Editor's Comments: 1. The conclusion has to be that either the LM was repositioned or the backdrops were moved around, or both. See also Doing the twist during Apollo 15 below, and a later Apollo 16 study.

2. The usual definition of a panorama is that of a series of photographs, shot sequentially by standing and turning about 10 degrees for each shot, and NOT INTERRUPTING FOR OTHER PHOTOS. This does not seem to be the case for NASA. During his panorama research Jack White has found a number of anomalies, other than the visual problems he discusses within these studies. NASA still infers that these panoramas are the true representation of the lunar EVA sites. While NASA may wish to argue for poetic license in giving the public 'an idea' of the relevant lunar environment – these pictures were never initially presented as 'approximate, or idealised composites'. Nor are they today. Since it is quite obvious (from the similar conclusions drawn independently by both Jack White and David Percy) that these 'composite panoramas' are full of discrepancies, as such they CANNOT be considered the true record of their purported lunar locations.

Editor's Note: Another version of the Apollo 15 study: LEM does turnabout with same background. See comments above and Doing the twist in a later Apollo 16 study.

 

Apollo 15 - multiple use of sets and backdrops

Editor's Note: There can only be one LM in any given setting, see also the study below. It would appear that once again either the LM was repositioned, or the backdrops were moved around, or both. It is not a question of the background and setting varying depending on the camera viewpoint. In this case the LM is in a different position and orientation against the same run of backdrop.

Multiple use of sets and backdrops 2

Editor's Note: Of course although the backdrops match, the foregrounds are different. This was propbaly to help disguise the fact that the setting has been used for both a general scene, (photo AS15-82-11082) and an alternative setting for the LM (photo AS15-82-11057). It is highly likely that there was a finite number of backdrops available to the photographic team and that NASA failed to anticipate such meticulous analysis of the imagery.