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. 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.
Same background - different spur
15 - multiple use of sets and backdrops 1
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.
Apollo 15 - 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.
Editor's Note: In the upper image the backdrop is nearer and square-on to the camera, whereas in the lower picture the backdrop is apparently further away. Notice also the height difference of the backdrops in relation to the LM. So there is something seriously awry with the continuity between these two images. See also Apollo 15 salutes.
Apollo 15 in a different light
With and without Hasselblad cameras
Apollo 15 color or black/white?
Editor's Comments: The visor reflections do not match, neither is the lighting on the flag pole the same. The shadows of the astronaut do not match the profile of the astronaut (and since they are virtually the same poses, the shadows in both pictures should also be virtually the same.) There is a reticle over the right of the flag on the color picture 11863, but it is so faint it is barely visible.
Same backdrop different scene
Editor's Note: The same mountain backdrops appear in various photos, irrespective of the foregrounds. Moreover, backdrops are moved around as is customary in theatrical stage work. And the LM cannot be in two different places at the same location. Finally, the flags are pointing in different directions in the two images. See also: Did we land on the Moon?
Winston Wu pointed out in AS15-88-11863 that there is an apparent 'ledge' between the rear foreground and the near foreground area where all the activity has taken place. It looks rather like a white 'carpet' layer that was placed over the 'lunar dust'. The slightly lower near foreground carries all the tracks and footprints.
footprint is this?
Editor's Note: This finding is no joke, it is very significant indeed. The devil is always in the detail.
For other findings concerning anomalous footprints please see Conrad lowered into place on wire? in an earlier study, and the last item at: Where we are now.