Lunar Strip Mine in John Lear's Moon Photos??

Originally posted by Apass

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Titanium?
the Bluer the area, the more titanium present.

Why would you want to mine in Copernicus Crater and not in Mare Tranquillitatis? From your picture, it is there where the whole mining operation should have been...(the bluest area of all the areas)

Mostly because of the "ifs" I think.
Mare Tranquillitatis sure looks like another rich place. I wonder how the digging is there?
If the Maria are formed by volcanic outflows, and are relatively new features, It might be hard to break the surface.

I just said to myself, if the moon is rich in titanium, and the densest location is near/under Copernicus. What if I were to go there, and collect what has already been blasted for me?

Originally posted by SteveR

1. You're looking at circular craters. No one is saying all craters are mining operations. To dispute the thread, you need to dispute the area we're looking at.

Yes, I'm looking at circular craters that are similar to the crater we are discussing.
You just don't understand crater formation.

Copernicus (the one we're talking about), is about 100 kilometers in diameter, and almost 4 kilometers deep. Most craters of this size show a similar structure with terracing and slump blocks on the inside of the crater wall.

Craters on the Moon with diameters larger than about 15 kilometers have more complex forms, including shallow, relatively flat floors, central uplifts, and slump blocks and terraces on the inner wall of the crater rim. In craters on the Moon with diameters between about 20 and 175 kilometers, the central uplift is typically a single peak or small group of peaks. Craters on the Moon with diameters larger than about 175 kilometers can have complex, ring-shaped uplifts.
www.lpi.usra.edu...

The link above should give you a good refresher on crater formation, complete with diagrams.

The area of the picture posted by ScepticOverlord is very deceptive.
1. It was taken with a telephoto lense onboard an orbiting satelite.
2. There is nothing in the picture that gives you a reference as to the size.



Your not looking at an area a few 100 meters tall, your seeing a crater wall that is over 3 kilometers tall. The little steam shovel in the one picture would be just a dot on the landscape shown in the original picture.


Don't let that comparison fool you into seeing something that's not there, the scales are totaly different.

Originally posted by SteveR
2. Those aren't actual photographs. You're using a program that generates a 3D image map. I think that almost ruins it's suitability for this kind of research. Minor details in the image (like the ones we're looking for) are going to be distorted.

Just imo.

I'm using that to show the natural formation of large craters, not to see every pebble on the ground. For the point I was trying to prove, I think it's perfectly suitable for this kind of research.


EDIT: sp

[edit on 19/9/2006 by anxietydisorder]

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.

Im with skeptic on this one - it looks far too much like a diamond mine to my eyes, and yes, although it is on a scale we cannot comprehend, whats to say that the diggers were A) Human size, and B) used earth sized machines??

To me it looks like it is dug out layer by layer to get at some thing they wanted...

Oh and heres a piccie or two of diamond mines in south africa..

stugeo2005.ukzn.ac.za...

www.geophysics.dias.ie...

and some great images of othwer large quarries...

www.uk-rocks.net...

All im trying to say is that although heat could of made this area on impact, i cannot see how it just happens to be over the largest titanium concentration on the moon, AND looks artificial.

I'm sorry AD, but I don't buy it.

You contend that we are looking at the side of a natural crater.

Natural Craters

On the tip of each crater wall (in every type) there is "ejecta" which piles up significantly. From looking at Copernicus 2 at normal size, I see no ejecta whatsoever on the tops of the walls. To me, this looks like the surface has been dug into. There is no hill seperating the surface and the hole.

Don't debate me with textbooks and diagrams when I can plainly see with my eyes.

Skeptic Overlord's picture was not deceptive in the least. He just didn't spend hours searching for the best example, I've seen strip mining walls much much taller than that. If this area is as huge as you think (which Lear says he is going to discuss shortly) then that still doesn't disprove a mining operation.

[edit on 19/9/06 by SteveR]

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 had a request from Steve R to post this here as well... from the original lunar picture thread...Its hard to keep track of many similar threads when you have limited time LOL I guess all the Lunar Miners came here...

repost...

Okay class one last time... for all those who NEVER look back at previous posts....


This is a strip mine on Earth! Distance 32 miles... show me the clear buildings and roadways... Notice the terraces...



This is a meteor crater on Earth! Notice the radiating debris pattern and the raised rim... Notice there are no terraces even though we have weather erosion on Earth, unlike the moon...



This is a group of Craters on Mars... same as Earth one... no terraces and there is erosion on Mars...



This is Gusev Crater on the Moon... same pattern as the other planets...



Now this is the area in question... THIS looks like a normal Crater HOW? Terraces both flat and at an angle meeting the next level, piles of debris, series of receding steps on the right hand side...



Normal crater indeed!!

About the "box"


This is an ore refinery on Earth... I would expect to fine such a structure on the top level in a mine...





This is the object in the lunar crater...




Not all that hard to see the similarity

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.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
An alternate angle from a photo on the Wiki article seems to show the same attributes of the area:
en.wikipedia.org...:Copernicus.gif

I don't see an alternate angle in this wikipedia image... its the same photos all pieced together... I did that myself from John's original posts

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 anxietydisorder
The little steam shovel in the one picture would be just a dot on the landscape shown in the original picture.

To illustrate the point, I've added what should be a reasonable representation of a yellow steam shovel (they're not so little) to the photo at what should be scale.

Here: www.waid-observatory.com... The copernicus walls are 11,400 feet at their tallest point... if we assume worst case, I cropped the image to cover the cliff-only, and scaled it to 456 pixels, or one pixel for every 25 feet. (The scale is likely off due to the perspective of the photo, but it's close enough for what we're doing here.)

Now if we assign a very generous height of 75 feet to our shovel, it will look something like this:



That should help get a rough idea of scale.

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

Skeptic Overlord... or anyone...

One last question...

I am surprised that no one else has noticed this, even though it stands out like a glaring beacon in copernicus 2...

Its right on a level spot just where a steam shovel might have been...




This is no mistaking a section that has been whited out...

If you pull back you see it clearly... and its just below the "box" enigma





Here it is with text...

Originally posted by Houtchens
Zorgon,
There is indeed erosion on the surface of Mars- it's called dust storms.

Yes I believe I did say thew WAS/IS erosion on Mars....

I have a great picture of two dust devils on Mars... that cleaned the dust off of the Spirit Rover making it run as good as new again... Also links to Nasa videos capturing moving dust devils...

You can see the picture on my website... below the fossil evidence

www.landoflegends.us...

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. ?