The sequence of the moon passing before the earth is a fake
 Recently NASA has released a video showing the moon passing before the earth, and taken from a spaceship passing behind the moon; this video would show the "dark" side of the moon; in fact "dark" side is incorrect, for the hidden face of the moon can be lit as well as the visible face of the moon; it is dark only when the moon is fully visible to us; but, on the other hand, when the moon is completely invisible to us, its hidden face is completely lit. |
 NASA says that the animation was made as the spaceship was at the Lagrange point. The Lagrange point is the point which is between the centers of two bodies and on which the two bodies exert the same attraction force; as these forces are equal and opposed, they allow to maintain a body which is on this point exactly between these two bodies.  So, as the observation spaceship receives two attraction forces, one from the sun, and one from the earth, equal and opposed, these two forces maintain the spaceship exactly between the earth and the sun; this explains why the earth remains entirely illuminated during the whole sequence, and also perfectly stable on the image. The point of Lagrange is at one million miles away from the earth, so four times the distance of the earth to the moon. Of course, my picture does not respect scales, and is purely figurative. |
On this animation, the moon is seen passing before the earth. As the spaceship which takes the photos is exactly between the sun and the earth, it means that it corresponds with the new moon, that is the moment that the moon passes between the earth and the sun, and then appears completely dark to us, for its visible side is completely hidden to the sun, and conversely its hidden side, which then faces the sun, is completely illuminated. |
 I initially assumed that the new moon was corresponding with the apogee of the lunar orbit (the point of the orbit which is the farthest from the earth), which was seeming natural to me, for the sun tends to drag the moon away from the earth by the effect of attraction. But in fact I have been corrected on this; it seems that the new moon is independent from its apogee, and that the moon may pass between the earth and the sun before having reached its apogee. |
 As I initially assumed that the apogee was coinciding with the new moon, I first consulted a table of apogees of the moon to know the date of the animation. There was an apogee on June 23rd, and July 21st; I initially assumed the date of June 23rd which is quite close to the date of Summer solstice (June 21st), on which the earth bends uniquely radially toward the sun (of an angle of 23.5°) and not at all tangentially to its orbit around the sun. |
 But, as a matter of fact, I was wrong, for the new moon coincided with none of these dates. The new moon corresponding to the time that this animation was made occurred on July 16th, which is besides the official date that the photos of this animation were taken. |
The first thing I checked is data about the moon, and I also think that other people, who wanted to check the authenticity of the animation, also checked these data. There are two things that it is possible to check on this animation: - The moon's size - And the speed that it travels on the animation. |
 The moon is 3.67 times smaller than the earth. If this ratio was respected, the moon would appear with the size I have represented on the right on this photo, to be compared with the size of the moon we actually see on the animation. However, the moon was not at the same distance from the spaceship as the earth, but at 3/4 of this distance (the spaceship was one million miles away, and the moon is at 250,000 miles from the earth). So, this ratio of 3.67 has to be multiplied by 0.75, which gives a new ratio of 2.75. And precisely, this is the ratio between the size of the earth and the one of the moon on this animation. So, the size of the moon is in fact correct on the animation. |
 The diameter of the earth is 12756km. But, the moon being at 3/4 of the distance of the earth to the camera, this diameter represents a distance of 12756*0.75=9567km for the moon itself. Near its apogee, the moon has an orbital speed of 3480 km/h. At that speed, it takes 9567/3480=2.75 hours to travel a distance equivalent to the diameter of the earth on the animation. 2.75 hours represents for the earth a rotation of 2.75*360/24=41° (the earth makes a full turn is 24 hours). It means that, while the moon is travelling a distance corresponding to the diameter of the earth, the earth should turn of this angle of 41°. So, I have taken two photos of the moon from the animation, one just before the right side of the earth touches the earth, and one just before this right side is about to leave the earth, and checked if the earth turned of an angle of 41° between the two photos. It seems to be the case; you might think that it turns more than that, but you must not forget that the earth is a sphere and not plane, and that distances are not linear and not proportional with angles. There is a trigonometric computation to make to evaluate the rotation angle, and I concluded from this computation that the angle that the earth turned between the too photos is quite close to the expected angle of 41°, I couldn't find a clear difference. So, in conclusion the moon seems to be passing at the correct speed on the animation. |
