 On photo AS15-88-11866, we see the commander David Scott salute the American flag. |
 On photos AS15-87-11748, AS15-87-11749 and AS15-87-11750 we can see photos of the hill which is behind the astronaut. (The photo presented here is AS15-87-11749) |
 If we paste the hill I showed you into the hill which is behind the astronaut, it perfectly fits. |
 We find common features between the two hills: 1) The same holes on the top of the hill. 2) The same two holes at the right of the astronaut's head. 3) And the same white spot at the top left of the black hole at the right bottom of the hill. |
 Well the black hole is here, as you can see it on this other view of the hill on photo AS15-86-11601. But it's considerably cleared. |
 Yet, it's not cleared because the sun would shine toward it. You can see that according to the shadow of the astronaut, the sun is shining from the left. |
 In consequence, the hole should be shaded and should appear like it is on the photo on the right. |
If the black hole appears so clear, it's obviously because it has been blurred, like the other artifacts of the hill, which gives the hill this strange luminosity. Here it appears very clear that blurring has been used. |
 And here we still see another aspect of this hill, a very strange aspect, like the hill was plasticized! |
 When two objects are at different distances from the photographer, and this one backs up, the relative sizes of these objects change. On this double view, I show two photographs I have taken of a tree, one close, and the second one farther away from this tree. On the second view, the tree looks smaller relatively to the distant bridge than on the first view.  When I make a superposition of the two photos so to superpose as well as possible the trees of the two photos, we can see two bridges of different sizes; the bigger one belongs to the photo which is taken from farther away. We can see that the bridges of the two photos not only have different sizes, but also different positions.  This double view shows the photos AS15-88-11864 (left) and AS15-88-11866 (right) of the mission Apollo 15. The photo of the left is taken closer; it is visible if we examine the holes and footprints on the ground. Apparently the photographer has backed up straight between the two photos, for neither the flag nor the LM show any change of orientation.  If we superpose the photo AS15-88-11864 over the photo AS15-88-11866, adapting its size and orientation so to obtain an as perfect superposition of the flags as possible, we can see that we also have a quite good superposition of the astronaut and the rover, but, as the LM is farther away in the background, the two LMs have two different sizes, which is normal; the smaller one belongs to the photo which is taken close. In fact, if we observe attentively, we can see that the LM belonging to the photo taken far (the bigger one) is shifted left relatively to the LM belonging to the photo taken close (the smaller one); indeed the left legs of the two LM show a shift, while their right legs are almost confused. In what concerns the hills in the background, the shift is still more obvious: The hill belonging to the photo taken far is shifted up and left relatively to the hill belonging to the photo taken close. If we consider the holes in the close foreground, we see the converse: The holes belonging to the photo taken close are on the left of the holes belonging to the photo taken far. This shows that the photographer has not only backed up, but also moved on the left before taking the second photograph. But, in that case, why do we have a so perfect superposition of the flag and also of the rover? The flag and the rover should also show a different orientation by the fact that the photographer moved left, and they don't! |
 This double view shows the photos AS15-88-11865 and AS15-88-118656 of the mission Apollo 15.  The first impression would be that the photographer did not take the two photos at the same distance, for the set of holes I have circled is not at the same distance from the bottom on the two photos, but in fact he has not backed up on the second photo, for this set of holes has the same size on the two photos (and same orientation too), and, what we gain in the foreground, we lose it in the background (we see less sky on the second photo).  The best to see if the photographer has moved or not is to make a superposition of the two photos; I have superposed AS15-88-11865 over AS15-88-11866; we can see that the superposition is quite good, although not perfect. We can perfectly see what the photographer has done between the two photos: He has moved his camera down and on the right, and a little turned it clockwise. I have taken the flag as a reference to make the superposition. The two LMs and the two hills are quite well superposed, but we can see that the left leg of the two LMs shows a slight shift (the holes in the foreground also show a light shift); the leg which is the closer to the flag belongs to the photo AS15-88-11865; that means that the photographer slightly moved on the right between the two photos (not much, probably just a step).  If we look into the visor of the astronaut we can see the reflection of the photographer on it; I have circled it on the two visors. We can see that, between the two photos, it has hardly moved; there is a slight shift on the right of the reflection coming from the slight shift on the right of the photographer.  Now look at these close-ups of the astronaut. In fact he has not kept the same posture on the two photos; notice that, on the second photo, the astronaut has lifted his left foot, and that makes him turn his body and his head clockwise.  On this animation, we better see that the astronaut turns his head on the two photos, enough to create a consistent shift on the right of the reflection of the photographer on the visor. But, in the visor, we don't see the consistent shit of the reflection of the photographer created by the fact that the astronaut turns his head; we only see the slight shift on the right of the photographer himself. |
