On photo AS17-134-20425:
- The astronaut has his left fist lifted on the photo, but lowered on the shadow.
- on the shadow, between his two legs we can't see a lit interval, and yet we can see that his boots are separated.
- The way the astronaut is holding the brush, the shadow of its end shouldn't appear on the astronaut's suit.
On photo AS17-134-20426:
- The astronaut has his left fist lifted on the photo, but lowered on the shadow.
- The shadow of the multi-colored strip of the tripod appears like it was placed on another leg of the tripod than the one we see it's placed on.
On photo AS17-134-20383 we see on the extreme left a detail (circled in red) of the astronaut's helmet which is obviously different from the same detail we see on AS17-134-30384.
The sun taken on the moon (AS17-134-20411) and the (real) sun taken in space (AS11-36-5293) have very different sizes.
Why does the earth appear so incredibly small in comparison with the sun which appears way too big.
On photo AS17-134-20439 the astronaut has his left boot in the shadow, and on photo AS17-134-20440, the same boot is lit; yet:
- This boot has not moved between the two photos, we can see it by examining the artifacts which are around it.
- The attitude of the astronaut is exactly the same.
- The SEP transmitter is exactly in the same state and the same place.
On photo AS17-134-20439, the photographer seems to be this blurred white spot on the middle of the visor.
The problem is that, the way the astronaut is positioned on the photo, the photographer should appear on the right of the visor, and not on the middle of it!
In the visor we can also see the helmet of an astronaut very close; who is this alien astronaut?
The view of the left shows how the photographer appears on the reflection of the visor, and the view of the right shows how he should have appeared instead.
We here have two views of the astronaut behind the rover, slightly in oblique, one taken close (AS17-140-21386) and one taken a little farther away (AS17-140-21387)
the astronaut is a little farther away from the photographer than the rover, and the flag still farther away.
When the photographer backs up, the relative size of objects must change as they are not at the same distance from the photographer.
Effectively, when we make a superposition of the two photos by adapting sizes and positions so that the astronaut of the two photos fits as perfectly as possible, the objects of the second photo (taken from farther away) which are farther than the astronaut appear bigger than the objects of the first photo, and vice versa the objects of the second photo which are closer than the astronaut appear smaller than the objects of the first photo, which is logical and the way it should be.
On this superposition we can see that, for the wheel, the high gain antenna, and the camera, there are two duplicates, one big and one small; the small one (the one of the second photo) is after and on the left of the big one (the one of the first photo).
But you can see that the lateral shift is not the same for these three objects; it's the wheel which shows the biggest lateral shift (on the left), and the camera the smallest one.
Now look how the three objects, the wheel, the high gain antenna, and the camera, are positioned relatively to each other:
The high gain antenna is on the left and a little behind the wheel.
And the camera is at the same level, but on the left of the high gain antenna, so more on the left relatively to the wheel.
The astronaut is just behind the wheel, and slightly on the left of it.
The high gain antenna is more on the right relatively to the astronaut.
And the camera is still more on the right relatively to the astronaut.
But when an object is between the astronaut and the photographer, the more he is on the right relatively to the astronaut, and the more he will be shifted on the left on the superposition of the two photos, before the photographer backed up and after, when we make the astronaut match on the two photos!
In order to illustrate this, I have made a little animation which might help you understand this concept.
On this picture, I have placed the astronaut who is photographed, and between him and the camera the rover's wheel, the high gain antenna, and the camera.
I have also drawn a Hasselblad camera representing the photographer.
The objects are positioned like they are on the apollo photo: The high gain antenna is on the right of the wheel, and the camera is still more on the right.
The astronaut is behind the wheel and slightly on its left.
The two cameras are in the two positions that the photographer successively took the shots.
The distances are not exact, but it doesn't matter for this demonstration, because it is only about the order of the shifts.
I am going to take the picture from the initial position of the camera, and progressively magnify it till the camera of the initial position comes in superposition with the camera in its final position; I'll position the magnified picture so that the astronaut of this magnified picture is superposed with the one of the picture with the camera at its final position.
I will not adapt the sizes so that the astronauts of the two pictures have the same sizes, because it's a demonstration about positions and not about sizes.
And on the animation we can see two things:
- The pairs of the three objects of the rover (the wheel, the high gain antenna, and the camera) show a vertical shift which is quite close.
- But the pairs of these objects show a lateral shift (parallel to the horizontal of the photo) which is very different: This is because laterally they are not at the same distance from the astronaut; the camera which is the object which is laterally the farthest away from the astronaut shows the strongest lateral shift.
I also have reconstituted a little real demonstration in which I use various objects representing the Apollo objects.
In my reconstitution, the red chair represents the astronaut, the stool represents the wheel, the musical score holder represents the high gain antenna, and the box put on a table represents the camera.
The substitution may seem strange, but what counts in this demonstration is their disposition and not their nature.
I have disposed the objects like they are on the Apollo photo:
the stool (the wheel) is the leftmost object, the musical score holder (the high gain antenna) is a little on the right of it, and the box (the camera) still more on the right.
I have disposed them like they were disposed on a rover in little in oblique, and a ribbon symbolizes the edge of the chassis.
The chair (the astronaut) is behind the stool (the wheel) and a little on the left of it.
When I superpose the two photos, adjusting them so to obtain a match as good as possible of the two chairs (a slight difference of angle of view forbids to obtain a perfect match), we can see that:
- The stool shows a visible vertical shift, but only a little lateral shift on the left.
- The musical score holder shows a more important lateral shift on the left.
- And the box shows a still more important shift on the left.
This demonstration doesn't claim to give accurate shifts that we should see on the Apollo photo, but only to show that it's the camera which should show the most important shift on the left, and the wheel the least important one.
The box shows a clockwise rotation between the two photos, but it's perfectly normal, and comes from the change of angle of view created by the fact that I backed up obliquely; this rotation also exists on the Apollo photos, as I am going to show it to you.
On the second photo, the chair is a little shifted relatively to the stool comparatively to the first photo, but it's on purpose, to show that if I don't back up exactly in the axis chair-stool, it changes nothing concerning the order of the shifts in the superposition.
On the superposition made with the two apollo photos, the lateral shifts should be in the same order:
The camera should show the most important shift on the left (the one of the second photo, the smaller one), and the wheel should show the smallest shift on the left.
But we can see that it's the converse: It's the wheel which shows the most important shift on the left, and the camera the least important one.
The order of the shifts is abnormally reversed.
