Apollo Investigation

More Apollo Fakery Unveiled

Continuing the investigation into the Apollo photographic record

In this article we check out some very significant findings. Firstly, we will look at some serious discrepancies in an Apollo 14 still photograph of the famous golfing scene and compare it with the TV coverage of the same event. This photograph was published in the first edition of Moon Shot: The Inside Story of America’s Race to the Moon, Turner Publishing Inc, 1994.

Moon Shot
1. Apollo 14 ‘still image’ from Moon Shot, Turner Publishing Inc, 1994

Apollo 14 TV frame
2. Apollo 14 frame from the NASA TV coverage

We have been aided in decoding this handiwork because both the TV camera and the ‘Hasselblad image’ have a viewpoint from approximately the same height and the same position. Moreover, in many respects where they should correspond, these two media do not do so. Without doubt this Apollo 14 ‘Hasselblad image’ is a COMPOSITE and we shall discuss it as such.

In this composite image (pic 1) the surface terrain on which the antenna is standing does not match pic 2, the TV coverage, at all. The reason? The surface terrain and the Lunar Module for this composite have been 'borrowed' from another photo for which the photographer was standing on the other side of the LM. See NASA original pic 3 and also pic 4, in which the image has been horizontally reversed and extended to the right.

3. NASA original image AS14-66-9276

NASA image reversed
4. NASA image horizontally reversed & extended – notice flag size and position

In the composite (pic 1) the S-band antenna is obviously an addition (probably cut-and-pasted from AS14-66-9257) and compared with the TV coverage (pic 2), it is more angled towards the still camera position.

Whistle-Blowing flag added
5. Image extended with S-band antenna and “whistle-blowing” flag added

mid stage
6. Image with added flag positioned by us to match the TV coverage – not adopted by the compositors

In both the composite still and the TV coverage, the US flag (once again!) is distinctly different, as can be seen in pics 5 & 6 its leading edge is pointing in a totally different direction in each instance!

Pic 5 is the incorrect, Whistle-Blowing position – the image as published. Compare that alignment with our positioning in pic 6.

The two astronauts have been added from other sources, see pic 7 below.

two astronauts added
7. Astronaut images probably used for the composite

Moon Shot
1. Apollo 14 ‘still image’ from Moon Shot, Turner Publishing Inc, 1994

Figure 1 is not a frame taken from the TV transmission. This composite features fiducials, reticles (or cross hairs) which are, as NASA has confirmed, a unique feature of the Hasselblad lunar surface camera.

No remote trigger or timing device was part of the camera gear provided. The Hasselblad was never placed on a tripod or stand but always fixed onto the astronaut’s suit by a bracket located at chest height.

The eyewitness TV camera records that neither of the astronauts at any point leaves the golfing scene. This fact holds true for the duration of the various attempts at hitting the golf ball – confirming that the picture is entirely bogus while nevertheless purporting to be the true record of this event.

We are indebted to Tom Weller for locating this photograph and Apollo researcher Marcus Allen for highlighting the fact that the two men are featured standing together on what is supposed to be the lunar surface. A certain impossibility.

Edgar Mitchell should have been the one to take such a photograph, but he was with Alan Shepard for the duration of the golfing scene, as confirmed by the ‘live’ TV coverage; and according to the official Apollo record, no third person could have been there to take the picture!

Undeniably, this image is the result of combining various components and elements together with some very careful retouching, the addition of an obviously fake oversized golf ball for example.

This fabricated image is neither described as a composite nor a montage. It is masquerading as an official Apollo Hasselblad picture.

So why would Apollo astronaut Alan Shepard allow such a false picture to be used in Moon Shot: The Inside Story of America’s Race to the Moon? This is a book he wrote together with astronaut Deke Slayton (supervisor of the astronaut corps from 1959 to 1972), NBC news space correspondent Jay Barbree, and the senior aerospace journalist for Associated Press, Howard Benedict.

The introduction to Moon Shot is signed by Neil Armstrong. Alan Shepard is described as ‘the man in the middle’ in terms of his function within the space program. Neil Armstrong’s first sentence is ‘Luna incognita’. (The unknown Moon.) His last paragraph starts ‘Luna is once again isolated’. In between he calls our satellite by its English name ‘Moon’. Indeed ‘Luna’ was never adopted by NASA as a name for the Moon but ‘Luna’ was the name of the 1958-1976 Soviet unmanned lunar spacecraft program.