 On AS15-85-404 (left) and AS15-85-11428, we have the same hills in the background, but different foregrounds. |
 There's even better: on AS15-85-11428 (left) and AS15-85-11454 (right), we have the same foreground before the same hills, but there is a big black hole on the first photo which is missing on the second one. |
 The moon hoaxers wonder why we don't see the lunar module on AS15-82-11082 (right), while we can see it on AS15-82-1057 (left), whereas we can see the same background. The Apollo supporters reply that this can be explained with parallax, and for once they are right. The lunar module is quite close, while the Hadley mountains are kilometers away, so the astronaut just has to move a little laterally to see the same background and not the lunar module. |
 And it is not true that the two backgrounds are exactly identical; we can see that there are parts of mountains which have moved left relatively to the parts which are behind, which is the indication that the astronaut has moved right. |
 In fact the two photos are not at all taken from the same point of view; on this schema extracted from the mission report of Apollo 15, the lunar module is indicated with a red cross, the ALSEP that the first photo is taken from is indicated with a green cross, and the place that the second photo is taken from is indicated with a blue cross. It is clear on the schema that the lunar module is not seen under the same angle from the second point of view than from the first point of view on one hand, and it is consistently farther from the second point of view than from the first point of view on the other hand. |
 But, if it is normal that the lunar module is not visible on the photo AS15-82-11082, the latter photo belongs to a panoramic made by the astronaut, and it could be visible on another photo of this panoramic. However the apollo believers will explain that the lunar module is much smaller than on the photo AS15-82-11057, and it could be hidden by an accident of the terrain. So, it is not possible to draw a definitive conclusion. Still there are many other hints in this mission, and this video is going to show them. |
 On the left view of this double view, we can see that the mountains in the background were seen both from quite different distances and different angles; consequently it is obvious that we should see the mountains in the background differently on the two views; yet, by turning one of the two photos, we can manage to superpose exactly the two views of the mountains, as shown on the right view of the double view, which should not be possible with the difference of points of view that the photos are taken from. |
 First, there is something shocking on this photo. |
 The Hadley mountains are quite high, kilometers high according to the mission report, but they also are kilometers away from the lunar module. |
 Yet, if we look at the distance of the lunar module to the foot of the mountains, it appears to be quite short, especially compared with the height of the mountains. It gives the impression that there would only be a short distance between the lunar module and these mountains. |
 I have moved back the Hadley mountains, and now there seems to be a more normal distance between the lunar module and the foot of the Hadley mountains. It is certainly not correct yet, but still less shocking than on the original photo, more realistic. We now have an impression of depth that we didn't have on the original photo. |
 We see the lunar module and the flag on the photos AS15-88-11864, AS15-88-11865, AS15-88-11866 and on the photo AS15-82-11057, but under a different angle on the latter photo, and from farther away.  I show on the left of the double view a close-up of the lunar module and the flag on AS11_82-11057.  The comparison of the lunar module and the flag on the two photos allow us to deduce that, on AS15-88-11864, AS15-88-11865 and AS15-88-11866, the photographer is shooting under the direction I indicate with an arrow on AS15-82-11057; in fact, it is even a little more counter-clockwise.  I have made a panoramic with the photos AS15-82-11057 and AS15-82-11059. We see a change of luminosity between the two because the settings of the camera are not the same on the two shots. The hill we see in the background on the photos AS15-88-11864, AS15-88-11865 and AS15-88-11866 is the part of hill I have circled in red on the panoramic; yet, given the direction under which the photographer is actually shooting on these photos, the part of hill we should rather see is the one I have circled in green!  So, instead of seeing this hill on the photos AS15-88-11864 and AS15-88-11865...  ...We should rather see this one, that is the part of hill which is more on the left.  