In fact I think that it's the high gain antenna which has the correct shift, and the wheel which has a too important one, and the camera a not important enough.
If the wheel of the second photo is too much shifted on the left, it may mean that it has been artificially moved on the left before taking the second photo.
And effectively if the compare the wheels on the two photos, we can see that it has been moved away from the chassis; the bars are more out.
Conversely if the camera of the second photo is not enough shifted on the left, it may mean that it has been artificially moved on the right before taking the second photo.
And effectively we can see that the cable, which goes to the camera, is longer and has a different angle on the second photo, which proves that the camera has been moved away on the right.
In what concerns the camera, there's another anomaly we can see:
In reaction to the lateral move on the right of the photographer, the camera must normally show a clockwise rotation.
This is besides confirmed by the block of plugs I have circled in yellow which effectively makes a clockwise rotation.
You can also see this clockwise rotation on my real demonstration.
But normally the part of the camera I have circled in red should become shorter in reaction to the clockwise rotation....
...And it's the converse, it becomes longer, like the camera had made an counterclockwise rotation instead!
And the two loops of the wire of the camera, I have circled in orange, should normally have come nearer to each other in reaction to this clockwise rotation...
...But it's the converse, they have gone farther away from each other, like the camera had made an counterclockwise rotation instead!
I have had the idea to correct the position of the wheel and the camera on the second photo to put them back to the position they logically were before they moved them.
On this stereoscopic view, I show on the left the original second Apollo photo, and on the right this photo I modified to put the wheel and the camera back to the position they were before they moved them to take the second shot.
And this animation alternates between these two photos: It clearly shows how I changed the position of the wheel (to put it back on the right) and the camera (to put it back on the left).
Now, if I make a superposition between the first photo and my second modified photo, it gives this:
On this new superposition, we can see that the order of lateral moves is now respected: The wheel shows the smallest lateral move between the two photos, and the camera the biggest one, like on my real superposition.
This is what we should have logically seen: I have effectively put back the wheel and the camera to their correct positions, that is the ones they had on the first photo.
On this stereoscopic view, we see on the left the incorrect superposition of the wheel and the camera resulting from the fact they have moved them, and on the right the correct superposition after I have put the wheel and the camera back to their original positions.
Note that the camera has turned in the wrong direction: It has turned counterclockwise whereas it should have turned clockwise; on my corrected photo, I only corrected the camera's position, not its orientation which remains wrong (correcting its orientation would have been more complicated, I would have needed another view of the camera).
I have made a superposition with the photos AS17-140-21386 (left) and AS17-140-21390 (right).
I have rotated the first photo so to obtain a perfect superposition of the hills in the background.
This way, I obtain the same reference for the two photos, the same absolute orientation.
We can see that, on the second photo, the objects which are closer to the photographer have moved on the right relatively to the objects which are farther.
For example, the wheel has moved on the right of the astronaut.
This means that, between the two photos, the photographer has moved on the left.
If the photographer has moved on the left, then the pole of the high gain antenna should have turned clockwise on the second photo (the rightmost one) relatively to the one of the high gain antenna of the first photo (the leftmost one).
Moreover the pole of the left high gain antenna is slightly turned clockwise relatively to the horizon line (the base of the hill); and the fact that the photographer has moved forward on the second photo (the right one) also makes the pole of the high gain antenna turn clockwise.
Instead of that, you can see that the pole of the rightmost high gain antenna has turned counterclockwise relatively to the one of the leftmost one.
The fakers really had a taste for contradictory rotations!
These photos are photos of Schmitt taken by Cernan in Apollo 17, and are referenced AS17-140-21385 and AS17-140-21386 respectively.
On the photo, the shaft of the high gain antenna is not far from being laterally oriented toward Cernan (who takes the photo).
But, in the reflection of the visor, the shaft of the high again antenna appears oriented very differently, far from the direction of Cernan (the little astronaut's reflection which appears on the visor), like it was more turned clockwise on the photo.
So, why are the orientations of the high gain antenna on the photo and the reflection of the visor so different?
You can also notice that Schmitt has the same size on the two photos, or close to it.
But, on the visor of the second photo, Cernan is consistently farther from the rover than he is on the first photo; it means that he has backed up on the second photo, and is thus farther from Schmitt.
So, if Cernan has backed up on the second photo, why doesn't Schmitt appear consistently smaller on the second photo than on the first photo?
He appears a little smaller, but it does not correspond with the way that Cernan appears to have backed up on the visor.
These photos are photos of Cernan taken by Schmitt in Apollo 17, and are referenced AS17-140-21390 and AS17-140-21391 respectively.
You can see that Cernan turns a little clockwise on the second photo relatively to the first one.
So, normally, if he turns clockwise, the background should shift right on his visor.
But, it does not, in spite of the fact that Cernan turns, the background remains the same on his visor.
On photo AS17-145-22164 (left) we have a view of the lunar landscape.
On photo AS17-145-22165 (right) we have exactly the same lunar landscape, with the astronaut appearing on it.
When we make an animation with the two photos, we can clearly see the footprints the astronaut has left behind him; we can see that they are very spaced out, more than the pace we see him currently make on the photo.
If we take a close-up at the astronaut on AS17-145-22165, we can see that the end of the brush he is holding is above his knees on the photo, but close to his feet on his shadow.
On this close-up, we can perfectly see the astronaut knees, first by the change of angle of the shadow and second by a window which opens between the knees, due to the fact that he folds one of his knees.
Between photos AS17-145-22166 and AS17-145-22167 we can see none of the rocks moving relatively to the other rocks (I said relatively), except one: The big rock in the close foreground I circled in red moves importantly relatively to the other rocks.
On photo AS17-142-21714 we can see the tripod that we know to be of small size, and only two footprints separate it from the astronaut; this means the astronaut is quite close to the tripod; therefore he should look taller comparatively with the tripod.
In the photo AS17-141-21608...
In the visor of the astronaut, we can see a man who obviously has no backpack, which is totally impossible on the moon.
This anomaly had already been found before I started to get interested in the moon hoax.
This man with no backpack has of course much irritated the Apollo believers, because it's a strong hole in the credibility of Apollo.
However they think to have found the parade by noticing that:
1) The man's shadow is oriented in such a way that the man cannot be in profile, he can only be facing.
2) The man's shadow shows the presence of a backpack in his back.
They feel relieved after having noticed that, and they think to have debunked this "so called" anomaly.
However, it makes no doubt for anybody who has eyes that the man is seen in half profile, and can in no way be facing in the reflection of the visor.
