 On photos AS14-64-9047 and AS14-64-9048, we can see footprints near the tube. Between the two photos, there is a rotation that is evidenced by the rotation of the tube's shadow. I have circled in red the footprints on each of the photos. |
 On these close-ups of the footprints, we can see that these footprints are obviously different. |
 The photos AS14-64-9139 and AS14-64-9140 show the astronaut beside his jeep in the distance. The astronaut is not on the jeep, so the jeep is still. On the two photos we find a recognizable triangle of stones I have circled in red. Between the two photos, the astronaut turns his camera on the right; consequently his shadow is logically pushed on the left with the rest of the scene. I am going to show you a real demonstration to explain you what's wrong with these two photos.  On this pair of photos, I have placed a triangle of stones on the ground, and a stool in the background (symbolizing the jeep). Between the two photos, I move on the right; this is visible because the triangle of stones has moved on the left relatively to the stool in the background. Consequently I have got closer to the triangle of stones, and my shadow (which keeps following me) too.  Between these two photos, from my second position (closer to the triangle of stones) I have just turned my camera on the right; my shadow has been pushed on the left of the photo. Everything has moved on the left the same. So the distance between my shadow and the triangle of stones doesn't change by the fact of turning my camera.  So now, if I compare the first photo with the third photo, we can see that the distance between my shadow and the triangle of stones has been reduced; this comes exclusively from the fact that I have moved on the right, the fact of turning my camera has changed nothing to it (all the objects move the same when you turn your camera).  So now, we can better see what's wrong with the two Apollo photos: The position of the triangle of stones has a little moved on the left relatively to the jeep in the background: This means that the photographer has a little moved on the right. Consequently the distance between his shadow and the triangle of stones has been reduced. Then the photographer has also turned his camera on the right; all objects (including the shadow) have moved on the left, but they have moved the same; so the distance between the photographer's shadow and the triangle of stones is still a little shorter than on the first photo. If we measure the distance between the shadow and the triangle of stones on the two photos, we should find a smaller value on the second photo (the right one) than on the first one (the left one); but it's the converse, it's longer on the second photo. A distance which becomes longer instead of becoming shorter, shall we call that an anomaly? I think we can! |
 I represent here on the photo of the right how the photographer's shadow should have been positioned on the second photo. |
 And on the photo AS14-64-9138, the photographer's shadow has completely disappeared. Yet, it has no reason to disappear, for it is almost horizontally at the same distance from the jeep and the astronaut, which leaves it visible on the photo. |
 I represent here on the photo of the right how the photographer's shadow should have appeared on the photo on which it is not visible. |
 In the visor of the astronaut on photo AS14-64-9173, what we see looks rather strange. I can see what looks like a bear's head! |
 On photo AS14-68-9405, the astronaut's helmet looks rather strange: His visor is half hidden! |
 What's this strange flying object. A flying saucer? |
 On this couple of photos (AS14-66-9229 and AS14-66-9230), we see an element of shadow of the LEM which is different on the two photos. We also see the astronaut who has his hand before his visor; he moves his hand a little farther away, and a sun's reflection appears on his visor. |
 But, if we look closer at the visors on the two photos, we can see that the sun's reflection of the second photo is on a location of the visor which was not shielded by the hand on the first photo. |
 I indicate here with an arrow where this sun's reflection should be on the first photo; it's well above the hand of the astronaut. For the astronaut to block this reflection with his hand, the light source should have to be oriented lower than the horizontal, it's not the case with the sun. |
 On this double view, the photo on the left represents the photo AS14-66-9229, and the photo on the right what it should actually be! |
