Back to main menu


THE MYSTERIES OF THE LRO PICTURES







Nasa has recently released satellite photos which have been taken by the LRO (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) on which she claims that Apollo material can be seen.
But in fact, once again the NASA engineers have played the sabotaging resistants by introducing incoherences in these photos.

We are going to see these photos, and in what they are incoherent.


A) Apollo 11


NASA claims that this part of a satellite photo shows the remains of the Apollo 11 lem (descent stage).







Someone has told me that what Nasa shows as being the lem can only be the lem because of the shadow it creates.
But, on this photo, I have also circled something which also creates a shadow which looks like the shadow of the "lem".
There can't be two lems, so what is it the shadow of?












The photo on the left of this stereoscopic view is extracted from a video of Apollo 15 after the ascending stage of the lem has left the moon; the photo on the right is a close-up of the supposed remaining part of the lem on a LRO picture (the white we see comes from an arrow pointing at the lem); the shadow we see on the LRO picture doesn't correspond at all with the shape of the lander; moreover, the shadow of the lander should be not be so much longer than wide, except if the sun is extremely low, razing the ground; but in that case the holes we see on the LRO picture would not be partially lit, they would appear completely blackened.








Near the lem, on a photo of Apollo 11 (AS11-37-5469), we can see a set of holes I have circled.
Where are these holes on the satellite photo, I can't see them?







Near the lem, we can see a hole on an Apollo photo (AS11-40-5861); but we don't see this hole on the satellite photo.
In fact we can see a hole near the lem on the satellite photo, but it nothing looks like the hole on the Apollo photo, and nowhere it can be found on the Apollo photos.








Not far from the lem, we can find a crater on the Apollo photos (here AS11-40-5955).
We can't find the same crater near the lem on the satellite photo.




Here is a panoramic of this crater reconstituted with two photos (AS11_50-5955 and AS11_50-5957)











This is another LRO photo of the Apollo 11 landing site.






Let's make a close-up on the lander











We first can see that the lander has no definite shadow; the shadow is all around it.
We can see three footpads of the lander (circled in red), but not the legs they are attached to.
We cannot see the fourth footpad, but we can see the leg it is attached to (at least partially).
And the lander appears too circular.







In reality the lander is not so circular.








B) Apollo 12


NASA claims that this part of a satellite photo shows the remains of the material of Apollo 12








Surveyor is not located at the same place relatively to the hole than on the satellite photo (on which it is close to the edge of the hole).
We can see two holes that we can't see on the satellite photo, at least oriented the same way relatively to Surveyor.








On the satellite photo, the ALSEP is at some distance from the Lem.
But on this Apollo photo (AS12-47-6918), it is quite close to it; we indeed can see the shadow of the top of the lem on the extreme left.
Someone has told me that it was not the shadow of the LM but the one of the other astronaut; but, in that case, what is the shadow we see near the shadow of the photographer's left leg?












This is another LRO photo of the Apollo 12 landing site.






Let's make a close-up on the lander










The lander has no definite shadow; the shadow is all around it.
If we can see the four footpads (with an unequal luminosity) we can only see a leg of the lander; yet it is in a part which is as shadowed as the rest of the lander.









We can also see that the polygon which joins the footpads of the lander is irregular.






Normally the polygon joining the footpads should be a square like I show on the figure on the right which comes from a photo in Apollo 14 in which the CM takes a photo of the LM as the LM is showing its top to it.
And this does not come from the fact that the lander would be taken in bias; the LRO photo is taken from above the landing site, not in bias!










Let's now make a close-up on the instruments.









This LRO picture gives in legend the meaning of the various brilliant spots we see.







This is a part of a photo of the mission Apollo 12.
On it we can see the seismometer and the central station.







I have circled in green the brilliant spot which is indicated on the LRO photo as being the central station, and in blue the brilliant spot which is indicated on the LRO photo as being the seismometer, but what is the still bigger spot which is close to the latter spots and that I have circled in red?









C) Apollo 14


NASA claims that this part of a satellite photo shows the remains of the material of Apollo 14









If we consider the Lem's shadow, the sun is shining from the left of the photo to the right (red arrow).
But, if we consider the way the Lem is lit, the sun would be shining from the bottom of the photo to the top (yellow arrow): Indeed, the lower part of the lem is well lit, whereas its upper part is darker.








