Back to main menu
INTRODUCTION
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth."
Figure 1: The speech of Kennedy initiating the Apollo project.
Here is an excerpt of the speech that Kennedy made, on May 25th 1961, before the American congress.
A little time before, Yuri Gagarin had officially become the first man in space.
On July 20th 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first men to ever walk on the moon in the mission Apollo 11.
Five other missions followed it, Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and the last one Apollo 17.
The only one which failed was Apollo 13, but nevertheless the astronauts came back safe on the earth.
Six missions on the moon in a three years time only, under Nixon!
And since then, nothing!
Some time later, hoax rumors started to spread.
Bill Kaysing was the apostle of them.
Figure 2: Bill Kaysing, the starter of the hoax.
This engineer, who had worked on the saturn engines, remained very skeptical before the Apollo missions.
The absence of crater under the lem, the flapping flag, the deep footprints of the astronauts were spreading doubt into him.
He had computed the probability that man could set foot on the moon, and had found it to be very small.
Ralph René is also an important proponent of the contestation of the Apollo missions; he wrote a book you can find on internet (that he didn't manage to have published) which seems very interesting, and very researched, "NASA mooned America", of which I give you the link:
Link to "Nasa mooned Amaerica" of Ralph René
Figure 3: Raph René, theorician of the moon hoax.
Jack White and David Percy have also made interesting sudies on the Apollo photos that you can find on their site "AULIS online, different thinking":
Link to the site "Aluis on line" of David Percy and Jack White
There is also Bart Sibrel who has an explanation of the way the Apollo missions could have been simulated; Accoding to him, the Apollo spaceship with the astronauts would have split from the rocket once in space, and would have orbited the earth while the rest of the rocket was continuing to the moon.
Figure 4: Bart Sibrel, who explained how the Apollo missions were simulated
Bart Sibrel has asked to the astronauts to swear on the bible they went on the moon.
Only two of them accepted, all the other ones have refused.
Buzz Aldrin even knocked his face upon his request.
Bart Sibrel much suffered from his contestation of the Apollo mission, he even lost the care of his children, and is very badly considered.
The people I cited are considered wackos, along with all those who have doubts about the Apollo missions, and are called "conspirators".
The doubt about the Apollo missions, called "moon hoax", is ill considered in the media.
Its proponents are generally considered idiots by the media, who are unable to accept facts.
They are put at the same level as creationists, deniers of the holocaust, proponents of the "inside job", or even those who believe in the monster of the Loch Ness.
Personally, I'm not a creationist, I don't deny the holocaust, I don't beieve in the inside job...and yet I have doubts about the Apollo missions!
Wait, somebody rational like me who casts doubts on this event which is acknowledged as undeniable, and about which only idiots can doubt, whose all stupid arguments have been swept away by scientific counter-arguments which should fill with shame those who give in this pathetic garbage???
Yes, I who am extremely rational, I'm intimately convinced that there is something abnormal about the Apollo missions, and even come to doubt that man ever walked on the moon.
But why, what's wrong with me?
Why?
Because of all the studies I have led from informations I found on Internet.
Anything which concerns the Apollo missions is public, for Apollo is not a private project, as it has been paid by the American taxpayers.
That means that anybody can accede to the Apollo archives, the Apollo journal, the Apollo photos and videos, and also all which concerns the Apollo guidance system, its onboard computer (AGC).
As I am an aeronautical engineer, that I have comptetences in avionics, automatic, electronics, and computers, and that I also have a good knowledge of space geometry and perspective, I could judge with a somewhat expert eye the informations which I had access to.
And what I found didn't leave me the least doubt: I am absolutely convinced that the NASA engineers and the MIT engineers (who worked on the Apollo computer)) have completely bugged the project so that informed people could see it was a manipulation.
And it is this manipulation that I aim to expose in my web pages.
Among the obstacles that the proponents of the moon hoax are setting up, there is the Van Allen belt, a belt of radiations which surrounds the earth, and that it would be lethal to go through if not protected by a very thick metal layer.
This belt starts at an altitude equal to 1.6 times the radius of the earth, so around 10.000 km, up to 4 times the earth's radius, so around 25,000 kilometers.
The Russians think that, even with a very thick layer, it remains dangerous to go through it.
The American astronauts went through it with a much less thick layer.