 Here in Apollo 14 we have two views (AS14-66-9231 and AS14-66-9232) of the astronaut holding the flag and we can see the photographer's shadow. So what's wrong with these photos?  If you remind my little lesson about the photographer's shadow, when the photographer has the sun right in his back, his shadow is on the middle of the photo, and he is seen facing it, not in profile.  If he turns his camera on the left, his shadow is pushed on the right, and he is seen in profile oriented on the left.  And if he turns his camera on the right, his shadow is pushed on the left, and he is seen in profile oriented on the right. So, now we can better see what's wrong. On the first photo the photographer's shadow is seen on the middle of the photo, and is seen facing the photo; so everything is normal. But on the second photo his shadow is still on the middle of the photo (or almost) but it has a strong profile oriented on the left incompatible with the position of the shadow on the photo! This is undeniably an incoherence! |
 And, on the following photo, the photographer's shadow is also seen in an important profile and almost on the middle of the photo, but in the other direction for a change! |
 But that's not all. Several moon hoax debunkers have posted photos on the net to show that shadows are not always parallel. They are not always parallel indeed, but they however always follow a rule: They always converge toward a common point, including the photographer's shadow. Let's see if the photos of Apollo also follow this rule.  Well, not exactly, the directions of the shadows do not al all converge toward a common point, very far from it; they go in completely anarchic, illogical directions. Therefore this photo has certainly not been taken on the moon! |
 On photo AS14-66-9255, if we look well, we can see that there is something strange hiding behind the LEM's engine. |
 I have added a little luminosity to allow you to better see what it is...and it's the face of a red devil! |
 This close-up allows you to better see him. Handsome, isn't he? |
 On the photos AS14-66-9256 and AS14-66-9258 we can see a black object near the foot of the LEM which seems to be different on the two photos. |
 On these close-ups of this object on the two photos, we can see that this object effectively looks different. |
 On photo AS14-66-9259 (left on figure K.19), the lem’s engine is taken from some distance. On photo AS14-66-9261 (right on same figure), the lem’s engine is taken closer, but, strangely, its shadow has shortened! It must probably be a variable shadow engine! |
 On this couple of two photos (AS14-66-9305 and AS14-66-9306), the astronaut is taking a photograph of the lem with the "sun" just behind. |
 Between the two photos the astronaut has turned his camera on the right; but it's not the only thing he has done: He has also moved on the right. Because of his move, the sun is partially hidden by the lem on the second photo. Apparently what we see of the sun is the part which is not hidden by the lem... |
 ...But apparently only, for in fact most of the part we see is also hidden by the lem: I have grayed a part of the LEM which is washed out by the sun. On the photo of the right, I have circled this part of the LEM. And we can see that the sun is in bigger part contained in this part. That means we can see the sun through the LEM like it was transparent! |
 Since the sun is almost entirely hidden by the lem, this is what we should have seen on AS14-66-9306. |
 On photo AS14-66-9324, there is a weird object near the flag. |
 Most strange, isn't it? |
 On the photos AS14-66-9324 and AS14-66-9338, you can see that the flag has two very different orientations. Yet you can see that the perspective is (almost) the same: You find the same artifacts on the ground disposed along the same direction. |
 On the two photos of the CPLEE (AS14-67-9364 and AS14-67-9365) there is one photo on which there is a letter missing on the CPLEE. |
 On these close-ups, on the second photo we can see the 'S', but we can't see the 'N' which has yet the same size as the 'S'. |
 On these two photos of the CPLEE (AS14-67-9370 and AS14-67-9371), we see a part of the CPLEE which disappears on the second photo. |
 On these close-ups of the CPLEE, we can see what this part is. There is a stabilizing leg which is present on the first photo, but obviously absent on the second one. |
 On this pair of photos in Apollo 14 (AS14-67-9376 and AS14-67-9377), we have two views of the ALSEP under two different angles. Would there be something wrong with these two photos?  On this double view, I have taken two views of a table representing the ALSEP. Before the table I have placed a ribbon representing the big hole we see before the ALSEP on the Apollo photos. And, behind the table, I have placed three stones representing the three holes we see behind the ALSEP on the Apollo photos. Between the two views, I move on the left, and I orient my camera so that the little table is on the center of the photo again. Consequently to my move, the big hole has moved on the right relatively to the table, and the stones in the background have moved on the left relatively to the table. But the table and its shadow also show a rotation on the second photo relatively to the first photo.  