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.