So, if the hill we see on the photos AS15-88-11864, AS15-88-11865 and AS15-88-11866 is not the one we should logically see if we consider the photo AS15-82-11057 (and next ones), that means that, either the lunar module and the flag have been turned clockwise between these photos...or the hill in the background has moved on the left!  This is what we should logically have seen in fact on AS15-82-11057 in order to be compatible with what we see on the photos AS15-88-11864, AS15-88-11865 and AS15-88-11866, the direction flag->lunar module turned toward the right part of the hill we see in the background of the photos with the saluting astronaut (I have taken this lunar module from a photo of Apollo 16, the best I could find, though not completely exact).  So, what is the more probable? That the lunar module and the flag have been turned?  Or that the hill in the background has been shifted? The second case is not to be excluded, for they were also using models for the hills! |
 On the photo AS15-87-11819, we can see on the lunar ground a shadow (circled in red) which is visibly the one of the right side of the lunar module (circled with blue); I show a close-up of it in the bottom of the photo (framed with red); but where is the rest of the shadow? |
 On AS15-87-11796 and AS15-87-11819, the LM is seen under the same angle of view; therefore the direction of the sunlight must be the same on the two views.  So, on AS15-87-11819, the direction of the sunlight is logically along the yellow arrow. Yet, the bits of shadow that I have colored in red indicate a direction of sunlight along the red arrow. So, as the direction of the sunlight can't have changed between the two photos, we must deduce that the LM has been turned of a quarter of a turn between the two photos! |
 On this pair of photos (AS15-86-11599 and AS15-86-11602), the photographer takes two shots of the lem and the rover with a hill in the background. On the second shot the big holes moves on the left relatively to the lem and the rover, which shows that the photographer has moved on the left. Consequently both the lem and the rover should show a counterclockwise rotation in reaction to this move. Effectively the rover shows this counterclockwise rotation, but the lem shows none. The rover may be nearer than the lem, and effectively the lem rotates a little less than the rover. But the lem is not the empire state building, its size is known. And the rover has not more moved away from the lem than the big hole has got closer to the lem, so the rover must not be nearer than half-way the distance to the lem. So if effectively the lem rotates less than the rover, its rotation should still be visible. However, if you still think that the rotation of the lem is such that it simply doesn't appear well visible although it does exist, we have a way of making comparisons.  There is a photo before the two latter photos, AS15-86-11598, that I have added on the left of the two other photos on this view. On the latter photo, the photographer is still more on the right relatively to the rover and the lem.  On this multiple view I show on the top the tree couples of flag/US plate as they appear on each of the three photos, and on the bottom the rover as it appears on each of the three photos, in the order of the sequence in the Apollo journal. And what do we see? We can see that the flag and the US plate rotate more between the first and the second photo than they do between the second and the third photo. (I can't even find any rotation between the second and the third photo). Conversely, the rover rotates less between the first and the second photo than it does between the second and the third photo. This is contradictory In fact it's the rotation of the flag/US plate between the first and the second photo which is probably correct. Between the second photo and the third photo, they should have rotated at least as much, and even a little more, especially if we consider that it's on the first photo that the photographer was the farthest away from the lem! For anybody who has a minimum the sense of perspective, it's very clear that this constitutes an anomaly! |
In the mission Apollo 15, we find another version of the photo AS15-82-11057 which is darker than the one which has been kept with this reference:  The luminosity of the foreground is very strange; it is abnormally luminous in comparison with the background. This photo is too abnormal to have been taken on the moon. In fact the photo which has been retained with this reference, the best one, is this one:  We also can see more of the left part of the hill on the latter, and the LM appears smaller than on the previous photo. The first impression is that this photo is taken from farther away than on the previous photo. But in this case the tracks and footprints in the immediate foreground should be different, and they are exactly the same, which is an indication that this photo has been taken from the same place as the previous one. I have wondered if the second photo might have been fabricated from another version of the first one (taken with different settings). But I have found out it was not possible to make coincide the two photos. I thought I had found the good match (it was seeming OK on the left side), but when I made a GIF to compare the two photos, it was not matching at all (because of the right side). I also tried to slightly rotate one photo relatively to the other one, but to no avail. I concluded that neither of the two photos can be fabricated from the other one.  As the photos are taken from the same point of view, since the footprints in the immediate foreground are exactly the same, and that the second photo covers a little more landscape than the first one, that means that the zoom has been changed between the two photos. How could the astronauts manipulate the zoom with their thick gloves, and how could they judge of the effect since they could not look into the viewfinder? |