Now I can turn the table manually like I have done in this new view so that the manual rotation compensates the optical rotation created by my lateral move. But the orientation of the table's shadow remains different, because the sun didn't allow me to turn him! Now we can better understand what's wrong with the Apollo photos. On the second photo, the big hole has moved on the right relatively to the ALSEP, and the holes in the background have moved on the left.  This shows that the photographer has moved on the left between the two photos, and he has reoriented his camera to have the ALSEP on the center of the photo again. Like in my example, the ALSEP and its shadow should show an optical rotation, and it's not the case.  The direction of the ALSEP's shadow should have changed approximately like I show it by a red arrow. But what's confusing is that there is a little flag with was just before the ALSEP's shadow on the first photo, and is still just before this shadow on the second photo.  One only understands the trick if he observes the orientation of this flag on the two photos: It's clearly not the same. This change of orientation of the flag is in fact a signal from the fakers, it means: Hey look, we have moved this flag.  In fact this flag has been moved by the fakers from its old position to a new position which makes believe that the shadow of the second photo is normal. Now the ALSEP's orientation could be corrected by a manual rotation of the ALSEP. But how could you change the orientation of the ALSEP's shadow? Unless of course if your "sun" is a projector you can easily move! |
 On this couple of photos (AS14-67-9385 and AS14-67-9386), we see two views of a reflector. |
 If we look attentively, the footprints on the right of the reflector seem to converge toward its front on the first photo, and to diverge from its front on the second photo. You are going to tell me: We don’t see them very well on the second photo, are you sure they really diverge? There is a simple way to check it: On the second photo, we only see the right part of the closer footprint and not its left part; it was converging toward the front of the reflector like on the previous photo, it would be the converse! |
 On the photos AS14-68-9450 and AS14-68-9451, we first have a first view of a lunar rock. |
 On the photos AS14-68-9452 and AS14-68-9453, we can see the same perfectly recognizable lunar rock as the one we saw in the previous couple of photos, but with different rocks in the foreground. On each of these photos we can see two objects lying on a rock: A plastic goblet and a hammer (that I have circled in red on each photo)! |
 On the first photo, the plastic goblet is transparent (they have even squashed it to better show it's transparent) and the hammer is matt, whereas on the other photo it's the converse! And what's a plastic goblet doing on the moon? Is there a drink distributor on the moon? What does it offer? Coca-cola? |
 We here have two views of a rock (AS14-68-9471 and AS14-68-9472) with two little rocks, one before and one after, one view from far, and one view closer. A little real demonstration is going to show what's wrong between the two photos.  On this double view, I have wrapped my rucksack in plastic to symbolize the big rock, and placed two colored boxes before and after. On the first view, my "rock" is taken from far; the two colored boxes seem stuck to the "rock". But on the second view taken closer, as the angle of view is different, the two boxes are now well separated from the "rock".  On the first apollo photo, taken from far, the two little rocks seem stuck to the big rock. On the second apollo photo, taken closer, the little rock which is before is now well separated from the big rock. But the little rock which is after the big rock still appears stuck to the big rock and is not separated from it! |
 On this photo, I show how the rock which is after the big rock should be positioned relatively to the big rock on the close-up. |
 on the right photo (AS14-64-9073), the head of the photographer's shadow has got closer to the lem, which means that the photographer got closer to the lem (if he just moves his camera upward or downward, the head of the shadow will remain at the same distance from the lem). Consequently, we should see on the left photo (which therefore was taken from farther) the device of which we see the shadow on the right photo (or at least a part of its shadow). |
 Between photos AS14-64-9088 and AS14-64-9089, the astronaut has just pivoted (we can see it by examining the ground), but the luminosity changes completely; there was a halo on the left of the astronaut on the first photo, which indicates in which direction the sun is shining, and, on the second photo, this halo switches on the right while the photographer has turned the camera on the right, and this would indicate another direction of the sun.  And, on AS14-64-9089, we can see that the right boot of the astronaut projects a shadow which is too thin if we compare it with the shadow of his legs. |