  • Was this reference an indication as to the presence of the Soviets within the US space program? (See Dark Moon for more details.)
  • Could two eminent journalists and three prominent NASA astronauts be subtly indicating that there was something wrong not only with that game of golf but also with the game of Apollo?
  • Were they trying to tell us that other Apollo images could also be fakes?
  • Was the inclusion of this image a deliberate indication that these golf shots did not occur on the Moon at all?
  • Was ‘Luna’ the code name used for the sets constructed in the studio where the photography was really staged? (See later in this article.)

8. Aldrin: “I'm on the top step and can look down over the RCU and the landing gear pad”

Now we revisit Apollo 11 to take another look at the ‘Aldrin descending the ladder scene’ (pic 8). Marcus Allen has found a further significant anomaly in this photograph. His astute observation confirms our claim that this picture is undoubtedly a studio quality image, only realisable due to the use of special lighting equipment and/or retouching techniques.

You will remember that we examined the hot spot on the astronaut’s right boot. This highlight could actually be the telltale indicator that electronic flash was used! How did Marcus Allen conclude that this might well be the case? Let’s look at this boot again in big close up.

9. Close up of boot (with hot spot) ‘suspended’ above the top step

The right foot of the astronaut is not actually touching the top rung of the ladder! Demonstrating conclusively that this image could not have been taken in the virtual blackness of the shadow side of the LM, since a fast shutter speed would be required to capture the action without blurring. It is important to remember that the subject would have been moving relative to the camera.

As very little light would have been available in the virtual blackness of the LM’s shadow (confirmed by the astronauts’ soundtrack) there are two possible ways of obtaining the published result:

  • Possibility number one: deployment of one or more electronic umbrella flash units, but this option is generally available only under studio-type conditions and no such equipment was taken to the Moon.
  • Possibility number two: this fabricated picture is a whistle-blowing exercise, with the astronaut pasted into this strange position, or even intentionally moved from his original position on the ladder to this contrived position. Committed to posterity ‘suspended’ above the top step in the final composite image.

So, here we present yet further evidence that suggests the entire sequence of Apollo 11 lunar surface pictures was also taken under studio conditions.

And finally here is another example of what can only be described as a thoroughly phony photograph, allegedly taken on the Moon. This Apollo 14 image (see pic 10) shows an astronaut walking towards the left of frame.


10. AS14-64-9089 as originally published

So what is wrong with pic 10? As a representation of the astronaut’s legs and body, the ‘matchstick’ shadow effect is both inadequate and inaccurate. While the amount of light on the side of the body nearest the camera and furthest away from the Sun (which is out of frame to the left) is far too adequate, while equally inaccurate!

In other words, the astronaut has a totally disproportionate amount of light filling him in on his shadow side. It is important to remember the total blackness of the shadow side of the rocks in Apollo images of the lunar surface. Moreover, the background to the right of the photo has light bouncing off the studio backing. See also Jack White's study of this image: Studio Lighting reflects off black background.

Now compare AS14-64-9089 with pic 11, our amended version below:

11. AS14-64-9089 amended with corrected shadow detail

The side of the astronaut nearest the camera is much darker in our picture above than is the case in NASA’s version. This adjusted image conveys the result one would expect without the benefit of an artificial light source filling-in the subject and with a more appropriate amount of shadow on the ground.

In our view pic 10 is entirely phony and is yet further evidence of whistle-blowing.

It seems increasingly likely that many, if not all, the images and the TV coverage were generated in a massive 360-degree studio constructed inside a specially-built, extremely large geodesic-style dome.


12. Example of a geodesic-style photographic dome

This key piece of the complex Apollo puzzle has been contributed by a whistle-blower who wishes to remain anonymous. Perhaps that Coke bottle sequence reported by Una Ronald, and others who saw it in Western Australia during the Apollo 11 EVA transmission, has more relevance than we first thought.

Aulis Online, 2002 – updated 2019

creative commons
This article is licensed under
a Creative Commons License

NEXT Article next page

AULIS Online – Different Thinking