 On the photo AS15-82-11057, we can see two luminous reflections: A small bright one close to the top of the photo, and a lighter and bigger one underneath. |
 And with these two reflections, we now can obtain the direction of the sunlight by drawing a line going through the centers of these reflections. |
 On these photos of the sun I have taken, we can see a little brilliant reflection above the sun; it can also be under the sun (and it is on the photos of the fakers). When the sun is on the middle of the photo, this reflection is on the same vertical as the sun. When the sun is on the right of the photo, this reflection is on the right of the sun when it is above the sun (as you see on my photo) or on the left of the sun when it is under. And vice versa when the sun is on the left of the photo. This little brilliant reflection is always close to the sun, never far from it; farther there can be a bigger lighter reflection. When there are several reflections, the line joining their centers meets with the center of the sun. |
 But this photo has a sister, the photo AS15-82-11056. The photographer just turned his camera on the left to take this photo. Like on the other photo, the direction of the sunlight is obtained by drawing a line joining the centers of the reflections. |
 In order to study these reflections, the best is to make a panoramic with the two photos, which I did. The center of the sun is at the intersection of the two lines of reflections, and that's the problem: This intersection is much above the upper edge of the photo when the sun should normally be just above this edge.  It would put the sun too far from the small brilliant reflections (more than half the height of the photo). The only possible conclusion is that the light source of which we see the reflections has been moved between the two photos. |
 I have corrected the photo AS15-82-11057 on the right to make the reflections compatible with the ones of the photo AS15-82-11056 (on the left). |
 Here is an animation made with the photos AS15-82-11056 and AS15-82-11057; we can see the sun move between the two photos. |
 And here is an animation made with the photo AS15-82-11056 and my modified version of AS15-82-11057; now the sun (normally) doesn't move between the two photos. |
 On the photo AS15-82-11057, if we make a close-up on the place where the pairs of rover tracks cross, we can see that the distances between the tracks of the two pairs are very different. Furthermore, the tracks of one of the pairs appear not to be parallel. |
 On the photo AS15-86-11600, we can see a white metallic chest on the extreme left that I have outlined in red. This is the only photo of the mission on which this chest is visible. |
 On this panoramic view made with the photos AS15-87-11818 and AS15-87-11819, I show where this chest was. |
 Between photos AS15-82-11090 et AS15-82-11091, we can see a couple of stones (circled in red) which came closer to a stone (circled in orange), whereas it is on the right of the latter and closer to the photographer ; this means that the photographer moved on the right between the two photos ; in this case, the line which joins this couple of stones to the other stone should have turned clockwise relatively to the horizon, but it turned in the converse direction instead. |
 This animation shows well the problem: Look on the left and the top, and you see no rotation; look on the bottom right, and you see a rotation. |
 On photos AS15-82-11140 and AS15-82-11141, the astronaut is working on rocks (or pretending to). But on the second photo, whereas there is a new footprint (circled in yellow) which was not on the first photo, there is also a footprint (circled in red) which was present on the first photo and is absent on the second one. |
 On photos AS15-82-11145 and AS15-82-11146, we see the hammer pivot before the astronauts grabs it. Not a big proof, but funny. |
 On the photo AS15-82-11146, we can see the photographer in the reflection of the visor.  But his right arm (circled in orange) he is pushing forward has a shadow (circled in red) which is placed too low on the photographer's shadow. |
 On photo AS15-82-11160 (close-up on the left) we see the astronaut on the toes of his left foot, and only his right foot is flat on the ground. On photo AS15-82-11161 (close-up on the right), the astronaut is still on the toes of his left foot (the tracks behind his left foot are the same), but his right foot has moved sidewards (we can see it by the footprint his right foot left on the ground). So, in spite of the fact he was in instable position on his left foot, the astronaut managed to move his right foot! These astronauts are true heroes, LOL! |
 So that you better see: - I have colored in olive green the footprint which is near his right foot, which gives the evidence that the astronaut moved his right foot. - I have colored in green the identical tracks which are behind his left foot, and in blue a footprint which is positioned the same relatively to his left foot, which give the evidence that his left foot has not moved, and has remained in the unstable position we see. |