 Between photos AS14-64-9096 and AS14-64-9097 we can see that the photographer managed to move in one direction and in the same time perfectly keep the same position in the other direction; these astronauts are really talented! |
 On photos AS14-64-9119 and AS14-64-9121 the shadow I have circled in the close-ups I show is inverted. |
 On photo AS14-64-9173, in the visor of the astronaut, we see the reflection of two persons (I have circled in red), and we even see their shadows (I have circled in yellow). |
 On photo AS14-65-9210 (right) the camera has moved on the right (the engine has moved on the left relatively to the holes); the vertical engine should have rotated counterclockwise relatively to the horizon line (yellow line), but it has rotated clockwise instead! One more example of foreground and background rotating in opposite directions, the favorite trick of the fakers. |
 On photo AS14-66-9302 a light source suddenly appears like it wasn't still close enough on the first photo (AS14-66-9301); it generates the shadow of the astronaut which is longer than on other photos. |
 On photo AS14-67-9362 (left) the edge which is most folded doesn't have the same position relatively to the white cap as on photo AS14-67-9363 (right). |
 On photo AS14-67-9372 (left) there is a wire which turns toward the rear of the magnetometer, and on photo AS14-67-9373 (right) the same wire turns in the opposite direction. |
 On photo AS14-67-9378 (left) and AS14-67-9379 (right), there is a part of shadow (I have circled in red) which is different on the close-ups I show. |
 On photo AS14-67-9380 (left) there are two wires crossing which are not tight, and on photo AS14-67-9381 (right) the same wires are tight. |
 Here is the famous photo on which we see the shadows of the rocks in the foreground and the shadow of the lem in the background consistently diverge (AS14-68-9487). The Mythbusters have made a demonstration to show that it was possible with the help of the relief. in Goddard's Journal, there is an eloquent photo which gives the explanation of the divergence of the shadows; in their demonstration, they have reproduced rocks as close as possible as to the ones of the photo; but their demonstration contains in fact a clue which shows the real anomaly:  You can see that the end of the shadow of the bigger rock is different on Goddard's demonstration than on the Apollo photo; on the Apollo photo there obviously is a part of the shadow missing, it's not regular like on Goddard's demonstration! |
 On photo AS14-68-9486 (left) objects are clearer than on photo AS14-68-9487 both in the foreground and in the background as I show in close-ups; so I'm wondering what the photographer did focus his camera on the second photo, if all objects are more blurry than on the first photo! And there is a darkened part on the second photo which was corresponding to a brightly lit part on the first photo. |
 On photo AS14-68-9423 (right) the sun has obviously moved on the right relatively to the photo AS14-68-9422 (left) if we consider its position relatively to the artifacts on the ground on the two photos.  I have made a panoramic with the two photos by making the big hole exactly match on the two photos (we don't see the astronaut's shadow on the second photo, he has obviously moved away on the second photo); If we draw the lines joining the sun's reflections, they normally meet at the center of the sun, but their point of intersection is too high relatively to what we see on AS14-68-9422. |
 The photo AS14-76-10331 (above) is extremely weird. We see a very strange white shape. I have circled some interesting details on it. First we are going to get interested into the pilot we see on the photo (I have circled his face in red).  Here is a photo of the Apollo 14 crew.  The only astronaut of this crew who looks like the man of the photo is Stu Roosa; the other members of the crew are too different. But Stu Roosa was also the only astronaut not to travel in the Lem. So the Apollo photo was necessarily taken in the CSM, it could not be taken in the Lem.  This is what the instrument panel was looking like in the CSM. On the left we can see the onboard computer, with the keyboard below, and the display above the keyboard.  The instrument panel on the Apollo photo looks quite different. we can see the keyboard of the computer (I circled in yellow), but most of the display of the computer is hidden by a book (circled in red) which is fixed above. How can it be that this display is hidden by the book? Wasn't the pilot needing the display to control the computer? It's possible to partially guess what's on the book; so I made a close-up of the right of this book (circled in orange).  And this is what I obtained when I made this close-up; we can see what looks like a sort of bird. What has a bird got to do in an Apollo mission?  I show here a close-up of the part I circled in blue on the Apollo photo. We can see what looks like an animal; is it the mascot of the crew?  On the top of the photo we can see something strange (I circled in orange on the Apollo photo) which obviously doesn't belong to the structure of the CSM. I show here a close-up of it rotated; it makes me think of a pen (a ballpoint pen or a propelling pencil). This photo is definitively strange! |