Did they still manage to go through it, in spite of the danger it represents?
Figure 5: The belt of radiations which surrounds the earth.
Two monthes before Apollo 11, the NASA sent a monkey to space, and the monkey came back dead.
There also are the lunar conditions, important variations of temperature, and radiations against which one can wonder if the Hasselblad cameras were sufficiently protected.
What has been much discussed too is the absence of stars in the Apollo photos.
On the very numerous Apollo photos, not a single star is ever seen.
The earth is also much too small on the photos, and the sun too big (and its position in the sky is strange too).
Concerning the stars, the Apollo believers have an answer ready:
When a big light source is put next to a small one, only the big one is seen on the photo and not the small one, for the sensivity of the camera adjusts on the big light source, which prevents it from seeing the small one.
They explain that, because of the high reflectivity of the lunar ground (which remains to be proven), the reflected light is strong, and prevents the camera from seeing the stars.
It has to be pointed out that the stars which are seen from space are significantly more luminous than seen from the earth, in reason of the absence of atmosphere.
Shouldn't we have seen one of the photos, at least from time to time?
Even if we suppose that it is true that we can never see a star on the photos, it is less normal that the astronauts didn't see stars with their own eyes, it seems little probable.
Another serious obstacle is that the lunar module has never been tested.
Some tests have been made with a lighter structure, but nothing to do with the real lunar module (and in one of these tests, this structure even crashed, and Armstong saved his life by jumping in parachute).
This light structure was flying at a moderate speed and a low altitude, whereas the lunar module had to start with a horizontal speed of 6000km at an altitude of 110 km; it is in no way comparable.
Moreover, it is extremely different from a plane: A plane benefits of two forces created by the air: A force which slows it down horizontally, and a force which lifts it vertically; the LM could benefit of none of these forces, it had to do everything with its engine; it had to create a push with its engine and distribute it on the horizontal and vertical axes with the adequate latitude (controlled with the lateral reactors) so it would both counter its important horizontal speed (it had to nullfy before reaching the lunar ground) and the lunar attraction creating a vertical speed (it also had to nullify before reaching the lunar ground).
That is to say that it was extremely difficult to control the lunar module, much more difficult than to control a plane; the least error in this control would inevitably result in a crash!
It in unthinkable that they would have sent astronauts land on the moon before having seriously tested this lunar module, and that's yet what they did!
There also are the anomalies we can see in the photos, of which some are known.
The anomalies have been gathered in some limited cases and asserted to having been explained.
According to the Apollo believers, there would ne no problem in fact with the Apollo photos, it would only be problems which have been misunderstood and misinterpreted by the "conspirators".
Besides didn't the mythbusters make demonstrations to sweep away the arguments of the conspirators?
The Apollo have a whole set of arguments to prove the reality of the Apollo missions:
1) The photos and videos made by the astronauts.
2) The reflectors which have been left on the moon and are used by astrophysicians.
3) The lunar rocks which have been brought back by the astronauts.
4) If there had been a hoax, the Russians would have seen it, and exposed it, especially in these times of cold war.
5) Given the great number of people who participated to the project, there would have been some who would have talked.
6) Among those who would have directly participated to the fakings, there would certainly have been some leftist video specialists who would have talked.
The arguments that the Apollo believers gives for the moon landings are not as good as they think.
I am going to show that, for each of their arguments, there is a counter-argument which shows that its solidity is only apparent.
1) The photos of the missions
That the photos of the missions can be considered a proof that men walked on the moon is so laughable that it makes me roll on the floor laughing.
There are so many incoherences in these photos that there is no better proof that the project is fake.
Like this photo I am showing on which the CSM is seen in oblique, not frontally, and yet we can't see the service module (the cylindrical part of the CSM) under the command module (the conical part of the CSM), it is totally invisible, like it had been removed.
My site contains several pages showing an impressive list of incoherences in the photos.
I think all the photos of the missions contain incoherences...and they all are intentional!
The same for the videos, they contain weird things; the demonstrations are easily debunkable, and, on the space videos, the lunar module behaves in a weird way, totally unphysical, impossible!
2) The retroreflectors
The retroreflectors are also shown as a proof that the astronauts landed on the moon.
Once again, this proof looks rather ridiculous.