If we draw a line between the scientific instruments and the lem, and two lines on each side of it delimiting the angle of vision of the Hasselblad camera, we can see that when the camera points at the lem from the scientific instruments, it must be able to catch two very visible holes.
But on an Apollo photo taken from the scientific instruments, and with the lem in the background (AS14-64-9097), we can see none of these holes (and nor can we see them on the other photos)!








And if we compare the position of the scientific instruments (MET) relatively to two holes which are close on this Apollo photo (AS14-68-9405) and on the satellite photo, we can see it is different.
On the satellite photo, the scientific instruments are closer to the hole which is the farther one (from the lem) than on the Apollo photo.
On the Apollo photo, you can also see that the shadow of the bar the astronaut is holding is not visible!






D) Apollo 15


NASA claims that this part of a satellite photo shows the remains of the Apollo 15 lem (descent stage).







In fact, on the satellite photo, we can see that the lem is on a fold of terrain.
I have colored this fold of terrain on the satellite photo, as shown below.
We can see that it looks like a hand, with a pointed finger, on which the lem would be.
Of course, you could say, that it proves nothing, and that it just happens to look like a hand.
Nevertheless, the lem is still in unstable position on this fold of terrain, and dangerously close to two holes.
Yet, the astronauts could have landed the lem on a safer place.







If we compare the satellite photo with this view of the lem, with the hills in the background (AS15-82-11057), we can see that it's completely different.
Where are the holes of the satellite photo on the Apollo photo?
And where are the hills of the Apollo photo on the satellite photo?
Some have told me that what I call "hills" is in fact "mountains" and that they are much farther away; but we see photos of these "mountains" some photos before, and they appear twice higher; that means that, between these photos and the photo I show, the rover would have covered a distance which is greater than the total distance which has been covered by the rover during the whole mission.




Here is a wider view of the panorama of the photographic mission of Apollo 15 made with two adjacent photos (AS15-82-11056 and AS15-82-11057)








Where is on the satellite photo the hill which is behind the astronaut on this photo (AS15-88-11864)?




And why does this hill appear so blurred, when it should appear this way?






E) Apollo 16


NASA claims that this part of a satellite photo shows the remains of the Apollo 16 lem (descent stage).







The lem (circled in yellow on the photo below) had landed very close to a crater, but why so close?
It was rather dangerous to land the lem so close to this crater when the lem could have landed on a safer place!
Moreover, on the other side of the crater, we can see another object (I have circled in red) which looks like the lem, and which creates an inverted shadow!








In fact there is a crater not far from the lem, but it's not immediately close to the lem on this Apollo photo (AS16-109-17789), it's at a little distance from the lem.








And behind the lem on this Apollo photo (AS16-113-18339), we can see a hill that we can't find on the satellite photo.






F) Apollo 17


NASA claims that this part of a satellite photo shows the remains of the Apollo 17 lem (descent stage).








If we take a bigger part of the original satellite photo, we can see another object (I have circled in red) which looks like the lem (I have circled in yellow), and which creates the same type of shadow.
If the first object is the lem, then what is the second object?







On this view of the Lem in Apollo 17 (AS17-134-20508), why don't we see the hole I have circled in red on the satellite photo?







Not far from the lem, there is this very characteristic crater (AS17-137-20992); but we can't find a such crater on the satellite photo.




Here is a panoramic of this crater made with two photos:







And finally, to find that this view in Apollo 17 (AS17-139-21204), with the (circled) lem in its center, corresponds with what we see on the satellite photo requires a delirious imagination!













This is another LRO photo of the Apollo 17 landing site.






Let's make a close-up on the lander










This time the lander has a well definite shadow unlike in the LRO photos of the other missions.
According to the shadow of the LM, the sun is shining along the direction indicated by the green arrow.
We can see a bright footpad of the LM I have circled in orange.
There is another footpad of the lander I have circled in yellow which is dim in comparison; yet it is symmetrical relatively to the direction of the sunlight, and therefore it should be lit the same as the other footpad, and be as bright as it!









Let's make a close-up on the flag they indicate.