 On the photos AS15-82-11167 and AS15-82-11168, the shadow of the astronaut radically changes, whereas his arms are in the same position, and he is almost at the same distance from the rover (he made a step at most). |
 On this photo, AS15-85-11411, the wheel projects a shadow which shows lit parts because of the open mesh that the tyre tread is made with...  On the side of the wheel's shadow which is closer to the photographer, we can see the shadows of the rivets I have circled in green. But, on the opposite side of the wheel's shadow, on the part I have circled in red, we can't see the shadows of the rivets! Have the rivets gone on this part of the wheel? |
 On this photo, AS15-90-12216, the wheel projects a shadow which is in the same direction as it.  We can see the relief of the tire of the wheel on the edge on the shadow, but, surprisingly, we only see it on one edge and not the other one; we should see it on the two edges of the shadow. |
 On the photo AS15-85-11416, we see the shadow of an astronaut obliquely on the top right of the photo, and the shadow of the other one is the one of the photographer. We can wonder how the photographer managed to take the photo with what he is carrying.  People has posted photos on the net to show that shadows are not always parallel, but they are not aware that they put into evidence a rule that the shadows always follow: Their directions always converge toward a common point, including the photographer's shadow.  Well, the directions of the shadows don't really converge toward a common point like they should. |
 On the photo AS15-85-11418, the tripod and the other astronaut are on the right of the photographer's shadow.  Once again, the directions of the shadows don't converge toward a common point. According to the directions of the shadows of the gnomon and the other astronaut, the photographer's shadow should be more on the right. |
 On this photo (AS15-85-11439), the other astronaut is on the right of the photographer's shadow; the angle his shadow makes with the vertical seems acceptable. On the other hand, the rock which is on the left of the photographer's shadow has a shadow which makes a too important angle with the vertical, which is too horizontal. Concerning the photographer, his profile is too exaggerated, and, with the spade he is holding, and that he certainly holds with both hands given it is horizontal, we can wonder how he managed to take the photo! It makes many incoherences!  To show that the shadow of the rock should not be horizontal, I show on the right of this double view an example taken outdoors on which you can see that, although my shadow is one side of the photo and the trashcan on the other side, the shadow of the trashcan is still far from being horizontal. |
 On this photo (AS15-85-11441), the shadow of the other astronaut has a very strange head. The photographer is holding something with his left hand and holding something under his right arm; in these conditions, we can wonder how he managed to take the photo.  This time the directions of the shadows of the photographer, the gnomon, and the other astronaut seem approximately to be converging on a common point...But there is a rock which comes spoil everything, for the direction of its shadow does not meet the common converging point. It must be a troll rock! |
 On the photo AS15-85-11451, we see a window in the shaded part of the hill which is luminous. Why just this window? |
 On the photos AS15-85-11487 and AS15-85-11488, we see a hill in the background and rover tracks in the foreground. Between the two photos, the landscape moves down and on the left. Apparently the foreground and the background move the same, so, if the photographer has moved, it's only slightly. Consequently, the foreground should not turn very differently from the background. |
 We can see that the horizon line has turned (of around 4°) clockwise relatively to the horizontal of the photo. We could expect the foreground to have done as much, by the fact that the photographer has hardly moved (and has mostly turned his camera); instead of this, the foreground slightly turns counterclockwise (of around 1°). In order to see what's really going on with these photos, the best is to make a superposition of the two photos superposing as best as possible the hills of the photos. When I do this superposition, I obtain this;  If you have difficulty seeing the tracks, I have colored them on this superposition:  On this superposition the problem appears more clearly: The two tracks are slightly shifted from each other, but what's strange is that the rover tracks remain perfectly parallel; normally, with the distance, they should come closer to each other, and it's not the case: They are always at the same distance from each other, whatever their distance from the photographer; the tracks of the second photo are simply shifted relatively to the ones of the first photo, they are not seen according to a normal perspective. In order to illustrate this problem, I have taken myself a couple of real photos:  I have tried to do what the photographer does on the Apollo photo: - Turn the camera on the right - Move it up - Slightly turn it counterclockwise around the horizontal axis. - And move on the left and back. I have not exactly turned the camera like the Apollo photographer, but it doesn't matter, since the behavior of the foreground relatively to the background does not change with the moves of the camera, but only with the moves of the photographer. And I have also more moved than the photographer, but it makes the conclusion still more spectacular. And this conclusion appears when I make a superposition of my two photos so that the backgrounds perfectly match.  