image tampering, just in differing ways. Apparently, the goal of this obfuscation appears to be to prevent close enough examination that might reveal any interpretation other than the officially approved one.
In the upper left image, note that the tornado/geyser top head visuals have not been compromised very much by the type of tampering that obscures most of the terrain hiding evidence there. That is because the tampering in the terrain is relatively fine textured and so the tornado/geyser evidence the tampering applications cross over is likewise relatively fine and diffuse looking as well. It's essentially the same in the lower right image. In the upper left image the object in question is at the edge in the original strip cutting off a portion of it and that is why you see it the way it is here and no doubt any shadow that it cast is out of sight for this reason.
On the other hand, the tornado/geyser and its shadow in the lower left image has been severely compromised by a geometric pattern imposed on the whole original strip to cut resolution and that is why it and its barely seen shadow are almost indistinguishable from what little can be seen of the ground detail. The application crossing over the tornado/geyser evidence basically visually joins and plasters this otherwise elevated object to the ground terrain. It is basically the same principle in the upper right image where the tornado/geyser is again severely compromised by the image tampering terrain obscuring applications causing this object to also look plastered to the ground. By the way, this technique is also how more substantial cloud cover evidence is often obscured as it is artificially visually joined with the terrain in this plastering effect.
Such image problems obscuring both the object evidence and the general terrain are typical of most MOC image strips that contain this type of dust devil and/or water geyser evidence. A rare exception is the MO3-01869 evidence seen in the right split screen of the first image at the beginning of this report where both the object and the details of the terrain it exists in are reasonably visible for a change, even though very distantly seen.
Obviously, the ability to reasonably closely inspect the terrain around these objects would no doubt conclusively reveal (1) either the presence or absence of the violent destructive path or trail that a tornado of such huge magnitudes would naturally have to leave in its wake or (2) the presence or absence of the heavily stained water geyser wet areas (shadow?) accumulating near the base of these objects. When the terrain and its evidence is compromised, then the object's identity and even its elevated nature is also compromised and we are left only with a very poor quality image and the official misdirection dust devil explanation.
The above fourth image is not the usual narrow-angle image but a wide-angle science data image providing only a distantly seen wide area regional view. As you can see, it is also a very poor quality image. I suspect most of that lack of quality is no doubt meant to obscure some other type of evidence they don't want us to know about here. But, the main thing here is that it does not concentrate on and completely obscure what are no doubt plentiful dust devil and/or water geyser evidence all around in this region so very distantly seen and on such a apparent tiny scale.
Despite the image's poor quality, note that all these tiny objects have dark areas projecting out from them and all are consistently at an angle to the upper right. Note that all of these dark areas are relatively straight and point in the same direction clearly indicating that these dark areas are no doubt shadow due to Sun angle associated with these elevated objects as opposed to path or trail evidence. In fact, note that there is no path or trail evidence associated with these objects at all. Obviously, I suspect that most if not all of these elevated objects are water geysers fixed to their location as opposed to tornados traveling around leaving trails of destruction in the terrain.
Now remember, this is a very distant wide-angle view. To be seen at all here in such a distant view, these objects have to be very large. That fact would make them abnormally large relative to most tornado or geyser evidence we are familiar with. If they were gigantic tornados, such a violent air vortex of such large magnitude would definitely have to leave some evidence of its passage in the terrain equal at least to the size of the visible vortex and yet no such visual evidence exists here. This absence of such evidence is typical of almost all of the officially identified "dust devil" evidence seen in the closer narrow-angle imaging. A rare exception is the E16-01487 evidence in my second split screen image in this report and, as per my comments there, I strongly suspect that path/trail is fake.
SUMMARY
The point of this report is to draw attention to this particular type of visual evidence on Mars; reveal how its interpretation as a type is so often the subject of official manipulation/misdirection technique; and the need for caution in accepting the official interpretation as accurate or at least the only truth associated with this evidence. At first blush, the official "dust devil" interpretation sometimes seems relatively reasonable but on closer examination the evidence starts pointing in a different and I might add wetter direction. In fact, the closer and more carefully one examines this evidence, the greater the problem with the official interpretation.
It is the same with a lot of other evidence types on Mars such as H2O water ice becomes CO2 ice, atmospheric cloud evidence is often fused into and becomes a light color part of the terrain landscape, dark tinted water in depressions becomes dark sand collecting there, dark streaks that begin within liquid filled areas are associated with dust devils, and anything elevated rounded, and smooth surfaced in the terrain becomes sand dunes regardless of evidence to the contrary, etc., etc.
The point is to keep an open mind and examine the evidence objectively letting it speak for itself and listening to it rather than just wholesale buying into the official interpretation without bothering to question it even a little. Mars can still speak some truth to us despite the misdirection tactics but an open mind and thinking for oneself is essential to hearing what it has to say.
DOCUMENTATION
http://pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov/Atlas: This link reliably takes you to the NASA Planetary Image Atlas planetary image search engine to look up the older 1978 Viking Orbiter science data image that my left split screen evidence in my first image in this report was sourced from. Print out this instruction narrative for reference use on the NASA search engine. There on the first page scroll down on the left side to Viking Orbiter near the bottom and left click on "Product Search" to the right of that. On the page that comes up, in the drop down menu near the top select "RAW DATA(EDR)," then scroll down the page on the left to "IMAGE ID" and in the two boxes to the right of that enter 775A10 in the left box and 775A11 in the right box, leave all other boxes blank, then left click on the "Search" arrow under the boxes. On the page that comes up near the bottom, select "Browse Results (...Order/Convert Data, Make Reports)" in the drop down menu there and then left click on the "Go" arrow to the right of that. The next page that comes up will have a list of small image thumbnails on the left side with image number labels to the right of that and then limited statistics to the right of that. The images 775A10 and 775A11 should be the first two images listed. Left click on the 775A11 image thumbnail and a page will open dedicated to this image with a larger image thumbnail and some more statistics. In the drop down menu near the top, select "DISPLAY full resolution image in selected format" and in the small drop down menu on the left below that select "GIF" while the Percentile stretch box to the right of that blank. Then left click on the large thumbnail and the 775A11 full resolution image will open. Note that the image is a dark one and graphics software will be needed to lighten and clarify it as well as flip it to the orientation it has here in my reporting and matching that of other reporting on the Internet.
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0301869.html: This link takes you to the M03-01869 official science data narrow-angle image that is the source of my right split screen evidence in the first image here in this report.
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e13_e18/images/E16/E1601487.html: This link takes you to the E16-01487 official science data narrow-angle image that is the source of my left and right split screen evidence in the second image here in this report.
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0306971.html: This link takes you to the M03-06971 official science data narrow-angle image that is the source of my upper left 4-way split screen evidence in the third image here in this report.
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e01_e06/images/E03/E0302711.html: This link takes you to the E03-02711 official science data narrow-angle image that is the source of my upper right 4-way split screen evidence in the third image here in this report.
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e01_e06/images/E05/E0502077.html: This link takes you to the E05-02077 official science data narrow-angle image that is the source of my lower left 4-way split screen evidence in the third image here in this report.
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e01_e06/images/E05/E0502714.html: This link takes you to the E05-02714 official science data narrow-angle image that is the source of my lower right 4-way split screen evidence in the third image here in this report.
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0300435.html: This link takes you to the M03-00435 official science data wide-angle image that is the source of my evidence in the fourth image here in this report.
Joseph P. Skipper, Investigator
Contact
the Author
Contact
the Webmaster