The flag of Apollo 17 appears as two perpendicular black parts; the vertical part corresponds to the flag itself (the cloth, not the pole), and the horizontal part (oriented on the left) to its shadow.







But there is a little problem, for we can see that the direction of the flag's shadow is completely different from the direction of the LM's one.







Even if it was the vertical part which would be the flag's shadow, it's still would be differently oriented from the LM's shadow.








After having given a visual evidence, I am even going to give a scientific evidence that an photo taken by the LRO can only be fake.
This is a photo which would have been taken by the LRO of the site of Apollo 15, and which is shown in a page of NASA which talks about the retroreflector of Apollo 15.



The legend says that a pixel of this photo represents 52 cm; this photo is 540 by 540 pixels.
So the width and the height of this photo represent 540x52=28008 centimeters, or 280.08 meters (the 391 meters they are talking about represent the diagonal length).
I have measured the width of the photo on my screen, and have found 134 millimeters.
From this, I can obtain a distance on this photo, by measuring it in millimeters, and then multiplying this length by 280.08, and then dividing it by 134.

I have measured the following distances:
Measured distance of the lunar module to the lunar rover (LRV1) = 41 mm.
Measured distance of the lunar module to the ALSEP = 34 mm.
Measured distance of the lunar module to the retroreflector (LRRR) = 43 mm.

The real distance is obtained by making a rule of three like I have shown:
Distance of the lunar module to the lunar rover = 41x280,08/134 = 85,69 meters
Distance of the lunar module to the ALSEP = 34x280,08/134 = 71,06 meters
Distance of the lunar module to the retroreflector = 43x280,08/134 = 89,87 meters

The lunar rover was supposed to be a 100 meters from the lunar module; yet, according to the photo of the LRO, it would be closer, at 85 meters only.

Can we determine in another way the distance of the lunar module to the ALSEP and to retroreflector? Yes, we ca, thanks to their official coordinates.
These coordinates can be found on this table which is given by NASA:



Given that the differences of latitude are very small, the distance which corresponds to a difference of latitude can be computed as the product of the moon radius by the tangent of the difference of latitude.

Likewise, as the differences of longitude are very small, the distance corresponding to a difference of longitude can be computed as the product of the radius of the moon's section at the latitude of the site by the tangent of the difference of longitude.

The radius of the moon is equal to 1737 km or 1737000 meters.
The radius of the section of the moon at the site's latitude is equal to the product of the moon radius by the cosine of the site's latitude.

The difference of latitude between the ALSEP and the lunar module is equal to: 26.13407-26.13224 = 0.00183.
This difference of latitude corresponds to a distance equal to: 1737000xtan(0.00183) = 55.48 meters.

The difference of longitude between the ALSEP and the lunar module is equal to: 3.62981-3.63400 = -0.00419.
This difference of longitude corresponds to a distance equal to: 1737000xcos(26.13)xtan(0.00419)=114.04 meters.

The distance between the lunar module and the ALSEP is then obtained by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of these two distances:
Distance ALSEP->Lunar module = Square root (55.48+114.04)=126.82 meters.

So, 126 meters when it should be, according to what has been measured on the photo of the LRO, 71 meters!
That makes quite a difference, almost the double!

Let's also compute the distance between the lunar module and the retroreflector from their respective coordinates.

The difference of latitude between the retroreflector and the lunar module is equal to: 26.13407-26.13333 = 0.00109.
This difference of latitude corresponds to a distance equal to: 1737000xtan(0.00183) = 33.04 meters.

The difference of longitude between the retroreflector and the lunar module is equal to: 3.62981-3.63400 = -0.00563.
This difference of longitude corresponds to a distance equal to: 1737000xcos(26.13)xtan(0.00419)=153.23 meters.

The distance between the lunar module and the retroreflector is then obtained by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of these two distances:
Distance Retroreflector->Lunar module = Square root (33.04+153.23)= 156.75 meters.

And, again, the distance between the retroreflector and the lunar module, computer from their official coordinates, is almost the double of the distance measured on the photo of the LRO.

In other words, the distances which are shown on the photo of the LRO are remarkably wrong, what completely discredits it.

Now, if we make the ratio between the distance of the retroreflector to the lunar module, and the distance of the ALSEP to the lunar module, computed from their official coordinates, we find: 156.75/126.86=1.23.

