Editor's Comment: 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. NASA still infers that these panoramas are the true representation of the lunar EVA sites. 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.

NASA could not have foreseen that photo-analysis experts would make a detailed study of the backdrops (and the LEM positions in relation to these backdrops) to reveal the whistle-blowing fakery.

Mountain backdrop stretch?

Editor's Comment: Jack White did the computer stretching to make the lower image 15% wider. When images A&B were made in the early 1970s a computer may have been used to stretch or compress. But the same result could have been achieved by either photo retouching, or by physical adjustment of the backdrop and the set.

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.
1) The number of photos in Apollo panoramas seem to exceed the number of photos listed as being shot for that 'scene'. Some panoramas use from 15 to 25 separate photos.
2) Panorama shots are OUT OF SEQUENCE. In one Apollo 17 panorama of 21 pictures, when the photos are listed in numerical sequence, the picture elements in the panorama ARE NOT SEQUENTIALLY NUMBERED, but interspersed with other shots numerically.
For instance:
Number A, photo 3 of 21 pan sequence
Number B, different photo
Number C, different photo
Number D, photo 6 of 21 pan sequence
Number E, different photo
Number F, photo 11 of 21 pan sequence
However, whether composed of one or many shots, NASA still infers that these panoramas are the true representation of the lunar EVA locations. 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 to the public 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 a true record of their purported lunar sites.