On some photos of Apollo, we have direct views of the sun...But is it the real sun?
The Apollo believers are convinced that it is the real sun...let's see that!
On some photos of Apollo, we have direct views of the sun...But is it the real sun? The Apollo believers are convinced that it is the real sun...let's see that! |
 This is a photo of the sun I have personally taken; imprecise contour and very visible spokes. On this photo the sun is seen through the atmosphere, and there is no atmosphere on the moon, so we need to see how it looks from space. |
 This is a photo of the sun taken in space on a close earth orbit. On it we can see an imprecise contour of the sun, and very clear spokes. |
 Another photo taken from space. Again an imprecise contour and very clear spokes. |
 A third photo of the sun taken from space. Again an imprecise contour and very clear spokes. |
 And this photo has been taken in Apollo 11 near the earth (AS11-36-5293); we can very clearly see the spokes of the sun. |
 Now, this is a photo taken on the so called moon of Apollo, in Apollo 17 (AS17-134-20411). A very strange sun indeed, a neat contour, and no spokes. |
 And this photo has also been taken on the so called moon of Apollo, in Apollo 12 (AS12-46-6767). Again a neat contour, and no spokes. Also notice the size of this "sun". |
 Whoever thinks that it is the same sun has a serious problem with reality. It is very obvious that the "sun" that we can see on the photos of Apollo is not the real sun but a big spotlight instead (suspended spotlights were also used). |
 And how to explain this photo of Apollo 11 (AS11-40-5935) if there are not two sources of light? |
 There is a big question about the way the lighting was done in Apollo. It had to be done so that it would not be suspected that artificial lighting was used. |
 David Percy thinks they were using a mega spotlight made with plenty of smaller spotlights, to have a sufficient power to light the whole moonset. However, there are problems with this theory, for this would have created divergences in the shadows, as this spotlight could not be put far from the scene, unlike the real sun which is very far away, which allows to have shadows all oriented the same. |
 I have another theory: I think there were suspended rails on the ceiling, and that a spotlight (or even several spotlights) could glide along these rails. These rails were forming a network which was allowing the spotlight to move on the whole scene. |
 The spotlight was suspended from the rail, it could move horizontally in both directions (along the arrow I have drawn in yellow, and also the perpendicular direction for the spotlight could go from a rail to a perpendicular rail at the point they were crossing). The spotlight could also move up and down vertically (along the arrow I have drawn in red). Finally the spotlight could also pivot around the two other axes (in the directions I have represented in blue and green), so it could be oriented in any direction. Of course, the rails and the spotlight were much bigger than what I show on this picture. |
 Often we don't see the sun spotlight, but sometimes they were moving it down. However the "sun" was always cut by its top, never totally visible, so that the system which was allowing to suspend it would not be visible. |
 Now, you are going to say: The rails would have had to cover a sufficient area including the whole moonset. It was the case, they had that structure which was allowing to cover a whole moonset. But, was the moonset not too vast to be covered by this structure? |
 No, because the moonset was not that vast. When you look at the background, it is always short, it never gives an impression of depth. In fact they were using models for the hills, like Percy has shown, except that these models were more elaborated than what he shows. |
 We even have photos of these models at the beginning of the mission of Apollo 15. |
 It is possible that they even used several of these suspended spotlights. You are going to say: But, is there were several spotlights, we should then have seen multiple shadows? No, not necessarily, because they could be placed so that they would not create multiple shadows. |
 I have made the experience of walking along a line of street lamps; as I walk along this line, I always only see one shadow, the one created by the lamp which is closest to me. You are going to say: Yes, but, when you are at equal distance from two consecutive lamps, then you should see two shadows? Not even, because, when I am at equal distance from two lamps, I have seen that I see no shadow at all; the two lamps cancel each other; each one lights the shadow created by the other one. So, it is not excluded that they used several spotlights, in order to have a better lighting of the whole scene. |
I am now going to show the evidence which supports this theory. |
 In the mission Apollo 15, there exists in fact several versions of the photo AS15-82-11057. On this one, the luminosity of the foreground is very strange; it is abnormally luminous in comparison with the background. This is because, on this photo, the spotlight was placed on the ground, which was preventing from having a homogeneous lighting. |
 This photo has a better lighting; this is because, on this photo, the spotlight was placed high, and was suspended on a rail, which allowed to have a better lighting of the scene, more homogeneous. 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. |
 The first photo is not cropped either from this one, for, when I try to superpose them, I cannot superpose the first photo with a corresponding window of the second photo: When I try to make them fit on the left side, the right sides don't fit, and vice versa. That means that the two photos have been taken with two slight different adjustments of the zoom, which the astronauts had no possibility of doing it! |
 On the photo AS15-82-11057, we can see two luminous reflections (lens flares): 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. Ok, you are going to tell me, we now have the direction of the sunlight, but what evidence does it give? Absolutely none if you consider this photo alone. |