Likewise, if we make the ratio between the distance of the retroreflector to the lunar module, and the distance of the ALSEP to the lunar module, as they are shown on the photo of the LRO, we find: 89.87/71.06=1.26.

These two ratios are quite close, which means that, if the absolute distances are wrong on the photo of the LRO, on the other side, the relative distances are quite correct.


There is another closer photo of site of Apollo 15 which has been recently taken (it does not show the retroreflector):



On this photo, there is a reference so show a distance of 50 meters.
I have measured 37mm for this reference on my screen.
In order to obtain the distance in meters corresponding to a distance measured on the photo, I just have to measure it in millimeters on my screen, to multiply it by 50, and then to divide it by 37.

For the distance of the lunar module to the ALSEP, I have measured a distance of 67mm, which gives a real distance of:
67*50/37=90.54 meters.

For the distance of the lunar module to the lunar rover, I have measured a distance of 80mm, which gives a real distance of:
80*50/37=108 meters.

These are not even the same distances as on the previous photo.
The LRO photos are not even compatible with each other.
And the distance of the lunar module to the ALSEP, although greater than the one which has been obtained from the previous photo, is still wrong, for it is only the seven tenths of the distance which has been calculated from the official coordinates of the lunar module and the ALSEP.

NASA is not even able to produce LRO photos which correspond to each other...But it is obviously wanted as such by the engineers, who would not be stupid enough to unintentionally make such blunders.










To conclude my doubts that photoshop has very probably been used to edit the photos, I'll show that it is abnormal that we can't better see the lander on the LRO photos.
Here is a photo taken from a satellite.
I won't say that we can see all the details of the cars, but they are roughly recognizable.







I have reproduced the LM (it is a full LM, and not just the lander, but never mind) and the rover at approximately the sizes they would have on the photo.
The lander might not be as precisely detailed as on my photocomposition, but it would be more recognizable than on the LRO photos.
That means that, if the lander was on earth, a satellite could take a better photo of it than the LRO, though the LRO benefits of the absence of atmosphere, and also the LRO can get closer to the moon than a satellite to the earth in reason of the fact that the moon is smaller than the earth.











The ultimate proof the LRO photos are photoshopped






There is even a more definitive proof that the LRO pictures are all photoshopped.
Indeed all the pictures edited with Photoshop adobe bear a signature which shows that they have been made with photoshop.
This signature may be "Adobe Photoshop", or "Ducky Adobe", for the duck is the symbol of Adobe.







For instance, let's take this photo given as an example by Adobe and that you can find on the NET, which shows a photoshop of young face to show how it will age.







If you look at the binary interpretation of the beginning of the jpeg file made with photoshop, it gives this.
In the dump interpretation, you can read the signature of Adobe Photoshop "Ducky Adobe".







So, I myself checked the LRO picture of Apollo 11 to see if it was containing the signature of Adobe.







This is the binary interpretation of the beginning of this file.
And once again we find the signature of Adobe.
This picture has been edited with photoshop.
Now, it may not be abnormal that this picture has been edited with Adobe, for this picture contains indications added on it, and thence is has necessarily been edited to add the indications.
As Adobe is well equipped in edit functions, it would not be abnormal that Photoshop would have been used to add these indications.
It still does not prove that the LRO photos have been edited with photoshop to add pseudo artefacts of Apollo.
On the other hand, the original pictures which contain no indication at all must not contain the signature of Adobe, for they have no reason to have been edited.
Let's see now.







This is normally an unedited original LRO picture, for it contains no added indication.
This photo has no reason to have been edited with photoshop.







But the binary interpretation of the file tells otherwise!
We find again the signature of Adobe proving that this photo has been edited with Photoshop.
It has been edited to add pseudo signs of the presence of Apollo.







This is normally an unedited original LRO photo showing a lander of lunar module (the white spot).
As it contains no indication at all, it has no reason to have been edited with Photoshop.







Yet, we find again the signature of Adobe proving that this photo has been edited with Photoshop.
It has been edited to add the pseudo presence of a lander (and why would the lander appear white?).







This is an original unedited LRO photo containing no indications.
It has no reason to have been edited with photoshop.







