Apollo Questions
image
image
image

 

Apollo Investigation

Examples of anomalies and inconsistencies in the Apollo photography

It is the opinion of Aulis, as well as expert photo analysts like Jack White BA, that the numerous inconsistencies in the Apollo photographs encode deliberate 'mistakes'. Therefore the Apollo record may not be a true and accurate account of the manned landing(s) on the Moon. Evidence for these conclusions falls into a number of categories:
  • Background mountains located just metres away, not kilometres
  • Physicists and Professors of Mathematics conclude Apollo fakery
  • Use of multiple overhead light sources
  • Light direction anomalies (no lights were taken to the Moon)
  • Lighting units visible 'in shot'
  • Incorrect size of the 'sun'
  • Impossibly high camera positions
  • Fabricated scenes deploying photo compositing
  • Mutually exclusive images
  • Retouching/blocking out of unwanted background details
  • Lunar rovers that leave no tracks in the 'lunar' dust
  • Footprints in the 'lunar' dust not belonging to Apollo astronauts

Examples of the above are to be found on the various Apollo Investigation pages, here is a selection:

Photo compositing

Here are two photos of the flag allegedly taken during the Apollo 11 EVA:

Fags from Apollo11
AS11-40-5905 (left) and AS11-40-5886 (right)

as11-40-5905 and 5886_2
Flag close ups from AS11-40-5905 (left) and AS11-40-5886 (right)

as11-40-5905 and 5886_1
The same two images – the flag from the right photo mirrored/flipped for comparative purposes

The flags in these two shots are suspiciously similar. For example, compare the shadows just back from the leading edge of the flag – and there are numerous other points of correspondence. (We will address the matter of the differential heights of the camera taking these images a little later.)

These side-by-side comparisons reveal the startling fact that BOTH flags are billowing positively towards the camera. But these two pictures were taken on opposite sides of the flag. When photographing the 'front' and the 'back' one flag should be billowing positively towards the camera while the other should be billowing negatively away from the camera.

In other words, the areas of the flag that are convex (towards) the camera in one image must be concave (away) in the other. But this was not the case during this Apollo photography.

The frame grab below, taken with the data acquisition camera from the LM, provides a view of the flag correctly billowing away from the camera:

Reverse view of AP11 flag
View of the flag correctly billowing away from the camera, taken from the LM

As image AS11-40-5886 (right) does not have the flag correctly oriented, the two pictures cannot depict truly reverse views of the same scene.

AS11-40-5905+5886
AS11-40-5905 and AS11-40-5886 – both images shown full frame

This finding suggests that the flags were added to the scenes afterwards, with the same side of the flag used in both pictures. This error in compositing may have occurred inadvertently – or even intentionally by whistle-blowers – totally disregarding the fact that each scene was photographed 180 degrees to each other.

To clarify further, it appears that the compositors deliberately inserted the flag into the scene billowing the wrong way – i.e. billowing/furling towards the viewer in both cases.

Another photograph taken on this same magazine of film – AS11-40-5874 on Mag 40 – reveals that the flag and pole in that image casts no shadow whatsoever – see also Jack White's study.


High camera positions

AS11-40-5903
AS11-40-5903 as analysed by Dr David Groves

Returning to the differences in the camera height, we know from the famous picture AS11-40-5903 that the position of the camera above the lunar surface was at the same level as the line of the horizon extrapolated across the visor of the astronaut imaged in the photograph. The centre reticle is over the subject’s right ankle, indicating a camera position much higher than the Hasselblad chest-bracket level.

Apollo 11 camera height
Dr David Groves’ analysis of the camera height indicating that the photograph was taken from
eye level and NOT from the chest bracket (full report see Dark Moon Appendix)

The photographer reflected in the gold visor is neither standing on an object/rock to give him extra height, nor is he holding the camera at eye-level.

David Groves has determined that the terrain does not undulate more than a few inches where the subject was standing, so the conclusion must be that the reflection in the visor (with the camera at chest height) is not that of the photographer of the main image.

AS11-40-5905+5886
AS11-40-5905 and AS11-40-5886

It would appear that the left picture (AS11-40-5905) was probably taken from around chest height, but that AS11-40-5886 was photographed from a far greater height.