The shadow simply does not correspond with the man's orientation, it is wrong, and not only for this reason, but also for two other reasons I'll explain later.
I am going to make the demonstration that there is no way that the photographer may be seen facing on the visor.
On the photo, I have circled artefacts, a rock with its shadow and a footprint, that I have also circled on their reflection in the visor.
We can see that the reflection of the photographer is vertically aligned with these artefacts.
It means that, if the photographer was taking the photo this way, his reflection on the other astronaut's visor could not appear at the place we see it.
For his reflection to appear at the place we see it, he should have to be positioned this way relatively to the other astronaut.
With this position and orientation, his reflection would be correctly placed on the other astronaut's visor, this reflection would be seen full facing, but the other astronaut would be in the center of the photo, and not on its extreme left like what we see.
So that the other astronaut could be on the extreme left of the photo, and that the photographer's reflection would appear on the visor at the place we see it, he would have to turn his camera this way, and, as the camera is strapped to his body, it means that he would also have to rotate his body.
1) He would appear at the right place on the reflection of the visor.
2) The astronaut who is photographed would appear on the extreme left of the photo.
But the reflection of the photographer would not appear facing on the reflection of the visor, it would be seen in half profile, like what we actually see.
Conclusion, the photographer has to be in half profile, and it is the shadow which does not correspond with the photographer, and which is wrong and incorrectly oriented.
And the shadow is still wrong for two other reasons.
It is very obvious that the photographer's shadow is too short on the reflection.
The ratio between the shadow's length and the astronaut's height is consistently smaller on the reflection than on the photo.
As some Apollo believers could argue that the astronaut who is photographed appears a little bent, which could have an influence on this ratio, I also show a comparison with the gnomon and its shadow (on the next photo).
The gnomon is by definition vertical, or at least perpendicular to the ground that it is placed on.
The third anomaly of the photographer's shadow is that the backpack does not have the normal height.
The top of the backpack, the OPS, normally arrives at the level of the astronaut's head.
On the photographer's shadow, we can't see the OPS behind the photographer's head.
On this photo, AS17-141-21607, we can see a big rock, and, behind this big rock, the rover parked.
Something particular about the rover? No, nothing particular...for the moment.
On the photo AS17-141-21605, the astronaut is closer to the rock, and, of course, we still see the rover parked, on the top of the photo.
So, you may wonder why I stress on the presence of the rover?
You might understand better if I show you these two photos in a stereoscopic view: The rover has the same size on the two views!
Here I show you two objects, a stool and a waste bin, the stool being placed closer to me.
I come very close to the stool, and I take a new photo.
Of course, the stool is much bigger than on the previous photo; but, if the waste bin has not as much increased in size as the stool, it still is consistently bigger than on the previous photo.
Now, if there was big mountain far away, the fact of coming closer to the stool would not make it bigger of course.
The rover is not bigger than the big rock, so the fact of coming very close to the big rock after it first has been seen from farther away should definitively make the rover look bigger.
if means that, on the photo on which the big rock is seen very close (AS17-141-21605), the rover should not appear with this size...
But with this size instead, a size which shows that it appears closer than on the other photo.
And, it would give this in a stereoscopic view of the two photos.
And, if it is on the photo AS17-141-21605 (the photo with the big rock taken close) that the size of the rover is correct, then, on the photo AS17-141-21607 (the photo on which the big rock is taken from farther away), the rover should not appear this way...
But this way instead, smaller.
And, it would give this in a stereoscopic view of the two photos.
On photo AS17-141-21607 the shadows have various incompatible directions.
Between photos AS17-140-21367 (left) and AS17-140-21368 (right) the (green) distance between two rocks in the vicinity of the rover has slightly increased, which is coherent with the fact that the photographer has a little moved forward.
But the width of the rover (red line), measured between its rear right wheel and its front left wheel, has abnormally decreased.
This animation is made with the photo AS17-140-21367 and the original photo AS17-140-21368; it shows the size of the rover abnormally decreasing on the second photo.
And this animation is made with the photo AS17-140-21367 and the photo AS17-140-21368 I corrected to give the rover a size compatible with the size it had on the first photo and the move of the photographer.
On photo AS17-136-20723, we see the sun through the high gain antenna, and we see the spokes which are covered by the sun.
Normally, as the sun is very brilliant, we shouldn't be able to distinguish these spokes for they should be washed out by the sun.
On photo AS17-136-20743:
- The photographer's shadow is extending his left arm, and we can also see the shadow of his right fist; we can wonder how he managed to take the photo.
- The shadow of the other astronaut shows a weird bottleneck, and also seems too horizontal.
On this example taken outdoors (right on the stereoscopic view), we can see that, although I'm farther from the trashcan's shadow that the photographer is from the other astronaut's shadow on the Apollo photo, the trashcan's shadow is a little less horizontal than the other astronaut's shadow on the Apollo photo.
Between the photos AS17-136-20758 and AS17-136-20759, we can see that the hill on the background has consistently moved on the right relatively to the astronaut behind the rover.
Consequently the photographer has also consistently moved on the right relatively the astronaut who is photographed, and the latter should be seen under a different angle, he should be seen less in profile, more frontally.
On photos AS17-137-20976 and AS17-137-20977 we have two views of the rover with rocks around taken from some distance; nothing abnormal at first view.
But when we take a close-up at the rover on the two photos, we can see that there is a detail (I have circled in red) which changes between the two views.
On photo AS17-136-21069, relatively to AS17-136-21068, the astronaut has just pivoted; we can see the footprint (circled in red) he was making with his left foot on the previous photo.
This means that on the two photos the astronaut is at the same distance from the tripod.
The tripod, which has a relatively small size, is just a little farther from the photographer.
This means that the astronaut is not much farther from the photographer than he was on the previous photo.
So he should hardly look smaller, and yet he consistently looks smaller than on the previous photo.
On this double view, I give on AS17-136-21069 to the astronaut a size compatible with the one he had on AS17-136-21068 (on the latter he was a little folding his knees).
This animation is made with the photo AS17-136-21068 and the original photo AS17-136-21069 (incompatible sizes);
And this animation is made with the photo AS17-136-21068 and the photo AS17-136-21069 I corrected to give the astronaut a size compatible with the other photo.
- On photo AS17-138-21078 the solar panel of the camera is well lit.
- On photo AS17-138-21087 this solar panel looks much darker, and yet the lunar landscape appears as well lit, and even better lit than on the previous photo; yet there's nothing which could shade it, for it's in the front of the rover.