 In the mission Apollo 12, there is a sequence of photos, which goes from AS12-47-6880 to AS12-47-6895, and which shows an earth rise on the moon. In fact, unlike the sun on earth, the earth rises only because the command module moves around the moon; if the command module was immobile relatively to the moon, the earth would also be immobile and would not move up. It is the fact that the command module orbits the moon which makes the earth go up.  Likewise, there is a sequence of photos in the mission Apollo 14, which goes from AS14-66-9224 to AS14-66-9228, and which also shows an earth rise on the moon.  The holes we see on the two sequences are the same, showing that the command module was following the same trajectory around the moon in the two missions. Apollo believers have pointed out that it was not abnormal, for the landing sites of Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 are very close; I'll reply that it is not because these landing sites were close that the command module necessarily followed the same orbit in the two missions. Then the Apollo believers will reply me: "Prove it". I am not interested in proving it here, because the fact that the followed orbit was the same precisely allows to prove the point I show in this sequence.  I select a hole in Apollo 12, and another hole in Apollo 14; these two holes are not the same, but it does not matter for my demonstration; the only important point is that I always use the same selected hole in each of the missions. On AS12-47-6887 (left) and AS14-66-9224 (right), the distance of the center of the selected hole for Apollo 12 to the horizon, and the distance of the center of the selected hole for Apollo 14 to the horizon are the same (red arrows).  On AS12-47-6890 (left) and AS14-66-9228 (right), the distance of the center of the selected hole for Apollo 12 to the horizon, and the distance of the center of the selected hole for Apollo 14 to the horizon are the same (red arrows). I insist that the selected holes for Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 are the same in this double view as in the previous one, this is important for the demonstration. This means that the command module has moved the same relatively to the selected hole of Apollo 12 between the photos AS12-47-6887 and AS12-47-6890, as it has relatively to the selected hole of Apollo 14 between the photos AS14-66-9224 and AS14-66-9228. As these selected holes both belong to the lunar ground, this is equivalent to say that the command module has moved the same between the photos AS12-47-6887 and AS12-47-6890 as between the photos AS14-66-9224 and AS14-66-9228. As it is the fact that the command module moves which makes the earth go up on the photos, that also means that the earth should move up the same between the pair of photos AS12-47-6887 and AS12-47-6890 as between the pair of photos AS14-66-9224 and AS14-66-9228, or at least not very differently.  Yet, when I compare an animation made with the photos AS12-47-6887 and AS12-47-6890 (left) with an animation made with the photos AS14-66-9224 and AS14-66-9228, the earth moves much more on the animation of Apollo 12 than on the animation of Apollo 14, when the earth should move approximately the same on the two animations, at least not very differently. The earth on the first animation moves like the command module had moved more than twice more between the photos AS12-47-6887 and AS12-47-6890 than between the photos AS14-66-9224 and AS14-66-9228, whereas I have made the demonstration that the command module has moved approximately the same distance between these pairs of photos; even if there is a little difference, it cannot explain a so big difference in the displacement of the earth! |
 The landing site of Apollo 14 was very close to the one of Apollo 12; so the antennas had to be oriented in a quite similar way. Will they be correctly oriented in this mission? Nope! |
 On this photo (AS14-66-9256), like in Apollo 12, the high-gain antenna is oriented toward the sun (look at the shadow of its central branch: It is parallel to the LM's shadow). |
 On this photo (AS14-66-9340), the shadow of the central branch of the high gain antenna is parallel to the direction of shadows; so it is either oriented in the direction of shadows, or in opposition with them (and we have seen on the previous photos that it is the second case). |