These retroreflectors are too small to be good reflectors of a laser beam sent from the earth, and they are not even orientable.
Furthermore they are not even needed to make the laser beam bounce on the moon.
The MIT & the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory both succeeded in bouncing lasers off the moon and back to earth - without retro-reflectors - long before Apollo 11.
"Four years ago, a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasensitive electronic equipment" - 'The Laser's Bright Magic', Thomas Meloy. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC Dec 1966
3) The moon rocks
Another reason put forward by the Apollogists as a proof that Apollo landed on the moon is the moon rocks which would have been brought back by the astronauts.
Von Braun participated to a mission to Antarctica two years before Apollo "landed on the moon".
The official reason was some scientific study, but the secret reason was to collect samples of lunar rocks.
This is a lunar meteorite found in Antarctica in the eighties.
A cube of one centimeter gives an idea of its size.
This rock is big enough to be broken into a certain number of smaller rocks.
This meteorite has been found in Antarctica quite recently.
It has been analyzed, and has shown the same characteristics as the moon rocks which would have been brought back by the astronauts.
But if this rock has the same characteristics as the rocks brought back by the astronauts, that means that the rocks brought back by the astronauts could come from Antarctica.
Besides, all moon rocks "brought back" by the astronauts didn't have to be genuine.
Only those given to be analyzed had to be.
There is a "moon rock" given by an American ambassador to a dutch museum which revealed to be nothing else but petrified wood.
How many of the other moon rocks "brought back" by the astronauts are also nothing else but petrified wood?
This makes me think of a suitcase full of banknotes:
On the top you put real banknotes, but under the first layer of real banknotes you put just paper.
You have the feeling that the suitcase has the value of a suitcase full of banknotes, when it only has the value of the first layer of banknotes.
That means that fake moon rocks could be mixed with genuine ones, and only the genuine ones were given to be analyzed.
That way people might think all the rocks were genuine!
4) The silence of the Russians
Another argument of the Apollogists is that, if Apollo had been a hoax, the soviets would have exposed it and protested publicly.
Yet, in the time of the exploit of Gagarin, the American newspapers were outlining the many anomalies in Gagarin's flight.
An Illinois representative, Roman Pucinski, urged Kennedy not to accept the Russian exploit without clarification from the Russians (which never came).
And despite all this, Kennedy accepted the pseudo Russian "exploit" without the least protest?
He obviously had been lured by the NASA and CIA.
Do you really think it was a free gift?
No, of course, it was not free.
The American secret services were expecting an equivalent service from the Russians in the future.
They obviously preferred to have the fake first man on the moon than the real first man in space.
Now you know why the Russians shut up, even if they were knowing something about Apollo!
5) Many people worked for the project, and not any one of them would have talked out?
Another reason put forward by the Apollogists is that many people worked in the Apollo project, and it's impossible that some would not have talked out if it had been a hoax.
First, it must be said that the NASA is a complex organization, very diversified, and that those who have a given function in that organization don't know everything about the whole organization, it would be very naive to think that.
It's like in the second world war: Railroad workers were working for the trains to arrive at Auschwitz full of prisoners, their work was essential to allow these prisoners to arrive at destination...and yet they were not knowing about the final fate of these prisoners.
Only those who were directly working in the final mission were knowing about the faking, and that was representing much less than the total number of people who worked for the NASA.
In fact, in the NASA control room, there were two different controls.
A real one for the launch which had a genuine reality (it would have been difficult to cheat on that one).
And a fancy one for the control of the mission on the moon itself which was controlled by different restricted people.
In order for the trick to work, it was necessary to have two different communication links: One for the real part of the project (the launch), and one for the fancy part (the mission on the moon).
If the moon mission had been genuine, it would not have been necessary to have these two communication links, one would have been enough.
6) Among those who directly participated to the lunar missions, could not one have talked out?
OK, are you going to say, only a minority of people working for the NASA may have known, but still there had to be people who had to know, even if it is not as much as the total number of people who worked for the NASA, and, among these ones, couldn't one or several of them have talked out?
My guess is that they could not directly talk out.
They had been warned that if they dared talk out, it would have terrible consequences for them.