On photos AS17-138-21160 and AS17-138-21161, we have two views of a crater taken from different distances, and on each of the views the directions of two rocks on the edge of the crater relatively to other rocks in the crater (red line and yellow line) are the same.
On photos AS17-138-21160 and AS17-138-21162, we also have two views of this crater; the first one is the same as on the previous double view, and the second one is taken from a distance intermediary between the first view and the previous second view (AS17-138-21161); as on the previous double view the directions of the rocks on the edge relatively to rocks in the crater were the same, and that AS17-138-21162 is taken from a distance intermediary between AS17-138-21160 and AS17-138-21161, we could expect that these directions be also the same on this double view...But they are very different!
On photo AS17-140-21354, relatively to AS17-140-21353, the photographer has moved a little on the right.
As a consequence the objects on the lunar ground have moved on the right relatively to the lateral thrusters, and the farther they are, the more they move on the right (relatively to the lateral thrusters).
On the ground we see an object I have circled in red; this object moves a little on the right relatively to the thruster.
Farther we find the rover which moves twice more than the previous object because it is farther.
And still farther we find the flag which should have moved still more on the right relatively to the thruster, but it has moved as little as the close object instead!
On this double view I have corrected the position of the flag on AS17-140-21354 (right) to give it a coherent possible position it could have relatively to the position it had on AS17-140-21353.
This animation is made with the photo AS17-140-21353 and the original photo AS17-140-21354 (incoherent position of the flag on the second photo).
And this animation is made with the photo AS17-140-21353 and the photo AS17-140-21354 I corrected to give the flag a position coherent with the first photo.
The relative position of a rock which is before the rover to the rover is the same on photos AS17-141-21598 and AS17-141-21599; therefore the photographer has not moved between the two photos and the change of direction of the foreground can only come from a rotation of the camera around the horizontal axis and it should rotate the same way as the background.
Yet we can see that the directions of the rover and the rock in the foreground rotate counterclockwise (yellow lines) while the direction of the hill in the background (red line) rotates clockwise; a new example of background and foreground rotating in opposite directions, the favorite of the fakers!
Look how the astronaut is holding the stick on AS17-143-21856, and how he holds it on AS17-143-21857; between the two photos he has importantly turned the stick, but the stick's shadow has not turned as much.
On photo AS17-146-22296, we see what looks an animal's head in the visor.
This pair of photos (AS17-135-20544 and AS17-135-20545) shows the rover between two parallel rover tracks which cross each other near the photographer.
The problem is that the right track shrinks on the second photo when the photographer backs up, whereas the left track grows to the contrary.
When we make an animation with the two rover tracks, it makes a funny effect.
Is that an anomaly for as much?
Doesn't the left track have a reason to grow when the right one shrinks?
To study this I have reconstituted the rover tracks with ribbons; the rucksack placed between the two ribbons symbolizes the rover (the ribbons are loaded with stones not to be taken away by the wind).
Although this substitution may seem unorthodox, it will do for the demonstration.
On this first stereoscopic view, I'm outside the ribbons on the left of them; between the two photos, I just turn my camera.
When I draw a vertical line from the cross of the ribbons, this line doesn't hit the rucksack at all, but hits outside the ribbons, on the right of them.
We can see that we obtain the same effect on the two photos, so turning the camera changes nothing to it.
On this second stereoscopic view, I'm outside the ribbons on the right of them; between the two photos, I just turn my camera.
When I draw a vertical line from the cross of the ribbons, this line doesn't hit the rucksack at all, but hits outside the ribbons, on the left of them.
We can see that we obtain the same effect on the two photos, so turning the camera changes nothing to it.
On this third stereoscopic view, I'm between the two ribbons, but near the left one.
When I draw a vertical line from the cross of the ribbons, this time this line hits the rucksack on its right between the two ribbons.
We can see that we obtain the same effect on the two photos, so turning the camera changes nothing to it.
On this fourth stereoscopic view, I'm between the two ribbons, but near the right one.
When I draw a vertical line from the cross of the ribbons, this line hits the rucksack on its left between the two ribbons.
We can see that we obtain the same effect on the two photos, so turning the camera changes nothing to it.
When, on the Apollo photos, I draw a (yellow) line perpendicular to the horizon line (base of the hill) from the cross of the rover tracks, this line hits the rover on the two photos; so the photographer is between the rover tracks on the two photos.
But we can also see that, on the second photo, this line hits the rover more on the left; that means that the photographer has moved on the right.
If the photographer has moved on the right, as he is between the two rover tracks, that means that he has got closer to the right track, and farther from the left track.
So in conclusion: The backward move of the photographer makes the two rover tracks shrink, but his lateral move makes the right track slightly grow, and the left track slightly shrink.
The conclusion is that the left track has more reason to shrink than the right one, and should shrink a little more than the right track instead of growing!
So now this animation is not only weird but also abnormal!
On photo AS17-137-20957, we have a view of the lunar landscape.
On photo AS17-137-20960, we also have a view of the lunar landscape with a rock in the close foreground; in fact, if we look at artifacts on the left, we can see that the second view is included in the upper part of the first view.
We can also see that the earth appears abnormally low relatively to the lunar horizon.
In fact, if we look on the left of the big rock on the second view, we find a series of artifacts that we can also find on the upper part of the first view.
It means that in fact the rock of the second view is in full center of the first view!
It's even hiding one of the artifacts of the first view on the second view (the one I have circled in red)...and yet it's not visible on this first view!!!
After the invisible man, we now have the invisible lunar rock!!
I have taken the big rock on AS17-137-20960 and added it on AS17-137-20957 where it should logically be; of course, there is another part of the rock we don't see on the second view we could see on the first view, but I don't have this one, so I just represent the part which is available.
Between photos AS17-137-20981 (left) and AS17-137-20982 (right) the photographer has moved on the left; the vertical pole in the foreground should have rotated clockwise; in fact, it seems to have rotated clockwise, but it's not relatively to the horizontal of the photo it must rotate (for the latter can change with a rotation of the camera around the horizontal axis), but relatively to the horizon line (or a reliable reference line in the background); the (yellow) horizon line we see on the top of the photo rotates exactly the same way as the pole, which makes that in fact the pole has not really rotated relatively to the background.
The footprints on the extreme left (I have circled in red) don't rotate like they should.
These two photos are respectively referenced AS17-134-20459 (left) and AS17-134-20460 (right); They have been taken as the rover was coming back to the LM in third EVA.