You can see that the white strips which are on the sides of the road converge toward each other with the distance, they are not parallel. This is a normal perspective, unlike what we see on the Apollo photos.  I have corrected the orientation of the rover's tracks on the second photo to show what we should normally have seen: On the second corrected photo, The rover's tracks rotate the same way as the horizon line. I have made a new superposition with the first photo, but instead of using the original second photo, I have used my modified second photo; and here is what it gives:  On this new superposition with my corrected second photo, we can see that this time the rover tracks converge to each other (it's especially visible on the right track). |
 This animation has been made with (more or less) common parts of the photos; on it we can see the background rotating with the foreground not following this rotation. |
 This photo (AS15-85-11492) shows the astronaut behind the rover.  First I show you a saddlebag put on a table before a stone block. For the moment this is a normal photo you have nothing to say about.  But, if I now show you this, a photo on which the stone block partially hides the saddlebag although the saddlebag is placed before the stone block, you are going to tell me: "Oops, there seems to be a problem!"  And yet, this is what we see on the Apollo photo: The camera on the rover is placed before the astronaut's backpack, and yet the astronaut's backpack partially hides this camera. Yet the photo on the right shows that there's no way the astronaut's backpack could hide this camera, given that the astronaut was not on the rover but behind it.  And, if you look at the reflection in the visor, you can see this camera in this reflection, which confirms that the astronaut's backpack could not hide this camera. |
 On photo AS15-85-11503, the astronaut who is taken in photo holds a hammer by the end of the handle, but on the shadow he holds it by the middle of the handle. And, concerning the photographer, he holds something in each of his hands; how did he manage to take the photo? |
 A panoramic made with the photos AS15-85-11514 and AS15-85-11515 allows to see that the lines of reflections of the sun indicate two different positions of the sun. |
 On this photo (AS15-85-11524), the writing pad the other astronaut is holding is just over the brush, but it is not on the shadow. Concerning the photographer, he is holding something in each of his hands, so we can wonder how he managed to take the photo.  We can also see that the other astronaut is not far from the photographer's shadow; therefore his shadow should be more vertical. On this double view, I show on the right an example on which you can see that when an object (here a trashcan) is close to the photographer's shadow, its shadow doesn't make an important angle with the vertical. |
 On photos AS15-86-11593 and AS15-86-11594, the ribbon has a different reflection |
 On photo AS15-86-11654 (left), the astronaut has just made a footprint with his left foot, and his left foot is about to leave this footprint. On photo AS15-86-11655 (right), the astronaut has left the footprint he was making on the previous photo, but this footprint is closer to the tracks of the Jeep than the same footprint the astronaut was making on the previous photo, and oriented differently (see the indications with the red arrows). |
 On the photo AS15-86-11659, the rover is parked (the astronaut is not on the Jeep, but beside it), with its rear wheels up. The rear wheels don't lay on something, they are really floating in the air: The shadow of the wheel we see doesn't start from the wheel. Has the astronaut elevated the car with a carjack? Is he changing a wheel?  But there is still more, there is something which is still more strange: Look at the astronaut of the same photo; his legs are hidden by the chassis, but we can see his boots under the chassis, which puts them quite close to the his bust; the conclusion is that the astronaut has ridiculously small legs, we could even say nonexistent! |
 On photos AS15-88-11891 and AS15-88-11892 we see strange things on the edge of the solar battery. |
 Here is a close-up on these strange things. |
 Between the photos AS15-92-12408 and AS15-92-12409, like he often does, the photographer makes a combination of a rotation around the vertical axis with a lateral move. In the background we see an object (I have circled in red) which rotates exaggeratedly given the move of the photographer. |
 If we look at the position of astronaut's parts on his shadow, they look incoherent, incorrectly positioned relatively to each other. |
 on photo AS15-92-12408, we see the shadow of the stick the astronaut holds with his right hand (circled in yellow) and the shadow of a pole he holds with his left hand (circled in orange). |
 on photo AS15-92-12409, we see the pole of which we saw the shadow, and also wire, but where is the shadow of the wire? |