So, does the fact that the checked data on the moon are correct means that the animation is really authentic, and that it really shows the moon passing before the earth taken at one million miles away from the earth? In fact, no, there really are problems, but there are very shrewd, and more difficult to detect that just checking direct data on the moon. |
 Problem N°1 |
On this animation, the moon is not passing horizontally, but in bias, which shows that its orbit appears inclined. The moon's orbit is practically in the same plane as the solar orbit of the earth, which means that the solar orbit has the same inclination on this view. You can also see that the spin axis of the earth is inclined the same, or almost. |
 On this new animation, I have turned the original animation of 25° clockwise. The result is that the moon is now passing horizontally, and so that the plane of the solar orbit of the earth is also horizontal. The spin axis of the earth also appears to be vertical. Because the spaceship is between the sun and the earth, being at the Lagrange point, the earth appears entirely illuminated, and the moon, which is currently passing between the earth and the sun, cuts the earth by its middle. We can perfectly see parts of continents, and in particular North America near the top, and Australia near the bottom. The way that we see the earth spin suggests that the earth's spin axis is nor far from perpendicular to the plane of the solar orbit, but in reality it is not. |
 In absolute the earth's spin axis has always the same attitude, but, relatively to the sun, the way it spins as viewed from the sun changes along its orbit. |
 At the date that the photos were taken, the earth was, very approximately, at the position circled in red on the solar orbit. It was 25 days after the summer solstice (on which the spin axis bends exclusively radially) , and 67 days before the Autumnal equinox (on which it bends exclusively tangentially); it was more bending radially than tangentially; it was bending radially of an angle of around 17°, and tangentially of an angle of around 6°. |
So, it is not abnormal than the spin axis appears almost vertical on the turned animation, since the spin axis mostly bends radially. |
 Initially I had used a spinning sphere of which the spin axis is bending radially only. This spinning sphere is tilted like the earth appears in summer solstice. The horizontal lines represent latitudes and the vertical lines represent longitudes. But since the date of the animation is farther from the summer solstice than I initially thought, I needed to be able to represent the earth with all possible values for the radial and tangential angles. |
 So, what did I do? I didn't forget I was an engineer, and I wrote myself a program which could draw the network of latitudes and longitudes of a spinning sphere, for all possible orientations of the spin axis; so, in order to draw the spinning sphere, the radial and tangential angles, which define the orientation of the spin axis, are parameters. The animation above shows the result obtained with null radial and tangential angles, i.e. a perfectly vertical spin axis. However, the earth is never seen spinning that way from the sun (and so neither from the spaceship which is between the sun and the earth). |
 I did even better: I started from a plane world map, and I wrote a program which uses it to reconstitute the earth, at all possible rotation angles of the spin axis; this program also takes into account the radial and tangential angles defining the orientation of the spin axis. This program is of course a little bit more complicated than the previous program, but, as you are going to see, it was worth writing it. |
 The animation above shows the result obtained with null radial and tangential angles, i.e. a perfectly vertical spin axis. Like already said, the earth is never seen spinning that way from the sun. Now we can use these programs to represent the spinning earth all along its orbit around the sun. |
 June 21st corresponds with summer solstice. As this date the earth is bending uniquely radially relatively to the sun (of an angle of 23.5°). The north pole is bending toward the sun, and conversely the south pole is bending away from the sun. |
 If I use the first program to draw the spinning sphere with the corresponding parameters, here is the obtained result. We can see that the top of the spinning sphere is visible, while its bottom is hidden. |
 And if I use the second program to draw the spinning earth, here is the obtained result. All parts of the earth come down relatively to the earth with its spin axis vertical. We well see the north pole, but the south pole is almost hidden. |
 September 22nd corresponds to the Autumnal equinox. At this date the spin axis bends uniquely tangentially relatively to the solar orbit, of an angle of 23.5° counter-clockwise. |