AS11-40-5886 depicts a viewpoint that is far too high – the flag is mostly below the horizon. There is no elevated position in this location from which to take such a photograph with a chest-mounted camera. See also Jack White’s study A Matter of Perspective.

Conclusion: these are all faked photographs that happen to be on the same roll of film that allegedly commemorate mankind’s first landing on the Moon.


Extra lighting used on the Moon

There is clear, irrefutable evidence that lighting was used in the still photographs, yet no lighting equipment was taken to the Moon. Consider the sequence of pictures of Aldrin descending the ladder on the shadow side of the LM during Apollo 11. Dr David Groves and David Percy have analysed the ‘hotspot’ on the heel of Aldrin’s right boot and found that a directional light was used – apparently placed just to the right of the camera position. This finding regarding the location of the light source is supported by a process known as 'ray tracing' – see below. Full details of this analysis can be found in the Appendix of Dark Moon.

Hotspot on Aldrin's boot
AS11-40-5866 (close up)

Heel protector study


Serious shadow anomalies: multiple light sources

Multiple sources
AS17-145-22172 example of multiple overhead light sources – cannot be sunlight

imagesfurther /as14-68-9486+7l
AS14-68-9486/7 LM shadow anomaly

To the casual observer the rock shadows in the lower right foreground fall in a different direction to the horizontal background shadow of the LM, due to the rocks being located on 'higher ground' in this part of the image. This conclusion would be correct, if there was a distinct rise in the right foreground level, it would throw the shadows in different directions to any shadows cast elsewhere on the relatively flat 'terrain'.

HOWEVER in this case, ALL the rock shadows fall on the same diagonal in the picture. For example, after close observation of the distant, central rocks (see enlarged image below) the shadows are unquestionably on the diagonal – these rocks are not on higher ground. The only exception to these diagonal shadows in this photograph is the shadow cast by the LM itself. THIS IS THE PRIME REASON WHY THIS IMAGE IS ANOMALOUS.

as14-68-9486+7section
AS14-68-9486/7 (close up section) demonstrates direction of shadows

One possible scenario is that the LM's shadow was 'painted in'. In any event, the inescapable conclusion is that the entire scene was illuminated by artificial light sources because natural sunlight cannot result in shadows as seen in AS14-68-9486/7.

Moreover, if the 'sun' was out of frame to the left of the image, generating the LM's shadow, it could not result in lens flare in this photograph. It is the combination of factors that makes this image anomalous. Whilst the foreground rocks have dense shadows rendering part of these objects totally black, detail is still visible on the shadow side of the LM.

The anomalies and the proof are, as always, in the detail. (Lens flare is discussed elsewhere in the Aulis Apollo investigation.)


Anomalous footprints

Among the out-of-place, tell-tale footprints here is an interesting example – no doubt carefully placed by a whistle-blowing stage hand in the hope that it would be noticed one day.

Anomalous footprint
This detail is from an Apollo 15 photo AS15-86-11670

Apollo boot
Side view of Apollo boot to show horizontal ribs

See also Big Boot Sighting Where We Are Now.


Mutually exclusive images

The following two images are good examples of what we consider to be multiple utilisation of foregrounds and backgrounds, probably to maximise the investment in studio settings. See also Exposing Apollo for more detail.

Apollo 17 composite
AS17-134-20437-20443 top and AS17-147-22494-22521 lower panorama

This policy of doubling-up on sets only becomes apparent when a number of individual images are combined to make a panorama, as above. Viewed singly, the elements of these montages look totally convincing.

The large mountain is undoubtedly the same in each case, as well as features 'B', 'D' and 'E'. The small crater in the left foreground is also common to both images. One might conclude that the LM, as seen in the top image, was physically uplifted and moved into the foreground prior to photographing the lower image, or the whole thing was put together in the NASA photo lab.

For more examples see Jack White's Apollo 12 studies and Apollo 17 studies.

Conclusion: these are all faked photographs and not a true and accurate record mankind’s visits to the Moon. Further examples of anomalies in the photographic record are to be found elsewhere in the Aulis Apollo investigation.

Aulis Online

creative commons
This article is licensed under
a Creative Commons License



 



 

 


B Ham USA


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dark Moon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What happened on the Moon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dark Moon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What happened on the Moon

 

 


image