It was not difficult to muzzle them, the CIA just had to tell them:
"Talk out, and we'll tell the media you are traitors; you'll lose your jobs, you will be vindicated, persecuted by angry people, and may be even one particularly angry guy will shoot at you and your family! And anyway it will be inefficient, for nobody will believe you"
Just see what happened to Bart Sibrel: He has made his life a misery, he has been rejected from all churches, he has lost his wife and his children, and at every occasion he gets troubles; and all of this for nothing, since he is not believed and considered a "wacko".
That's why they chose an alternative that they considered both less harmful for them and in the same time more efficient: Instead of directly talking out, they made the project itself talk out by compltely bugging it, by stuffng it with incoherences.
There are incoherences everywhere, in photos, videos, technical documentations, illustrations...
And these are these incoherences which prove the project fake that I am going to present you with.
Bill Kaysing was talking about unfortunate errors, but he was completely wrong!
These errors are absolutely not unfortunate, unintentional, they are absolutely intentional!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Important hints about photography and perspectives
In this part, I want to teach you some notions wich concern photography and perspective which are very important in order to understand the incoherences which are hidden in the Apollo photos.
When an astronaut takes photos in the missions, he takes several actions: He moves and turns the camera.
If he turns toward right or left (i.e. he turns the camera around the vertical axis), we obtain a result as shown on figure 1.
Figure 1: Sweeping by pivoting the camera from right to left.
We can see that the foreground doesn't turn relatively to the background.
In fact both practically don't turn.
On the other hand, if the photographer bends his camera on one side or the other (i.e. turns his camera around the horizontal axis which is perpendicular to the camera), the background and the foreground both turn, but they turn exactly the same way, that is one is not going to turn relatively to the other one, like you can see on figure 2.
Figure 2: Bending the camera on one side or the other makes the foreground and background turn the same.
On the other hand, if the photographer moves laterally, then the foreground turns relatively to the background, like it is visible on figure 3; this comes from the fact that, as the foreground is closer to the photographer than the background, it reacts more to the moves of the photographer.
Figure 3: In the case of a lateral move of the photographer, we can see a rotation of the foreground relatively to the background.
How can a photograph be analyzed?
- The background is too distant to react to the moves of the photographer (if they remain limited), and only reacts to the moves of the camera.
- On the other hand, the foreground is close enough to react to the moves of the photographer, and moreover, like the background, it also reacts to the moves of the camera.
The analysis of the photo can be made the following way:
- If the foreground and the background are both shifted from one photo to the next, but shifted the same (i.e. not shifted one relatively to the other one), the photographer has only turned his camera, but not moved.
- If only the foreground is shifted, but not the background, the photographer has moved, but kept his camera oriented the same way.
- And if the foreground and the background are both shifted but differently, then the photographer has both moved and turned his camera; the shift of the background shows how he has turned his camera, and the difference of shifts between the foreground and the background shows how he has moved.
So, the combined examination of the moves of the foreground and background allows to decompose what the photographer did.
The examination of artifacts on the ground allows to know in which direction the photographer has moved.
On figure 4, I have put three colored boxes which are initially aligned with the vertical of the photo.
Figure 4: Initial disposition of my colored boxes.
On next photo (Figure 5), I have moved toward right; as the yellow box is closer to me, it moves toward left relatively to the other farther boxes (notice also that the line which joins the boxes turns clockwise).
Figure 5: What happens when I move on the right; the closest box moves on the left relatively to the other ones.
Conversely, If I move toward left (Figure 6), the closest box moves on the right relatively to the farther boxes (and the line which joins the boxes turns counter-clockwise).
Figure 6: What happens when I move on the left; the closest box moves on the right relatively to the other boxes.
So, the examination of artifacts allows to determine in which direction the photographer has moved.
In the two next figures, I have put a broom vertically against a table, and I move on each side of it:
- When I move on the left, the vertical broom turns clockwise, and the horizontal edge of the table turns counter-clockwise.
- Conversely, when I move on the right, the vertical broom turns counter-clockwise, and the horizontal edge of the table turns clockwise.
Figure 7: When I move on the left, the broom turns clockwise, and the table's edge turns anti-clockwise.
Figure 8: And when I move on the right, the broom turns anti-clockwise, and the table's edge turns clockwise.
So, a lateral move of the photographer makes lines rotate.
On figure 9, I first face two parallel lines, then I move on the right; we can see that these lines rotate clockwise; this comes from the fact that the closer part of these lines moves away from me faster than the farther part, and this is what makes them rotate.