 If I use the first program to draw the spinning sphere with the corresponding parameters, here is the obtained result. The poles are at the two summits of the sphere. |
 And if I use the second program to draw the spinning earth, here is the obtained result. The earth appears turned counter-clockwise. |
 December 21st corresponds with winter solstice. As this date the earth is bending uniquely radially relatively to the sun (of an angle of 23.5°), but the other way than in summer solstice. The south pole is bending toward the sun, and conversely the north pole is bending away from the sun. |
 If I use the first program to draw the spinning sphere with the corresponding parameters, here is the obtained result. We can see that the bottom of the spinning sphere is visible, while its top is hidden. |
 And if I use the second program to draw the spinning earth, here is the obtained result. All parts of the earth come up relatively to the earth with its spin axis vertical. We well see the south pole, but the north pole is mostly hidden. |
 Finally March 20th corresponds with the Vernal equinox. At this date the spin axis bends uniquely tangentially relatively to the solar orbit, of an angle of 23.5° clockwise. |
 If I use the first program to draw the spinning sphere with the corresponding parameters; here is the obtained result. The poles are at the two summits of the sphere. |
 And if I use the second program to draw the spinning earth, here is the obtained result. The earth appears turned clockwise. |
 Now what happens with the orientation of the spin axis as the earth orbits the sun? When it starts from the summer solstice, for instance, with a maximal radial angle (of 23.5°) and a null tangential angle, progressively, as it commes closer to the Autumnal equinox, the radial angle is going to decrease while the tangential angle is conversely going to increase, till the tangential angle reaches its maximal value of 23.5°, and the radial angle becomes null on the position of the Autumnal equinox. And it is the same all along the orbit of the earth around the sun. So, if we use the first program to show how the earth if going to be seen spinning along its full orbit, it gives the result above. |
 And, if we use the second program to show how the earth is seen spinning along its annual orbit, it gives this. Notice that I have not made the earth actually spin, for the earth makes 4 full rotations on each image of the animation, and, if I had made the earth spin at its normal speed relatively to this animation, it would have spun insanely fast, in a way that it was not possible to represent it. |
 However, what I can do is to make the earth spin slower than normal along the animation, to show that it spins as it makes its orbit around the sun, and it gives this result. Nice, isn't it? |
As already indicated, at the date of the animation, the earth was approximately at the position indicated with a cross on its orbit. It was closer to the summer solstice than to the autumnal equinox, and was bending radially of an angle around 17°, and tangentially of an angle around 6°. |
 If I use the first program to draw the spinning sphere with the corresponding parameters, here is the obtained result. This time we have a combination of the two orientation angles of the spin axis instead of having one of the two orientation angles null. |
 And if I use the second program to draw the spinning earth, here is the obtained result. We see the spinning earth with both orientation angles of the spin axis not null. |
 I have superposed a grid of latitudes and longitudes made with the first program over the earth of the NASA animation, in order to see if the artefacts of the earth follow the lines of latitude along the rotation of the earth. It seems that the various artefacts of the earth tend to move up relatively to the lines of latitude, but I needed something more conclusive. |
 So, I also compared the NASA animation with a representation of the earth made with the second program, with the current orientation angles of the spin axis at the date of the animation. And then I noticed something remarkable: - North America appears higher on the earth of NASA animation (left of the stereoscopic view) than on the representation of the spinning earth at the same date (right of the stereoscopic view); this would mean that the earth of NASA animation has a radial angle smaller than its actual angle at the date the animation was made (I checked it by taking measurements). - But, conversely, Australia appears lower on the earth of NASA animation than on the representation of the spinning earth at the same date; this would conversely mean that the earth of NASA animation has a radial angle greater than its actual angle at the date the animation was made (I also checked it by taking measurements). So, if we consider the north hemisphere, NASA animation as a smaller radial angle than the representation of the spinning earh at the same date, but, if we consider the south hemisphere, NASA animation has conversely a greater radial angle than the representation of the spinning earh at the same date; there is an incompatibility between the two hemispheres. There is a big problem here, for NASA animation does not simply differ from the real representation of the spinning earth, it is simply impossible, and it does not correspond with any other date of the earth along its orbit. In fact there is an explanation which is very simple: The Australia of the animation is undersized, it is smaller than it should be.  