There are several things which show that the rover is oriented slightly counter-clockwise relatively to the LM, i.e. shifting left to it as it moves forward; first there is the artefact I have circled in both photos, and then the fact that the LM moves on the right relatively to the background, and shows a slight rotation counter-clockwise on the second photo relatively to the first one; this is not immediately obvious, for the astronaut turns his camera clockwise between the two photos, which makes the background shift on the left.
On both photos I have stripped the part of background which does not appear on the other photo (so stripped a part of the background left on the first photo, and right on the second photo), so the backgrounds are close to identical on the two stripped photos, and made an animation with the stripped photos; this animation shows that the rover shifts left relatively to the LM; notice also the counter-clockwise rotation of the LM.
So, the way the rover moves between the two photos shows that the rover is slightly turned counter-clockwise relatively to the LM, like I have represented it on the right of the stereoscopic view.
But we can also see that the high gain antenna appears on the middle of the photo when the astronaut aims at the lunar module.
This shows that the rover is oriented relatively to the lunar module like I have represented on the right of the stereoscopic view, i.e. a little turned clockwise relatively to the lunar module.
So finally, the way the rover moves between the two photos proves that the rover is oriented counter-clockwise relatively to the lunar module (left of the stereoscopic view), but the way the high gain anenna appears on the photos shows that it is oriented clockwise relatively to the lunar module (right of the stereoscopic view).
How can the rover be oriented both counter-clockwise and clockwise relatively to the lunar module?
These two photos are photos of the rover coming back to the LM and are referenced AS17-134-20457 (left) and AS17-134-20458 (right).
On the first photo, the lunar module appears on the left of the high gain antenna, and, as the high gain antenna is on the left of the rover, that means that the rover is not riding in direction of the lunar module; if it goes on in this direction, it will pass quite far on the right of the lunar module.
On the second photo, the rover is quite closer to the lunar module and less distant laterally from it than it would be if it had gone on in the direction it had on the previous photo; it means that, between the two photos, the rover necessarily had to turn left.
We well see the shadow of the high gain antenna on the first photo, and it appears on the right of the high gain antenna.
On the second photo, we hardly see it, but we still see enough of it to know that it now is on the left of the high gain antenna.
But, if the shadow of the high gain antenna has moved left relatively to the high gain antenna, it means that the rover has turned right.
So to conclude; To go to the position that the rover has relatively to the lunar module on the second photo, the rover had to turn left given the orientation it had on the first photo, but the move of the antenna's shadow says it has turned right instead.
Did you say contradiction?
On photo AS17-134-20464 (right), relatively to AS17-134-20463, the photographer turns his camera up; consequently the lem moves down on the photo, and the earth should follow the lem, but in fact the earth does not completely follow the lem, she moves up relatively to the lem; yet we don't see how the photographer could manage that, for, if he can move laterally, he can't move up, elevate himself in the air.
On this double view, I have corrected the photo AS17-134-20464 (on the right) to put back the earth at the position it should have had to be compatible with the photo AS17-134-20463, that is the earth keeping the same vertical position relatively to the lem.
This animation, made with the photo AS17-134-20463 and the original photo AS17-134-20464 shows the problem of the earth moving vertically relatively to the lem.
And this animation, made with the photo AS17-134-20463 and the photo AS17-134-20464 I modified, shows what we should have seen, that is the the earth keeping the same vertical position relatively to the lem.
On photo AS17-134-20469, it seems that the NASA used adhesive tape to fix the US plate; couldn't she have found anything better for this purpose.
Couldn't this plate have been fixed in a more efficient way, like a license plate?
On photo AS17-134-20478, the writing pad of the astronaut doesn't have the same orientation in the visor and on the photo.
In the visor, we also can see a strange grimacing alien face I have circled.
And finally we can also see the helmet of a third astronaut in profile quite close!
On photo AS17-136-20710 (right), the photographer has moved on the right relatively to AS17-136-20685; the main rock should rotate clockwise relatively to the (yellow) reference line in the background, but it doesn't seem to comply.
On the photo AS17-138-21174, relatively to the photo AS17-138-21172:
- the direction of two rocks in the foreground rotates counterclockwise (orange lines).
- the slope of the hill in the background rotates clockwise (red lines).
A new example to foreground and background rotating in opposite directions.
On photo AS17-136-20695 (left), I show two holes of which the direction (the line joining them) shows a clockwise angle relatively to the horizon line.
On the second photo AS17-136-20696 (right), by examining the artifacts, we can see that the photographer has moved forward and on the right; consequently this direction should have turned clockwise, both by the fact that the photographer has moved forward and on the right.
But it's the converse it has turned counterclockwise relatively to the horizon line!
On photo AS17-136-20829, the rover has ridden a relatively short distance, but the hill has abnormally gone up relatively to the high gain antenna.
As the hill is quite far away, the fact of riding this short distance hardly changes the distance of the rover to this hill, so the hill should appear at the same level through the high gain antenna, since the astronaut is seated, and himself remains at the same position relatively to the high gain antenna.
Except of course if the rover was meeting a hole or a bump between the two photos, but we can see that there is none!
If the astronaut turns his camera up or down (around the horizontal axis), the high gain antenna and the hill will both move, but they will move the same way, which means that the hill will remain at the same level relatively to the high gain antenna.
On this double view, I have corrected the photo AS17-136-20829 (right) to give to the hill the same vertical position relative to the high gain antenna it had on the previous photo.
This animation made with the photo AS17-136-20828 and the original photo AS17-136-20829 shows the position of the hill abnormally moving vertically relatively to the high gain antenna.
And this animation, made with the photo AS17-136-20828 and the photo AS17-136-20829 I modified, shows the hill keeping the same vertical position relatively to the high gain antenna, as it should have.
On the photo AS17-137-20979, we can see that there are no tracks behind the rear wheel of the rover we see; this fact has been reported by Jack White, but Clavius claims that it's normal for the astronaut would have projected much dust which would have completely covered these tracks.
Even if the astronauts had covered the tracks with a little dust, a part of tracks should still remain visible.
Clavius can always try to delusively persuade us that the tracks have been completely covered with lunar dust projected by the astronauts, but he will have more difficulty to explain us why the knob If have circled has a reversed shadow on the fender!
The wheel's shadow informs us on the current orientation the sunlight.
The wheel's shadow seems a little longer than the wheel's height, so the sun must be a little lower than 45°.
And the wheel's shadow is a little in bias relatively to the perpendicular of the wheel, not far from perpendicular, slightly turned counter-clockwise.
I initially made the following correspondences between the elements of the device and the shadows we see on the fender and on the wheel.