Figure 9: A lateral move on the right makes the lines rotate clockwise.
On figure 10, I conversely move on the left, and the lines now turn counter-clockwise.
Figure 10: A lateral move on the right makes the lines rotate counter-clockwise.
On figure 11, when the lines are turned clockwise and I step forward, it makes them turn counter-clockwise.
figure 11: When the lines are turned clockwise, stepping forward makes them turn counter-clockwise.
And on figure 12, conversely, when the lines are turned counter-clockwise, stepping forward makes them turn clockwise.
figure 12: When the lines are turned counter-clockwise, stepping forward makes them turn clockwise.
On next figure, I'm facing a road panel, and I move on the right relatively to this panel; the result is that the vertical pole of this panel slightly turns clockwise; this comes from the fact that the part of the panel which is at the height of my eyes is closer to me than its foot, and consequently the upper part moves more relatively to me than the lower part.
This rotation is slight, but the direction of this rotation allows to know in which direction the photographer has moved.
Figure 13: A lateral move of the photographer makes the panel turn.
These rotations of lines are frequently used by the fakers to create incoherences.
When you move along an object, you can see this object make an optical rotation before your eyes.
The direction of this rotation depends on the direction toward which you move.
On figure 14, I move along a house, and we can see the house make an optical rotation.
It's like I was not moving, and the house was physically rotating.
Figure 14: The house shows an optical rotation as I pass along it.
If the astronaut moves along an object and that this object shows no optical rotation (or in the wrong direction), this is clearly an incoherence.
On figure 15, I get away from a panel, and the result is that the trees which are behind go up relatively to this panel by the fact that they are farther than the panel.
Figure 15; The trees move up relatively to the panel when I get away from it.
On the other hand, if I remain at the same distance from the panel, and I just turn my camera downward, then the trees remain at the same height relatively to the panel.
Figure 16; If I just lower my camera without moving, the trees remain at the same height relatively to the panel.
According to the angle of vision, the objects may appear very differently.
On figure 17, on the first photo taken from far away, the colored boxes seem stuck to the cement block, but on the second photo taken closer, they now appear separated from it.
Figure 17: The colored boxes seem stuck to the cement block when taken from far away, but separated from it when taken closer.
The objects which are seen from far away remain positioned the same relatively to each other when the photographer moves shortly.
On fifure 18, I have moved a little, but the sun still is at the same position relatively to a pylon far away.
Figure 18: The sun keeps the same position relatively to an object far away when I move a little.
When two objects are at different distances from the photographer, and this one backs up, the relative sizes of these objects change.
On figure 19, I take a first view of a tree close, then a second one after having moved away from this tree; on the second view, the tree looks smaller relatively to the distant bridge than on the first view.
Figure 19; When the photographer backs up, the objects closer to him decrease in relative size comparatively to objects which are farther away.
When I make a superposition of the two photos so that 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.
Figure 20: The superposition which makes a correspondence with the trees of the two photos shows two bridges of different sizes and positions.
We are now going to talk about the behavior of the photographer's shadow.
The photographer's shadow sometimes appears, but under which conditions does it appear?
If you take the photo with the sun facing you, you may conceive that you won't see your shadow on the photo, for it will be behind you.
In fact, it's when you have the sun right in your back that your shadow will be on the middle of the photo, like figure 21 shows; in this case, it will also be seen facing the photo, it can in no way be seen in profile; if it is seen in profile as it is on the middle of the photo, this is clearly an incoherence!
Figure 21: With the sun right in my back, my shadow appears on the middle of the photo and is seen facing it.
If, from the position in which I have the sun in my back, I turn on the right (figure 22) ,the sun is on my right, and my shadow is pushed toward the left; the profile of my shadow is then oriented toward the right.
If the profile appears oriented on the left as the shadow is pushed on the left, this is clearly an incoherence.
Figure 22: The result which is obtained by turning on the right: The shadow is pushed on the left and oriented toward the right.
Conversely, if, from the position in which I have the sun right in my back, I turn on the left (figure 23) ,the sun is on my left, and my shadow is pushed toward the right; the profile of my shadow is then oriented toward the left.
If the profile appears oriented toward the right as the shadow is pushed on the right, this is clearly an incoherence.