 But this photo has a sister, the photo AS15-82-11056. The photographer just turned his camera on the left to take this photo (this is visible by the identical foreground). 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 the height of the photo). The only possible conclusion is that the spotlight which lights the scene 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. |
 The case I have shown is not isolated; it is repeated along the missions. Here, in the photo AS16-108-17729, we can see two lens flares; we can deduce the direction of the sun by drawing a line which passes across these two lens flares. |
 And, on its sister AS16-108-17730, we also can see two lens flares; and we can also deduce the direction of the sun by drawing a line which passes across these two lens flares. |
 Now I make a panoramic with the photos AS16-108-17729 and AS16-108-17730... |
 ..And, if I draw the lines which join the lens flares, these two lines should meet at the center of the "sun" just above the upper edge of the photo...But, we can see that it is not at all the case: These two lines meet must too high, far above the upper edge of the photo. The only possible conclusion is that the spotlight lighting the scene has been moved between these two photos. |
 There are other pieces of evidence that the spotlight is moved along the mission. For instance, on the photo AS16-113-18342 (right), we can see two reflections of the sun, one on the astronaut's visor, and the other on his camera, but we can't see them on the photo AS16-113-18341 (left). You might say that it is because, on AS16-113-18341, he is blocking the sun with the hand which salutes... |
 No, in fact, for, if we make a close-up of the astronaut, we can see that the direction of the sunlight, that we can reconstitute as going from the reflection on the visor to the reflection on the camera, is well ahead of the astronaut's hand. I show with yellow circles the location of these reflections on the first photo (where these reflections are missing), and we can see that the astronaut's hand can't shield the sunlight; these reflections should also be present on the first photo. The only possible conclusion is that the spotlight has been moved between the two photos. |
 In the mission Apollo 17 too it is possible to prove that the spotlight has been moved. On the photos AS17-145-22160, AS17-145-22161, and AS17-145-22162, the astronaut is sweeping a landscape by turning his camera. What I'm showing here is a panoramic reconstituted with these three photos. On each photo, we find two small sun reflections (lens flares) indicating the direction of the sunlight; the sun is normally just above the upper edge of the photo and aligned with these reflections. The panoramic allows a comparison of these reflections. |
 Normally the center of the sun would be on the intersection of the lines of reflections, but it would put the sun way too far from these reflections when it should normally be near them; furthermore these lines don't even meet on a common point! |
 In fact each of the lines of reflections indicates a different position of the light source which is supposed to replace the sun; I have numbered these positions 1 to 3. Between the photos the "sun" has been moved. |
 There are other pieces of evidence that the "sun" has been moved in Apollo 17. The reflection of the sun on the visor of the astronaut should always have the same size, and be at the same vertical position (if he holds his head the same); the vertical position of the sun's reflection on a half-spherical surface depends on the inclination of the sun, and it's very unlikely that the sun's inclination would change in a short series of photos (especially given the length of the lunar day - almost a month!). On the photos AS17-134-20385 (left) and AS17-134-20475 (right), the astronaut holds his head the same, but the reflection of the sun is bigger and higher on the second photo than on the first one, giving the evidence that the "sun" has been moved between the two photos (it is closer on the second photo than on the first one).  This is a photo of an astronaut taken in space in the close orbit of earth.  Let's see closer...  ...The reflection of the sun on the visor of the astronauts should always have this size. |
 In Apollo 14, on the photo AS14-68-9423 (right), the sun has obviously moved on the right relatively to the photo AS14-68-9422 (left), if we consider its position relatively to the artifacts on the ground on the two photos. |
 I have made a panoramic with the two photos by making the big hole exactly match on the two photos (we don't see the astronaut's shadow on the second photo, he has obviously moved away on the second photo); in order to make a correct superposition, I have used the hole I have circled in red that I have superposed on the two photos. If we draw the lines joining the sun's reflections, they normally meet at the center of the sun, but their point of intersection is too high relatively to what we see on AS14-68-9422; they don't meet at the center of the "sun". Once again, the "sun" has been moved between the two photos. |
Now, to show what it gives when the spotlight is not moved, I have made a panoramic with the photos AS12-49-7213 and AS12-49-7214. |
When I draw a line joining the couples of lens flares of the two photos, this time they meet close enough and at the center of the sun. This shows that the "sun" has not been moved this time between the two photos. But that does not mean for as much that the photo AS12-49-7213 contains no anomaly... |
 ...For you would have to explain me how the round extremity of the astronaut's boot (circled in orange) can produce a straight shadow (circled in red)! |
 And one would have to have a serious level of delusion to think that the real sun can produce this weird effect! |
 And, even better, on the photo AS11-40-5950 of Apollo 11, we can see spotlights hanging from the ceiling in the reflection of the solar panels! |
 Come on, get some common sense. Artificial lighting has been used, and these photos have not been taken on the moon! |