 On this photo (AS14-67-9361), we only see the bottom of the ALSEP's antenna, but enough to see that it is not normally oriented, but oriented toward the sun. |
 On this photo (AS14-67-9366), we can see that the ALSEP's antenna is oriented on the right of the direction of shadows whereas it should be oriented on their left. |
 On this photo (AS14-67-9375), we can clearly see (still more clearly than on the previous photo) that the ALSEP's antenna is oriented on the right of the direction of shadows instead of their left. |
 On this photo (AS14-67-9377), the ALSEP's antenna also appears incorrectly oriented, on the right of the direction of shadows instead of their left. |
 And again, on this photo (AS14-67-9384), the ALSEP's antenna appears incorrectly oriented. |
 And now, to close this subject, here is an excerpt of the video of Apollo 14 starting at time 114-26-27; on it we can see that the high-gain antenna is oriented in direction of the sun and not in direction of the earth...and yet it manages to transmit the video we are currently seeing! (may be it is the inhabitants of the sun who are going to receive it). |
 In Apollo 12, there is a sequence of photos (from AS12-47-6880 to AS12-47-6895) taken as the lunar module of Apollo 12 was descending on the moon, and showing an earth rise. |
 Likewise, in Apollo 14, there also is a sequence of photos (from AS14-66-9224 to AS14-66-9228) taken as the lunar module of Apollo 14 was descending on the moon. It looks strangely similar to the one of Apollo 12. |
In fact, when we look at the craters that the lunar module is flying over on the two sequences, we find absolutely the same; it is very unlikely that two places of the moon would show such identical craters, it is necessarily the same place of the moon that the lunar modules of Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 are flying over. As I was wondering about this similarity, the Apollo believers have pointed out that it was not surprising that the lunar modules would have flown over the same places, for the landings sites of these two missions were very close, and their descent trajectories very close too. |
 If we check the distance of the craters (notably the big closest one) to the horizon line, we can see that the lunar module had a little more progressed over the lunar surface on the photo of Apollo 12 than on the photo of Apollo 14. Why is it an interesting fact? |
 Because the height of the earth over the horizon as seen from a spaceship coming from the east depends on its progression toward the center of the moon. The more the spaceship moves west, and the more the earth rises over the horizon. |
So, if the lunar module has more progressed on the photo of Apollo 12 than on the photo of Apollo 14, the earth should logically appear higher over the horizon line on the photo of Apollo 12 than on the photo of Apollo 14. Yes, but the Apollo believers point out that the two photos were not taken at the same date, and the libration could explain why the earth is higher on the photo of Apollo 14 than on the photo of Apollo 12. |
 The libration is the phenomenon which makes that the moon alternately turns a little clockwise and counterclockwise during its orbit relatively to the earth, which makes that we can see a little more than the moon's half during its orbit. Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 both landed during the second quarter of the moon. During the second quarter of the moon, the moon spins clockwise relatively to the earth; it means that, during the second quarter, a same place on the east of the moon will see the earth higher and higher in the sky as it progresses in time. So, it is very simple: If the landing date of Apollo 14 was farther from the previous new moon in Apollo 14 than in Apollo 12, this would make the earth higher on a given place in Apollo 14 than in Apollo 12, and it would explain why the earth is higher on the photo of Apollo 14 than on the one of Apollo 12, though the lunar module has more progressed on the photo of Apollo 12 than on the one of Apollo 14. But, if it is the converse... |
 This table shows the dates of the previous new moons during the two missions, and the dates of the landings, which allows to know the difference in days between the landing and the new moon in the two missions. We can see that there is one day less of difference in Apollo 14, than in Apollo 12. This means that a given place on the east of the moon was seeing the earth a little lower in the time of Apollo 14 than in the one of Apollo 12. |
 So, I am sorry, moon believers, but, not only the libration does not excuse the fact that the earth is higher on the photo of Apollo 14 than on the one of Apollo 12, but it even aggravates it; it makes a reason more for the earth to be lower on the photo of Apollo 14 than on the one of Apollo 12... |
 ...and, unfortunately for you, Apollo believers, it is the contrary we see! |