In fact, the simplest way to realize the problem is by comparing the last image of the NASA sequence with an image of the true rotation of the earth (obtained from a valid planisphere, by putting it to a sphere, and by applying the radial and tangential inclination angles which correspond to the date of the animation) which corresponds to the same moment of the earth's rotation, and by putting the two earths at the same size to ease the comparison; and we can very clearly see that the Australia of the NASA animation has a big problem, it is abnormal, too small relatively to the picture of the real animation. This time we have something really conclusive to show that NASA animation cannot be real.  Someone has contested the validity of my representation of the earth, so I have purchased a globe, that we can trust to be real (given its price, we can assume it is). I have disposed this globe the same way as it was at the time of the animation. Unfortunately, I could not make the same comparison, because, when I put the globe so that Australia appears the same way as on the last image of NASA animation, it is mostly hidden by the globe's support. So I have made the comparison differently, by comparing America instead; but I didn't have to regret it, for you can see that North America has a very serious problem on NASA animation, still more visible than the problem about Australia on the previous comparison, and this time this comparison is made with an independent reference that my contradictor cannot contest. |
Problem N°2 |
 The new moon happens when the moon is exactly between the earth and the sun. We have seen that the spaceship was exactly between the sun and the earth, being at the Lagrange point. Consequently, the new moon happens on the animation when the moon appears on the center of the earth. It corresponds to this photo on the turned animation. |
It is interesting to know at what time the new moon occurred at the time the photos were taken. Indeed, the time zone which was facing both the sun and the moon at the moment of the new moon is the one on which it was noon at that moment. As the moon is on the center of the earth at the moment of the new moon, it means that, when the moon appears on the center of the earth on the animation, it must face the time zone on which it was noon at the moment of the new moon. The table above indicates the various phases of the moon in the month of July 2015. It tells us that, during the NASA animation, the new moon occurred at exactly 1:24 (AM) UTC. |
 This animation highlights the standard time zone on the world map, which corresponds to UTC time. if it was 1:24 on this time zone at the moment of the new moon, it means that the time zone on which it was noon at the moment of the new moon is ten zones and a half east of the standard zone. |
 It corresponds with the time zone I made blink on this animation. It was noon on this time zone at the exact moment of the new moon which occurred during the NASA animation. You can see the extreme east of russia on this time zone, and you can also see that the extreme east of Australia touches it in the South hemisphere. This is the time zone on which the moon should be when it is on the center of the earth in the animation. |
 Yet, you can see on the image extracted from the (turned) animation that the moon does not face at all this time zone when it appears on the center of the earth, but the one of Alaska instead. So there is a clear difference between the time zone on which the moon should be when it appears on the center of the earth (new moon), and the one it actually is on the animation. |
 The earth was correctly oriented to correspond with the orientation it should have at the moment of the new moon on this image of the animation, and it is on this image that the moon should appear on the center of the earth...but, as you can see, far from it! |
 So, we should have seen this on this image of the animation. |
 So, there is a clear shift between the logical position the moon should have on the animation, and the one it has. In other words, the moon is passing too early on the animation, a shift of several hours! A new clue that the NASA animation is wrong. Someone pointed out that we see a thin black line on the right of the moon, and he takes it as a proof that the spaceship would not exactly be on the axis earth-sun; I answered him that, first, the property of the Lagrange point makes that the spaceship is exactly on this axis, and second, when the time zone it was noon at the exact time of the new moon appears on the middle of the earth, the moon is on the right of the earth, and, if the animation was correct, it would mean that the spaceship is on the left of the axis earth-sun, and therefore it is the left side of the moon which should be shaded, and not the right side, end even more importantly. |