Figure 23: The result which is obtained by turning on the left: The shadow is pushed on the right and oriented toward the left.
Now the question: When does the photographer's shadow starts leaving the photo?
Well it starts leaving the photo when the photographer turns of an angle which is greater than half the angle of vision of the camera (from the position he has the sun right in his back).
It is thus interesting to know the angle of vision of the Hasselblad camera that the astronauts were using.
In fact, there exists a way of measuring it: On several occasions, we can see the astronaut sweep the lunar landscape; the photographer starts from a hill, and takes successive photographs by turning his camera each time; at a given moment, we can see again the hill he started from; we have then made a complete turn.
Moreover, there are common parts on the successive photos.
The technique then consists in measuring the displacement from one photo to the next, by making the difference of the distances of a common point to the edge of the photo, photo by photo, and by adding all these displacements on all the photos of the complete turn.
The sum of the displacements corresponds to the angle of a complete turn, that is 360°.
By making a rule of three which consists in multiplying the 360° angle by the measured width of a photo and dividing this product by the sum of displacements on the complete turn, we obtain the angle of vision of the Hasselblad.
By proceeding this way, I have obtained an angle of vision of 45,6°; the decimal part corresponds to errors of measurement, the angle of vision probably is 45° (in any case, it cannot be much different).
The photographer's shadow starts disappearing when the photographer turns of an angle comprised between 20 and 30° (from the position he has the sun right in his back).
With this angle, the profile of the photographer's shadow is not yet full, and the angle of the shadows remains moderate (i.e. the shadows are not close to the horizontal, and remain closer to the vertical of the photo).
All these considerations show that the observation of the photographer's shadow is interesting, and allows to reveal anomalies.
Another important point of the photographer's shadow is that it follows all the moves of its owner: As long as the photographer keeps his camera oriented the same, his shadow will keep the same place on the photo, even if he moves (Figure 24).
Figure 24: I have moved, while keeping my camera oriented the same; the result is that my shadow keeps the same place on the photo.
On the other hand, if the photographer turns his camera, then his shadow will move on the photograph.
There is another interesting property of the photographer's shadow that we are going to see.
On the stereoscopic view of figure 25, I am facing a trashcan so that my shadow is aligned with it; in this position the shadow of the trashcan is vertical and we can't see it because it is hidden by the trashcan itself.
I have taken two different photos, without moving and just turning my camera, to show that both my shadow and the trashcan shift, but remain aligned.
Figure 25: My shadow is aligned with the trashcan, and the trashcan's shadow is vertical and hidden by the trashcan.
On the stereoscopic view of figure 26, I have moved on the left of the trashcan; my shadow is now on the left of the trashcan, and we can see that now the trashcan's shadow is seen in oblique, and is oriented on the left of the vertical; the trashcan's shadow doesn't still make an important angle with the vertical because I'm not far from it; but the more I move on the left, and the more the trashcan's shadow will become horizontal.
I have taken two photos by just turning my camera to show that my shadow and the trashcan's shadow shift the same, and the position of my shadow relatively to the trashcan's shadow doesn't change and neither its orientation.
Figure 26: My shadow is on the left of the trashcan, and the trashcan's shadow is oriented on the left of the vertical.
On the stereoscopic view of figure 27, I have moved on the right of the trashcan; my shadow is now on the right of the trashcan, and we can see that now the trashcan's shadow is oriented on the right of the vertical; the trashcan's shadow doesn't still make an important angle with the vertical because I'm not far from it; but the more I move on the right, and the more the trashcan's shadow will become horizontal.
I have taken two photos by just turning my camera to show that my shadow and the trashcan's shadow shift the same, and the position of my shadow relatively to the trashcan's shadow doesn't change and neither its orientation.
Figure 27: My shadow is on the right of the trashcan, and the trashcan's shadow is oriented on the right of the vertical.
On the photo shown on figure 28, my shadow is on the right of the photo, and the trashcan's shadow can be seen on the right; as it is not far from my shadow (otherwise it would not be visible on the photo), it doesn't make an important angle with the vertical.
Figure 28: My shadow is on the right of the photo, and we can also see the shadow of the trashcan on the right, which one makes a slight angle with the vertical.