 On photo AS15-85-11392 (right) we can see that the horizontal lateral thruster has moved on the left relatively to the big hole in the background; therefore the photographer has moved on the right, and the horizontal thruster should have rotated counterclockwise (relatively to the horizon line drawn in yellow) in response to this move, but it has rotated clockwise instead. |
 On photos AS15-86-11601 (left) and AS15-86-11602 (right) we see the astronaut behind the rover; Obviously the sun is shining from the left to the right, if we judge by the position of the sun's reflection on the first photo, and the shadow created by the backpack on the helmet on the second photo (and we also see other shadows oriented on the right); yet we see a shadow on the left of the astronaut; if it is the astronaut's shadow, it is wrongly oriented, and, if it is not the astronaut's shadow, it should be strictly identical on the two photos, for the astronaut is the only object which changes between the two photos; in fact there is a difference between the two shadows on the part I have circled in red, and it's near the astronaut; the funniest is that this part of shadow seems to follow the move of the astronaut's arm! |
 On photo AS15-85-11398 the photographer's shadow is in the middle of the photo, which means he has the sun right in his back; he shouldn't be seen in profile on his shadow. |
 On photo AS15-85-11471 (right) we can see (relatively to AS15-85-11470 on the left): - That the rover has moved the same relatively to the far background and the close foreground (see orange lines), which means that the photographer has not moved laterally, only the rover has slightly moved (the photographer has only turned his camera). - The change of orientation of the rover relatively to the horizontal line could only come from the fact that the rover has turned, but the change of orientation we see is incompatible with the quite little distance the rover has moved given the fact that its wheels don't seem turned, or hardly. |
 On photo AS15-86-11560, the part of the rock's shadow (circled in red on the shadow) is illogical compared with the same corresponding part of the rock (circled in red on the rock) that we see. |
 On photo AS15-86-11588, there is a sleeve on a branch of the magnetometer which is abnormally big; it looks like a russian chapka. |
 On photo AS15-86-11588, we see a plastic cylinder (I have circled on a close-up) which is hollow, and on AS15-86-11589 the same plastic cylinder is no more hollow. |
 On photo AS15-86-11595 we see a strand of wire inside a loop, and on AS15-86-11596 we don't see it in the same loop. |
 On photo AS15-89-12220 the astronaut puts his right hand over his left arm, but we don't see its shadow over the shadow of the left arm. |
 On photo AS15-90-12224 the shadow of what I think to be a writing pad (I have circled in red) is abnormally long compared with the astronaut's shadow. |
 On photo AS15-88-11864, in the visor of the astronaut we see the shadow of the astronaut, the shadow of the flag, but we don't see the flag itself! |
 On photo AS15-82-11062 the tire of the rear wheel looks really strange (especially when the one of the front wheel looks normal). |
 On photo AS15-82-11108 the way the astronaut is holding the paper on the shadow is not the way he is actually holding it on the photo. |
 On photo AS15-92-12424 the helmet of the astronaut looks really strange; it seems almost completely covered, can the astronaut still see something? |
 On photo AS15-82-11121 we can see that the photographer has moved a little on the right (the footprint in the close foreground has moved on the left relatively to the rover); the orientation of the rover relatively to the horizon line should have rotated clockwise, and it has rotated counterclockwise instead! |
 On photo AS15-85-11388 (right), relatively to AS15-85-11386 (left) the lem's shadow rotates more than the triangle of holes in the foreground and the horizon line in the background. |
 On photo AS15-82-11061 (Figure I.22), the astronaut which is taken bends his head; and the reflections of the photographer and the rover also follow the move of his head; yet, the reflection of the photographer and the rover are not painted on the visor, they should remain upright on it, and not bend as the same time as the visor. |
 On photo AS15-85-11524 the pad appears vertical on the photo, but horizontal in the visor. |
 On photos AS15-82-11189 and AS15-82-11190 we can see a rock which has an incompatible position relatively to a rock and a mound which are behind. |
 On photo AS15-90-12235 (Figure K.24), there is a bit of shadow I have circled which disappears on AS15-90-12236; yet, given the direction of shadows, this bit of shadow cannot belong to the astronaut, and we should also have seen it on the next photo! |
 On photo AS15-85-11422 what are these strange dog's ears we see on the astronaut's shadow? |
 On photo AS15-92-12437, the camera has really a strange shadow which is not the shadow it should have and which looks like a little dog. |
 To conclude this mission: On the photo AS15-88-12004 (on the right) we can see someone take a photo of the moon. In the reflection on the glass we can see that the photographer wears a ring. The only astronaut who was wearing a ring was the commander Dave Scott. |
 But if we take a close-up at the ring of Dave Scott, and the one of the photographer in the reflection, we can see that the ring of Dave Scott has a dark blue sapphire that we don't see on the ring of the reflection! |