I made correspond the knob circled in orange with the shadow circled in orange, and the element circled in yellow with the shadow circled in yellow.
The anomaly, as I was seeing it, was that the knob's shadow was on the wrong side of the cylinder's shadow.
But some people have replied me that there was another knob I had ignored, that I have circled in orange on this view, and, according to them, the shadow I have circled in orange would belong to this knob.
The problem is that, given the direction of the sunlight (almost perpendicular to the wheel, evidenced by the wheel's shadow), the shadow of this knob cannot have this orientation; the orientation of this shadow rather corresponds to the other knob (the one circled in red).
In fact, the shadow I have circled in orange can be neither the horizontal knob's one, for it does not have the good orientation, nor the vertical knob's one, for it does not have the good position.
And concerning the shadow I have circled in yellow, coming from the element I have circled in yellow, we can see that it is cut by a strip of the wheel, like this strip was coming over this shadow...But the shadow is not painted on the wheel, it comes over the strip, so it should also shadow this strip!
In this photocomposition, I show how the shadows should have appeared: I have taken the shadow of the knob on the fender, turned it a quarter of a turn clockwise, and moved it to the right place (i.e. a little shifted to the left relatively to the device, for the direction of the sunlight is slightly in bias).
We can see that this shadow roughly corresponds to the shape of the horizontal knob; it is slightly turned counter-clockwise relatively to the horizontal edge of the device, which is perfectly normal since the direction of the sunlight is slightly in bias relatively to the perpendicular of the wheel.
And concerning the shadow of the lowest element of the device, which appears on the wheel, I have shadowed the missing part on the strip to make it look normal.
In fact, there is an element of the knob's shadow which is not seeming to belong to the normal shadow of the horizontal knob; I initially thought it was an abnormal element of shadow they had added, when I realized that this element was in fact probably coming from the highest corner of the vertical knob; the rest of the shadow of the vertical knob is hidden by the shadow of the horizontal knob, mixed with it.
So you can now compare the wrong shadows of the device on the fender and the wheel they show us on the photo with the right ones I have corrected.
As a bonus, the shadow I show with a red triangle obviously corresponds with the elements I have circled in red, but it appears like it was the shadow of a part of the tyre tread.
If we consider the two circled stones in the close foreground, they have moved on the right relatively to the crater; it means that the photographer has moved on the left; consequently their direction should have rotated counterclockwise, and it has rotated clockwise instead; note that the (green) horizontal line is the same on the two photos.
A crater (red line) in the foreground rotates twice more clockwise than the (yellow) reference line in the background; yet the lateral move of the camera doesn't participate to it, for the photographer has a little moved on the left, and this makes the crater rotate counterclockwise.
A new example or foreground and background rotating differently around the horizontal axis.
Photos AS17-138-21096 and AS17-138-21097 are two views of the lunar ground with a hole; the problem is that there is a stone (I circled on the top of the picture) which doesn't move correctly; it's too low on the second picture, it doesn't move like the rest.
This animation made with the two photos shows the wrong move of this stone.
On this double view, I have corrected the photo AS17-138-21097 (right) to give this stone a more plausible position.
And on this new animation made with the photo AS17-138-21096 and the photo AS17-138-21097 I modified, the stone seems effectively to make a more normal move, more in adequation with the rest.
There are also strange things on this view.
You may say it's my imagination but I find a dog's head on the spot I circled.
And on this other spot I circled, I see a cartoon animal.
You can always say that it just happens to look like them.
On photo AS17-140-21370, the shadow of the frontal parabolic antenna seems oversized comparatively to the lem's shadow.
This stereoscopic view shows the photos AS17-140-21388 (left) and AS17-140-21389 (right) of the mission Apollo 17.
The photo of the left seems to be taken farther than the photo of the right if we examine the tracks, holes, and footprints on the ground.
Of course, you can say that it just can come from the fact that the photographer has turned his camera down...but there is a sign which tells otherwise: we can see the top of the hills through the high gain antenna on the photo of the right, which we can't on the photo of the left.
I have superposed the photo AS17-140-21389 over the photo AS17-140-21388, adapting its size and orientation so to obtain an as perfect superposition as possible of the flags of the two photos, and we can see that we also have a perfect superposition of the astronauts and the high gain antennas of the two photos.
It would be perfectly normal if the photographer had not moved and only turned his camera...but in that case we would also have a perfect superposition of the hills in the background, and we don't: The hills belonging to the first photo are higher than the hills belonging to the second photo on the superposition; so the first photo has really been taken farther than the second photo, and thence the photographer and the high gain antenna have no reason to show a perfect superposition, since they are not at the same distance from the photographer as the flag!
On photo AS17-140-21388, the shadow of the flag looks really strange, as much in shape as in orientation.
On photos AS17-146-22414 and AS17-146-22415 we see two views of a very strange rock or clod of earth.
This animation made with the two photos shows the strangeness of this rock (or clod of earth).
The photos AS17-133-20329, AS17-133-20336 et AS17-133-20338 represent three views of the rover surrounded by rocks.
Between each photo, the photographer backs up and shifts on the right.
We can see that the same group of rocks which surround the rover in a circular way, and which can be seen on the three photos.
The rover progressively shifts on the right relatively to these rocks because of the shift on the right of the photographer, for it is behind them.
I have circled an interesting double rock on each of the photos.
The sequence above represents the rover on the three views.
On this sequence, we can see that the rover progressively turns clockwise, which is normal and due to the move on the right of the photographer.
And this sequence above represents the double rock I have circled on each of the photos.
On this sequence, we can conversely see that this double rock tends to turn counter-clockwise!
On photo AS17-140-21391, there is a shadow which crosses the one of the astronaut's shadow we can see in the visor and we don't see it at all on the photo (We should see it on the place I have circled it in red).
On photo AS17-147-22525, the lem can be seen on the extreme right of the visor; this photo is taken before the astronaut turns.
On photo AS17-147-22526, the lem can still be seen on the extreme right of the visor; yet this new photo is taken after the the astronaut has turned; the lem should have been pushed on the left on the visor!
On this stereoscopic view, I show on the right what we see on the reflection of the visor on the first photo, and, on the view of the right, I show what we should have seen on the reflection of the visor on the second photo: The reflection of the LM pushed more on the left toward the middle of the visor, and the reflection of the sun also pushed on the left, almost to the point of disappearing (perhaps even that it would have totally disappeared).
On photos AS17-147-22525 and AS17-147-22526, we see the rover before and after she starts turning.