On the photo shown on figure 29, my shadow is on the left of the photo, and the trashcan's shadow on the right of the photo; as the trashcan's shadow is now farther away from my shadow, it makes a more important angle with the vertical, but it's still far from being horizontal.
Figure 29: My shadow is on the left of the photo, and the trashcan's one on the right; the trashcan's shadow is less vertical than in the previous example, but still far from being horizontal.
On the stereoscopic view of figure 30, the shadow of the trashcan is now close to the horizontal; but my shadow is not visible on it, and it has no chance to be, because I show on the photo of the right where it is: I had to turn my camera substantially to find it.
Figure 30: When the shadow of an object is seen not far from horizontal, the photographer's shadow has no chance to be visible on the photo.
The animation of figure 31 shows photos which have been posted on the net to show that the shadows are not always parallel; however, those who posted them are not aware that they have put into evidence a rule which is always followed by shadows, and which is that their directions always meet on a common point, included the photographer's shadow.
This rule is often broken on the photos of Apollo, and allows to prove incoherences.
Figure 31: The directions of the shadows always meet on a common point.
So we have seen here important clues: The way a shadow is oriented depends on its position relatively to the photographer's shadow; when it's on the right of the photographer's shadow, it's oriented on the left of the vertical, and conversely, when it's on the left of the photographer shadow, it's oriented on the right of the vertical.
The more it is far away from the photographer's shadow, and the more it will be horizontal, but it will never be horizontal when the photographer's shadow is visible on the photo; at best it will be in mid way between horizontal and vertical.
When a shadow is close to the photographer's shadow, it always makes a slight angle with the vertical, never an important angle with it.
These clues allow to find incoherences on some Apollo photos.
The shadows which are generated by the sun are always parallel on a flat ground; on the other hand, on an uneven relief, they may be deviated, and so less parallel.
But it's not because two shadows are parallel, that they will always appear parallel on the photo.
On figure 32, the shadows of the chair and the stool don't appear parallel on the first view, although they really are; it's perspective which makes them appear less parallel.
When they are taken from the back (photo on the left) the shadows are slightly convergent, and when they are taken from the front (photo on the right), they are slightly divergent.
Figure 32: The shadows of the chair and the stool don't appear parallel when they are taken longitudinally; they converge when they are taken from the back, and diverge when they are taken from the front.
On the other hand, when the shadows are taken laterally, or even obliquely, they do appear parallel, like shown on figure 33.
Figure 33: The shadows of the chair and the stool appear parallel when they are taken laterally or obliquely.
In a general way, the shadows (on flat ground) will tend to diverge when they are close to the vertical of the photo, but will look more parallel when close to the horizontal of the photo.
In any case, one can't use the example of non parallel shadows when taken under a certain angle, to justify that they are not parallel when they are taken under an angle at which they should appear parallel.
When objects are lit by the sun, their shadows will always appear parallel when they are seen laterally on a flat ground.
However, if they are lit by a source of light which is closer, their shadows may diverge if the source of light is close enough.
On figure 34, I show two objects which are lit by a lamp on foot that I progressively move away from the table; when the lamp is close, their shadows diverge consistently, and the more I move the lamp back, and the more their shadows tend to become parallel (and with the sunlight they would become perfectly parallel).
So, when shadows are not parallel when they should appear so, it's not necessarily because the objects are lit by two different sources of light, it may also be because they are lit by a source of light which is relatively close.
Figure 34: Shadows may diverge if objects are lit by a source of light which is close
One must also be wary of too hasty conclusions when examining the photos; it's easy to make a misinterpretation and see an incoherence where it does not exist.
On some occasions, I have met difficulties in making panoramics by juxtaposing photos, and I have thought about an incoherence which would have been made by the fakers, but such was not the case, it's in fact a normal photographic deformation, which makes that the edges of the photograph are a little dilated relatively to its center.
On figure 35, I show two views of a landscape taken from the top of a hill.
Between the two views, I have simply pivoted my camera upward (the difference of luminosity comes from the luminosity of the sky to which the sensivity of the camera has adapted).
Figure 35: Two views of a landscape obtained by pivoting my camera vertically.
On these two views, I have extracted one common part which is at the center of one of the photos and on the bottom on the second photo.
I represent these two common parts on figure 36, at the same scale, and we can see that the part which was on the edge of the second photo is slightly bigger than the one which was at the center of the first photo; this comes from the effect of dilatation on the edges of the photo.
