More Moon Anomalies

Originally posted by sy.gunson

Agreed. That big rock has kind of a straight edge on it, but not perfectly straight by any means, and the other edges aren't very straight.

Thank goodness there aren't any rounded ones otherwise then we'd be discussing the action of water on rocks.

No big deal... No conspiracy.

Well, rounded? What about a doughnut with your coffee?



The original image: as it looks, those rocks dont seem to have been in a crater impact, to me it looks like it was an explosion consistent, with the colour in that area, also the rubble in the crater would not be there if it was meteor impact.

That was ofcourse only my opinion and not an experts analysis.

Zorgon's website page about AS16-116-18603 and AS16-106-17336HR. Basalt stones? Some interesting shapes there, but I vote for paraeidolia, as usual.

[edit on 2008-3-12 by nablator]

Originally posted by nablator
Zorgon's website page about AS16-116-18603 and AS16-106-17336HR. Basalt stones? Some interesting shapes there, but I vote for paraeidolia, as usual.

[edit on 2008-3-12 by nablator]

Good old Zorgon I should have looked at his site 1st. He has also updated the page with a link to Keith Laneys website if you are interested in seeing the images in a bit more detail or seeing other images of the objects then go here:

Keith Laney - Dig Site 2

/rich

Originally posted by olegkvasha

Did you also notice the small collection of pyramids, lined up in a row?

I am pretty darn sure these are nothing more then rocks. If these are infact anything more then rock then what you would proly be more interested in is what these rocks are covering. However, I really doubt they cover anything more then lunar dirt.

If they are some sort of derelict machinery as Kieth Laney suggests then they would probably be millions of years old cause they turned into some beat up looking rocks.

Sorry to say but these simple rocks are about as interesting as......... well you get the point.

Me's thinks it's a little tooo cylindrical to be only Moon Rock, especially if you dive into the photo to see that the cylindrical inverted end piece looks machined - Plus you know the gov had photo enhancing tools way before the private sector did...




[edit on 12-3-2008 by hdchop]

[edit on 12-3-2008 by hdchop]

Do you think those moon rocks look any more un-natural than this:
The Giant's Causeway

or this:
The Devil's Postpile

Both of these are examples of natural rock formations caused by volcanic forces -- forces which were present in the Moon's past history.


And those "footprints" as someone said are just marks on the film. It seems like all of the photos from the group labeled "AS16-116-XXXXX" have this mark. It must have been a problem with the roll of film (which is a pity since these photos are priceless historical documents.)

Here's the original that the OP referenced:
Apollo 16 Image AS16-116-18602

Here is another link that shows all of the photos from that film "magazine" (magazine 116/E). As you can see, they all have the same streaks running through them:
Apollo 16 Film Magazine 116/E

The same streaks can be seen in the last half of magazine 114/B (this film magazine must have been made from the same roll of bad film as mag 116/E)

[edit on 3/12/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Agreed mostly, although I think Nohup may have had the correct analysis on the 'smudge marks'. Looks like a careless NASA worker might have spilled his/her coffee I agree it's a terrible shame!

One question though, and please consider me a second grader meaning no offense here in your reply LOL (I'm not exstensively educated on the moon's history)...

The moon has signs of past volcanic activity? I've never heard this before.
Could you please elaborate on where I can find evidence of this? I've always heard the moon referenced as a dead world, without a magnetic field or a liquid metal core. Thanks for your help, I like learning new facts

-WFA (not really a second grader, and no offense to any second grade student brilliant enough to be asking these questions!)

Originally posted by hdchop
Me's thinks it's a little tooo cylindrical to be only Moon Rock, especially if you dive into the photo to see that the cylindrical inverted end piece looks machined.

Maybe looks a little like the wheels on Fred Flintstone's car. But it's hard to tell from the photo if the object retains it roundness all the way down, or if it's elliptical (which would be a lousy wheel), or if it flattens out. I guess it's ultimately of matter of your personal opinion as to whether you think it looks round enough to not be a natural formation.



Or maybe Fred Flintstone got a flat tire on the Moon. Or aliens use cylindrical rocks for wheels. The possibilities are endless, I suppose.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Although I have pointed myself many times that most shapes may occur naturally, I think that this shape is not a common shape for a rock.

this just looks like a mineral whose lattice is cubical therefor breaking in to straight edges, this is a extremely common sight in geology

Its the rock in the middle;looks like some sort of engine.Not natural at all.

To make it clear, the rock I think does not look like a rock is this one.



All the other rocks have a more natural look than this one, at least to me.