A thought for this not being a mine:

Layers are formed from impacts. Each layer of Earth is affected diffrently, so all throughout the world, we see plenty of almost 90 degree breakage that has nothing to do with any dramatic impact.

A thought for this being a mine:

How are most of our layers of earth made up?

Creationists: Giant flood stirred up the world, and it settled in layers. The sheer pressure compacted most of the sediment to rock.
Evolution: Over millions of years, the world had decay from plants and animals that made all the layers, and as they compacted, they hardened into seperate layers of rock.

Either way, layers were made due to life being started on this plannet.

As it is doubtful that life started on the moon, the layers of the moon should not be as drastically diffrent as they are on Earth. They shoud not have such a 90 degree breakage between non-existant layers, unless each layer happens to be a previous impact, then the material would be much more shallow.

So now, we need a size comparison on those walls.


It's fun to entertain a crackpot idea. Suspend your disbelief and see what would make it plausable. Sometimes, that's how you find out more truth in the matter than anyone would believe. Sometimes, it's more bunk than you ever want to deal with agian. You don't know till you try.

I don’t see how a logical person can come to the conclusion that it’s a lunar mining pit based on common geological features.

Originally posted by kinglizard
I don’t see how a logical person can come to the conclusion that it’s a lunar mining pit based on common geological features.

I don't understand how a logical person can just assume that craters are going to look the same for the same reasons on a living planet and a never-living planet.

I don't particularly believe that these are mines, but because the curstal layers of the moon were made diffrently from the earth (no life to do it with), I'm willing to give it a second thought.

jlc163, Ok so the logical level headed conclusion is that because there are mounds of dirt on a celestial object that has one-sixth the gravity of earth in an area that was excavated by a large impact that it’s got to be some mining operation. Oh boy.....

[edit on 19-9-2006 by kinglizard]

Originally posted by kinglizard
I don’t see how a logical person can come to the conclusion that it’s a lunar mining pit based on common geological features.

I guess I most be very illogical because it does look like a ancient mining area to me.

I guess been logical is a matter of personal preferences.

Some forms of agriculture also use terraces, perhaps this is not an ancient strip mine, but an ancient rice paddy? OK, I see the strip mine resemblence, but it has to have been made with something much larger than a steam shovel. I used to rebuild the heat treating furnaces at Marion Dresser who make such shovels for use in strip mines on earth. The equipment used in strip mining is HUGE in the extreme, but the equipment that worked in the crater in the first post would make our equipment look smaller than matchbox toys.

[edit on 9-19-2006 by groingrinder]

Originally posted by kinglizard
so the logical level headed conclusion

-eh-

This is the Skunk Works forum... we don't need to be level-headed here.

No, no, no.

Take it from a science teacher. This is not a strip mine. Why?

Just use your powers of observation. There are small craters within this "strip mine" which indicates that this formation has been here a *very* long time. If I were just to make a guess, I would say the original crater caused molten rock to surge upwards where the lack of gravity and cold temperatures hardened the rock in place. Millions of years later, it is covered with dust.

Simple, my dear Watson.

G.Houtchens
armchair coach
amateur historian

Originally posted by wdl

Is it me or...

does that look exactly like a strip mining operation?

It's just you!

Am I crazy?

Yes!

LOL I guess you missed the fact that their are plenty others in this and the other thread that go with the mine theory, whether modern or ancient. And I am sure that John will eventually point out a few more things we missed

Zorgon,

There is indeed erosion on the surface of Mars- it's called dust storms. However, the last picture in your post is indeed intriguing. There should be no straight lines on the moon. Nature is not terribly linear, especially without an atmosphere. However, there appears to be some form of object in that last photo.

Illogical. Fascinating. Curious indeed.

G.Houtchens
armchair coach
amateur historian

I don't know if I'm seeing what you see, but it looks like different photographs to me (with different exposures) pieced together... this would account for the shade change. ?