Figure 36: Illustration of photographic dilatation on the edges of the photo.
All the incoherences which are shown by the proponents of the moon hoax are not necessarily good; I rejected some, as I could find no formal proof of incoherence, but I have so many other proofs that it does not change much.
When analyzing photos, I have attentively examined all the details of photos, and it has happened that I caught an interesting detail.
In order to show a detail, I often use a close-up that I put beside the complete photo, like on figure 37.
Figure 37: A close-up of the chapel in the background allows to show interesting details on this chapel.
The fakers often hide strange things in a very dark part of the photo; because of the lack of luminosty of this part, the viewer of the photo generally notices nothing; It's only if he looks attentively at this part that he may notice something weird hiding in the obscurity.
In this case, I add luminosity on this part in order to better put into evidence what it is hiding; figure 38 shows an example in which I have added luminosity on the dark wall of the house so that it becomes better visible.
Figure 38: On the second view, I have added luminosity on the dark wall of the house to make it more visible.
All the considerations which I have talked about in this part are very important, for the fakers (who obviouslty were very aware of them) have abundantly played with them in order to create incoherences.
What's funny is that, after having created an incompatibility between two successive photos, they also make a move with the camera to make the incoherence less visible; the inattentive viewer will get fooled and will notice nothing, but the intelligent observer, who is able to analyze the moves of the photographer, will notice the incoherence.
All along the Apollo journal, one may notice that the astronauts generally take photos in pair; between the photos, the photographer moves and turns his camera, but it's made in such a way as to create a programmed incoherence.
It also happens that a photo is inserted between two photos which are incompatible one relatively to the other; one must then guess that this photo must be skipped in order to compare the photo which is before with the photo which is after.
Sometimes, the incoherence is programmed on more photos, and it's the whole sequence which contains the incoherence.
What has to be taken into account too is that the horizontal of the photo doesn't not constitute a good reference for it depends on the way the photographer holds his camera, and the photographer often makes a rotation with his camera which makes the horizontal of the photo turn (and allowing to make the incoherence less visible).
So one must always use the horizon line as a reference (it may be the base of a distant hill).
There always is a good horizon line to use on the photos.
Before starting to show the incoherences in photos, I still have to explain you how to fetch photos on the Apollo site from its reference.
This reference always starts with "AS" followed with the number of the Apollo mission; for instance the reference of a photo of the mission Apollo 11 always starts with "AS11".
Then there is a dash, then a group number on two digits, then a dash again, and finally a sequence number in the group.
It is possible to go fetch in the Apollo journal a photo by its reference, And I'm going to explain you how.
Start Google under Internet, and make a search on "Apollo lunar surface journal".
You'll find a page which looks like figure J1.
Figure J1: The page which is displayed when you make a search on "Apollo lunar surface journal" in Google
Click on the first link of the page.
You'll then get the main page of the NASA's site; move down a little and you'll see appear the links which are represented on figure J2.
Figure J2: After having displayed the main page of the NASA's site, and having moved down a little
Click on the link "Apollo Image Gallery"; you'll then see appear a page of which the left top corner is represented on figure J3.
Figure J3: After having clicked on "Apollo Image Gallery"
You have the links toward all the missions in the list.
In order to go to the list of photos of the mission Apollo 11, click on the link "Apollo 11" in the list.
You'll then see appear a page listing the photos of the mission Apollo 11 (Figure J4).
Figure J4: List of the photos of the mission Apollo 11 after having clicked on the link "Apollo 11"
On the left column, you have all the references of the photos of the mission, and on the next column, the descriptions of the photos.
Let's look for the reference "AS11-40-5866" in the left column, and click on it.
The corresponding photo then appears in small size on the center top of the page(Figure J5).
Figure J5: After having clicked on reference AS11-40-5866 in the left column.
On top right of the page, there are links to display the photo in big size (Figure J6).
The "Standard" link allows to display the photo in normal resolution.
The "Hi-Res" link allows to display the photo in high resolution.
Figure J6: Links to display the photo in big size.
the figure J7 shows what we get after having clicked the "Standard" link:
Figure J7: After having clicked the "Standard" link.
Recording the photo is done the usual way (click the mouse's right button, and select "Record picture as").