A part of the rover's shadow is not compatible with the direction of the sunlight on the second photo.
On this double view I have corrected the rover's shadow on the photo AS17-147-22526 (right).
On photo AS17-147-22527, the helmet of the astronaut seems to shade his lifted arm; but the way the arm is shaded is abnormal, it couldn't be shaded this way by the helmet in reason of the spherical shape of the helmet!
On this photo, there is a part of the rover's shadow (I have circled in red) which is abnormal; on the photo of the right, I have corrected this shadow.
On this same photo, see how the shadow of the S-Band antenna is oriented on the ground.
According to the LM's shadow, the sun shines from the back of the LM to its front...but, according to the S-Band antenna's shadow, the sun shines from one side of the LM to the other one, so perpendicularly!
On photo AS17-134-20386, on the visor of the astronaut, the photographer's shadow (I have circled it in yellow) appears incorrectly oriented.
Indeed we can see the shadow of the astronaut who is photographed (on the visor's bottom); the direction of this shadow is quite different from the photographer's one.
Moreover we have the repetition of a gag we have already seen on another Apollo photo (AS17-134-20384): the photographed astronaut's shadow cuts the lower end of the flag (I have circled it in orange) in the visor, whereas it is not the case on the photo.
On photo AS17-134-20466, the stars of the flag look very strange.
I show you for instance a group of five stars compared with their normal disposition.
Even if a fold of the flag can cause a distortion of the stars, it doesn't explain everything: On the right, the star which is above two other ones should still be at equal distance from the two ones which are underneath, and the star which is on the extreme left is oversized relatively to the other ones.
On photo AS17-145-22173, there is a strange detail (I have circled in red) which appears on the shadow of the multi-colored strip of the tripod.
On photo AS17-136-20727, there is a strange thing which appears near the high gain antenna and which disappears on the next photo.
On photo AS17-146-22345, the mudguard of the right rear wheel of the rover looks obviously damaged.
Even on the moon, accidents happen!
On this close-up, you can better see the damaged mudguard.
On photo AS17-146-22367, the shadows look incoherent.
On the figure above, I prolong (by a red line) the visible part of the pole of the high gain antenna till the projection of this pole on this line (which is logically the projection of the pole on the ground).
We first can see that the directions of the shadow of the pole of the high gain antenna and the one of the wheel are then not parallel.
Moreover the ratios between the length of the shadow and the height of the object are not the same for the high gain antenna and the wheel.
On the figure above, I now draw, from the projection of the base of the high gain antenna, a (red) line parallel to the direction of the wheel's shadow.
This time, the ratios between the length of the shadow and the height of the object are closer for the high gain antenna and the wheel, but the new (red) line of the pole's shadow of the high gain antenna does not follow the visible part of the shadow of the pole on one hand, and, on the other hand, it comes too high relatively to the pole; there is more distance between the end of the pole and the ground!
It seems in fact that the shadow of the high gain antenna is shifted along with being ill oriented!
On photo AS17-146-20467, the rover is larger relatively to the height of the high gain antenna (and also the frontal camera) than on photo AS16-146-22367.
If we make a close-up on the astronaut's camera on the photos AS17-134-20385 and AS17-134-20387, we find details which change between the two photos; I have circled these details.
Why is the sun washing out the photo on AS17-136-20697 and not on AS17-136-20696, whereas it is not on AS17-136-20697 yet.
On photos AS17-134-20411 and AS17-136-20699, the sun has two different aspects; on the second photo, the sun has spokes he doesn't have on the first photo.
Here I show close-ups of the hills on the two photos.
To allow you to better see details, I have colored parts of the hill.
On each side of the main hill, we see two little hills before, that I have colored in pink and orange; on the second photo they are closer to each other than on the first photo; this can only mean one thing: On the second photo the photographer has moved away from the hill; but what's weird is that there is a little hill (I have colored in yellow) which appears on the left of the little hill on the right and which was not visible on the first photo; yet, logically, if this hill is visible on the second photo, it should also have been visible on the first photo for it would have been still less hidden on the first photo!
On photo AS17-147-22576, the tire of the front wheel looks strange and the one of the rear wheel looks very dark.
I have taken rover's wheels from another photo and placed them on the rover in the photo.
From AS17-146-22419 to AS17-146-22422 we have a series of very strange shadows:
Between photos AS17-147-22598 and AS17-147-22599, the direction of two holes we see in the foreground (red lines) rotates counterclockwise whereas the horizon (yellow line) rotates clockwise.
Notice that the photographer has moved a little on the right between the two photos, and that makes the direction of the holes turn clockwise, and thence doesn't contribute to the counterclockwise rotation of this direction.
A new example of foreground and background rotating differently...they can't help it!
There is a black object near the astronaut's shadow; when the astronaut's shadow reaches this object on the second photo, its appearance changes.
At the end of the third EVA, Cernan has taken several photos.
This one, AS17-134-20461.
Practically at the same moment, this one, AS17-134-20462.
Also at the same moment, this one, AS17-134-20463.
And this one, AS17-134-20464.
Now let's look in detail on the photo AS17-134-20461...
...The RCS appears half in shadow.
The lower part of the RCS is hardly visible.
And, if we look on this photo, AS17-134-20464, which has been taken just some seconds after AS17-134-20461...
...The RCS is also half in shadow, which is not surprising.
On AS17-134-20461 (left), the lower part of the RCS is shadowed, quite dark, but still visible...Whereas, on AS17-134-20464 (right), taken only some seconds later, the lower part of the RCS is so dark that it is no more visible, it melts with the lunar sky.
How can the lower part of the RCS be visible on one photo, and not visible on the other one, whereas the photos are taken practically at the same moment (on the earth, it wouldn't even correspond to one second difference for the sun)?
On several photos of Apollo 17, we see the earth.
We see it at the beginning of the mission, when the astronauts plant the flag, like on this photo of Schmitt taken by Cernan.
We still see it one day later (a little more).
And we see it again at the end of the mission, a little more than two days later.
All along the mission, we can see the shadow progress a little on the earth.
The lunar day is almost one month long (29.5 days).
The first fifteen days from the full moon, we can see the shadow progress on the moon till it becomes practically invisible.
Then, the next fifteen days, we can see the shadow regress again till the next full moon.
The shadow progresses and regresses on the earth, as seen from the moon, in a similar way:
The first fifteen days, the shadow progresses on the earth, and the next fifteen days it regresses again.
So, in an interval of two days, the shadow just progresses a little on the earth, and this is what we observe on the photos of the mission.