Now, someone has pointed out that there is a black line which appears on the right side of the moon, and he takes it as an evidence that the spaceship is not exactly between the sun and the earth, which would explain that the moon is not on the time zone it was noon at the moment of the new moon when the moon is on the center of the earth. But there is a big problem with his assumption, that I am going to explain.  If the observation spaceship is on the left of the axis earth-sun, when the moon is between the earth and the sun, it appears on the right of the time zone which was facing the sun at that moment, and the spacehip also sees a shadow on the left of the moon and the left of the earth. I have exaggerated the shadows on the moon and the earth, my figure is only descriptive and does not claim to be exact.  Conversely, if the observation spaceship is on the right of the axis earth-sun, when the moon is between the earth and the sun, it appears on the left of the time zone which was facing the sun at that moment, and the spaceship also sees a shadow on the right of the moon and the right of the earth. So I think that you see the problem with my contradictor's observation by now: If the black line which appears on the right of the moon was coming from the fact that the spaceship is not aligned with the axis earth-sun, it would mean that it is on the right of this axis, and therefore the moon should be on the left of the time zone it was noon at the moment of the new moon, and not on its right. So, his observation cannot stand, not only the shadow would be on the left of the moon if its observation was standing, and moreover it would be more important. Moreover, the fact that the spaceship is on the Lagrange point guarantees that it is exactly on the axis earth-sun, for it is precisely the property of the Lagrange point.  In fact there is effectively a thin shadow which appears on the right of the moon before it reaches the center of the earth, for the moon is then on the left of the axis earth-sun; when the moon is on the center of the earth this shadow should disappear, and, after the moon has left the earth's center, this shadow should move on the left of the moon. |
Problem N°3 |
We have already seen that the spaceship was placed between the sun and the earth; consequenly the earth is entirely illuminated, there is not a single shaded area on it. Thence the face of the moon we see should also be entirely illuminated. So why is the moon we see so dark, why isn't it brighter? We don't even see its relief. Of course, it is not the same relief as the one on the visible side of the moon, but it makes no doubt that the moon also has a relief on its hidden side, it is very unlikely that it wouldn't have. |
 This is a photo of the moon taken from space. You can see that it appears much brighter than the moon of the NASA animation. |
 If we replace the moon of the NASA animation with this moon, we obtain a much brighter moon passing over the earth. |
 If we compare the two animations, the difference is extremely visible. |
 Now you are going to say that we were in favorable conditions, for the moon is seen alone on the previous photo, whereas it is seen over the earth in the NASA animation. On this new photo, the moon is taken with the brilliant atmosphere of the earth in the foreground. The fact that the moon appears quite small on this photo makes that it has very unfavorable lighting conditions, less favorable than on the NASA animation. |
 Yet, on this close-up of the moon of the latter photo, if the moon is effectively duller than on the first photo, it is still brighter than on the NASA animation. |
 Indeed, on this image comparing the moon of NASA animation with the moon of the close-up of the second photo, we can see that the moon of NASA animation is definitively darker than this one. |
 And if we now use the moon of the close-up of the second photo to replace the moon on NASA animation, we obtain a moon which is definitively less dark than on NASA animation. |
 The comparison of the two animations leaves no doubt about that.  And, even if the moon was still darker than what I have shown, it would still be abnormal. You can all observe that the moon appears yellow to us, and not white. This is a photo of the moon taken with a very good camera. It clearly appears yellow. And this photo is taken through the atmosphere, which must fade the yellow color.  I show here an animation, which shows on the left the moon of the animation, and on the right the real moon of the first photo, and I gradually decrease the luminosity of the real moon. And, even when the real moon is consistently darker, we still can see its relief, and also it keeps the yellow tint we can't see at all on the moon of the animation.  For instance, here what happens if I darken the photo with the earth in the foreground and the moon in the background: The moon and the earth become darker, but the moon keeps its yellow tint, it does not become grey.  Now you could say that we see the visible side of the moon, and that we see its hidden side on the animation; but there is no reason to think that the moon would have a different composition on its hidden side than on its visible side. Moreover we can see a little of its hidden side thanks to the libration, and we can see that it looks like the visible side. |