But there is another reason for editing it with photoshop!
And again we find the signature of Adobe proving that this photo has been edited with Photoshop.







Another original unedited LRO photo containing no indications.







Would it be edited with photoshop again?
Yes, it bears the signature of Adobe again!







This "original" LRO photo is supposed to show the lander and tracks of the rover.
It is completely absurd that the lander would appear white and that the tracks of the rover would appear with a color different from the one of the lunar ground; common sense tells that this photo has been edited with photoshop...







And common sense often proves to be right!
For we have the confirmation that this photo has been edited with photoshop for it bears the signature of Adobe photoshop.







A new "original" LRO photo of a so-called landing site.







A new photoshop?
Yes, once again we find the signature of Adobe.







Now this photo is original.
Why is it original?
Because it is supposed to be a photo that the LRO would not have been very successful at taking it.
The irregularities we see could have been corrected with photoshop.
So, we have every reason to think that this photo is an original photo which has not been edited with photoshop.







But logic is not always respected!
The photo surprisingly bears the signature of Adobe.
It has been photoshopped, and photoshop has not been used to improve the photo, but much to the contrary to add artificial irregularities.







Again an "original" LRO photo.







And we are not surprised when we try to obtain the binary interpretation of the file!
We have the confirmation that this photo has also been edited with photoshop for it bears the signature of Adobe photoshop.







In fact, if you want to check by yourself that a photo bears the signature of Adobe, you don't necessarily need a hex editor.
I am going to give you a way to do this checking with a command which exists in all windows, the good old debug command of a DOS window.







Copy a LRO picture onto your disk (but give it a name no longer than eight characters long, for file names in DOS are limited to eight characters).
But don't use the method of Copy/Paste, copying it into the pasteboard with PrtScrn and pasting it into paint, and saving it in Paint; you would lose the signature of the original file.
Click the picture with the right button of the mouse, and, in the menu which appears, save the picture onto your disk using the command "save as".







Then click the name of the file with the right button of the mouse.
You then see this window appear (I have a french windows, but I have added english annotations).
Click the button "Choose Default Program", for we have to use DOS to edit this file.







This window then appears; click the button "Browse" to fetch the DOS command.







With Windows explorer go to the sub-folder "System32" of the folder "Windows", and look for the application "Cmd" (the associated icon is a black box with "C:"' inside).
Click it.







Now, in the window you have all the possible tools to edit the picture.
Click the one we are interested in, that is the application" Windows command interpreter", (the black box with a "C:" inside).







Now you have a DOS window which appears which is in the folder into which you have placed your picture.
Type "debug" followed with a space and the name of your picture (ended with ".jpg").
type return.
You then see appear the prompt hyphen of debug.







Type the letter 'd' (which stands for "dump"), followed with return.
If the Adobe mention does not appear on the right, type the letter 'd' again followed with return.
There we are; we find the signature of Adobe in the file.
This picture has been edited with photoshop!







Well, I am going to tell you a big secret...







...Bill Gates is in the moon hoax conspiracy!
LOL!







To end with this discussion on the photos of the landing sites talen by the LRO, I am going to show that the dates that these photos are claimed to have been taken are not compatible with the primary mission of the LRO.
I have found a NASA document technically describing the scientific mission of the lunar reconnaissance orbiter.







This document relates that, after having stationed on a circular orbit, they call the "quasi frozen orbit"...







...The LRO then starts to make a systematical mapping of the lunar surface, which is very progressive and described by this schema which shows a part of it.
The document says that this regular mapping is going to take more than a year.







You can see that the Apollo landing sites are quite dispersed, they are not close to each other.







In particular, the Apollo 17 landing site is located at a longitude of 30 and a latitude of 20 (approximately); Apollo 15 is almost at longitude 0.
It means that, if the regular mapping takes more than a year, the Apollo 17 landing site will not be reached in this mapping before two months (Indeed, in order to cover the entire lunar surface, the polar orbit will have to turn of an angle of 180).







Yet NASA claims that the landing sites of Apollo 11, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 have all been photographed in a span of only five days (between July 11th and July 15th), less than a month after the launch of the LRO (which happened at June 18th).
This is completely contradictory with what the technical document describes.