Now, let's focus on the earth on the photos on which it appears (I'll take the high definition version of the photos each time).
First on the photo AS17-134-20384.
We can see that the earth appears quite blurry.
In fact, it is not surprising that the earth appears blurry, for we can see that the photographer focuses on the foreground (the astronaut and the flag), and, when you focus on the foreground, the background appears a little blurry, not as clear as the foreground (and vice versa); as the earth is very far away, it is not surprising that it appears blurry.
Now let's consider the photo AS17-134-20387, which is taken shortly after the previous photo.
Once again, the earth appears blurry, for the same cause as for the previous photo.
Now, let's consider this photo, AS17-137-20957, which is taken a little more than one day after the previous photos (the shadow has a little progressed on the earth).
This time, very surprisingly, the earth is less blurry than on the previous photos, more clear.
Yet, the photographer is obviously focusing on the foreground again, for the rocks which are close appear very clear, very detailed.
And now, let's consider this photo, AS17-134-20461, which is taken a little more than two days after the two first photos, the photos of the astronaut planting the flag (the shadow on the earth has still a little more progressed).
And once again the earth is less blurry than on the initial photos (the photos of the astronauts planting the flag).
Yet, the astronaut is still focusing on the foreground, for the lunar module appears very clear.
So, why does the earth appear more blurry on the first photos than on the photos taken later, whereas the photographer is each time focusing on the foreground?
The fact that the shadow has a little progressed is not an excuse, the earth should appear as clear on the initial photos as on the following ones...or the earth should appear as blurry on the next photos as on the initial ones...whichever!
This stereoscopic view shows two views of the CSM on the photos AS17-145-22257 and AS17-145-22261.
I have circled some interesting views on these photos.
This stereoscopic view shows close-ups of the parts I have circled in red on the photos.
These parts contain the "UNITED STATES" plate.
On the first photo, this plate is lit, so it's normal that its background is white.
But, on the second photo, this plate is now in the shadow, so why is its background still white?
This stereoscopic view shows close-ups of the parts I have circled in orange on the photos.
On the second view, we can see that the shadow of the lateral thrusters is shorter than on the first view; therefore they are receiving the sunlight more in front, and we could expect the conic top of the CSM to be better lit; but it's the converse, the shadow has unexpectedly gained some more of it.
There is an element I have circled on the first view which is close to the lit part, and which is lit; its extension is in the shadow.
On the second photo, this element is now in full shadow; yet its extension is now lit
The photo AS17-145-22272 is still more interesting.
On it we can see the CSM almost in front...almost but not quite, it's slightly in oblique in fact; therefore the conic top of the CSM should not completely hide the body of the CSM and we should be able to see a part of this body; yet this body is completely invisible on the photo, and it's a very clear incoherence.
I have represented a body for the CSM on this modified picture.
It may not be exact, but at least we see a SM under the CM on this picture.
This stereoscopic view shows on the left a view of the CSM in the photo AS14-66-9356, and, on the view of the right, the view of the CSM in the photo AS17-145-22272.
On the photo of Apollo 14, the CSM is a little less in bias than on the photo of Apollo 17, for, if we make the ratio between the shortest side and the longest side, this ratio is a little smaller in the photo of Apollo 17, which confirms that the CSM is a little more in bias in the photo of Apollo 17.
Thence if we can see the SM in the photo of Apollo 14, we should also be able to see it in the photo of Apollo 17...and yet we don't see it!
Now, they give a clear hint that the photo is abnormal.
On the photo AS17-145-22261, we can see an antenna on the bottom of the service module, of which I show here a close-up.
On the main branch of the antenna, we can see transversal perpendicular branches that I point at with arrows.
We can also see this antenna on the photo on which we cannot see the service module, and it is the only thing of the service module we can see.
I first thought that we could not see the transversal branches of the antenna.
In fact, we can see them, I pointed at them with arrows on this view.
But, strangely, instead of being black like the main branch, they all are white.
Now, explain my how the main branch can be black and its transversal branches can be white in the same time?
Either the antenna is lit by the sun, and then both the main branch and and its transversal branches must appear white, or the antenna is shaded, and then both the main branch and its transversal branches must appear black.
What we can see here is physically impossible, and is a strong hint that the photo is fake.
And it is not the only hint they give to show that this photo is abnormal.
There is another thing of the service module that we can partially see: A cluster of lateral thrusters that I have circled.
1) We see more of one of horizontal thrusters of this cluster that the opposite one.
2) The distance between one horizontal thruster (the one we see the more) to the vertical thruster is greater than the distance of the opposite horizontal thruster to the vertical thruster.
These two hints clearly show that the cluster is not normally positioned on the service module; it is turned counter-clockwise relatively to its normal position...and it is impossible.
On photos AS17-137-20872 and AS17-140-21370 the shadows of the lem are different; obviously the sun is not shining on the same side of the lem on the two photos.
This stereoscopic view shows two close-ups of the ascending stage of the lem coming back to the CSM in Apollo 17 (AS17-149-22848 and AS17-149-22857).
They look quite different, but it may be explained by the difference of luminosity and orientation.
I have turned the one of the second photo around the vertical axis to make it closer to the one of the first photo.
The one of the second photo is also turned around the horizontal axis, but, unlike the previous orientation, I cannot correct this orientation.
There are clues to determine the direction of the sunlight:
- On the first photo we can see that the upper part of the lem's opening (which is in oblique) is completely shaded; it also shades a part of the lower part of the opening; that means that the direction of the sunlight on the first photo is not very far from the orientation of the upper part of the opening (if it was far from it, then the upper part could completely shade the lower part).
- On the second photo, the direction of the sunlight can be deduced from the shadows we see on the left of the lem; the direction of the sunlight is approximately along the yellow arrow I have represented.
The part I have circled in orange on the two photos, and which is well lit on the second photo, has an orientation which is such that it has no reason to be shaded on the first photo.
The same for the part I have circled in blue, and which is also well lit on the second photo: With the orientation it has, it has no reason to be shaded on the first photo.
On the photo of the right, the upper part of the lem's opening is more luminous than the lower part; yet, given the direction of the sunlight, the lower part is better exposed to the light than the upper part; and both are evenly lit; we might have expected them to be partially shaded.
The extreme left of the upper part of the lem's opening (circled in yellow) is less luminous than the rest; yet it is normally the part of it which is best exposed to the sunlight.
Finally, there is a shadow which prolongs into a black area (the part I circled in violet); when it goes into this black area, it should logically become black too.