Problem N°4 |
Look at the clouds on the animation of the NASA: They move with the rotation of the earth, they don't have a life independent from the earth, they seem stuck to the earth, glued on it. You might think that, during the time of the animation they don't move enough so that their movement relatively to the earth could be noticed? Wrong!  This is a meteo animation made by Météo France. It spans on the same duration as the one of the animation, five hours. And you can see on this animation that the clouds move very notably during this time period. Of course, this animation was not made the day that the NASA animation was made, but it is more than unlikely that the clouds would have remained static over the whole earth when we see them move that much on this animation.  Now someone asked me if I was sure the clouds were not moving over the earth as the earth's rotation changes their shape. So I have chosen a particular cloud which is stuck to the coast of North America; I have circled this cloud.  On this stereoscopic view I show enhancements of this cloud on the first and last images of the NASA animation. And you can see that, if the earth's rotation has changed its aspect, it is in fact still the same, it still appears stuck to the coast of North America...  ...and it appears likewise all the animation long. Even if the problem of the static clouds was not accepted, the previous points are strong enough to definitively discredit the animation of NASA, especially the two first ones. |
To end with the anomalies shown on this video, I'll still say that the clouds have strange shapes on this earth. |
 Indeed... |
 This cloud is really strange. It represents some sort of weird face. Of course, this is not really conclusive, for clouds can also really have strange shapes on earth, but the previous points are conclusive. |
So, finally, this animation does not contain only one problem, but three problems. discrediting it. It is obvious that the animation was intentionally turned so that the problems shown on the earth would not immediately appear. Indeed, they only appeared to me when I turned the animation. The whistleblowers who made this animation made it in a such way that the anomalies would not immediately appear, but they also knew that guys who would examine it more attentively would be able to find them. |
 I have decided to build an animation, which avoids all the problems I showed. I first reconsituted a spinning earth corresponding to the earth of the time of the animation (as seen from the sun). The only thing which is debatable are clouds; I have put random clouds on the earth on my animation, for I have no way to know how they were at that time (and it would have been very complicated to reproduce them exactly like they were if I could have known how they were); I have not made them move either, I had no way to know how they were moving the day that the animation was made. The color of the oceans I have chosen is also debatable. Apart from this the continents are correct, the moon is synchronized with the earth's rotation. |
 And I have used this spinning earth to build a new animation showing the moon passing before the earth in the time of the new moon of July 16th. On my animation: 1) The earth appears correctly, with continents correctly placed and sized, and the earth spins like it should at the time of the animation. 2) The moon of my animation is synchronized with the earth's rotation; when it appears on the center of the earth, it is on the time zone on which it was noon at the time of the new moon. 3) And it has a more probable luminosity (I have chosen a luminosity which is halfway between the two moons I presented in my previous video). This animation shows something more probable than what NASA's animation shows (even if the clouds I have put over the earth are very probably wrong). But at least my animation shows something plausible, and, if NASA had shown this kind of animation, I could not have made my video explaining why NASA's animation had every chance to be a fake. |
 That makes the whole difference between an animation which can be proven wrong, and another one which is more plausible, and more difficult to prove wrong. Of course, all the errors made by the engineers are absolutely intentional, for it is obvious that they would not have been dumb enough not to avoid all the errors I have pointed out. And, if they intentionally made errors which allow to prove the animation was wrong, the explanation was simple: Since they could not directly expose the hoax (a regrettable accident could happen, like the one in which Thomas Baron found death), they used this way to indirectly expose it. |
