NASA claims that this part of a satellite photo shows the remains of the Apollo 11 lem (descent stage).  |
Someone has told me that what Nasa shows as being the lem can only be the lem because of the shadow it creates. But, on this photo, I have also circled something which also creates a shadow which looks like the shadow of the "lem". There can't be two lems, so what is it the shadow of?  |
 The photo on the left of this double view is extracted from a video of Apollo 15 after the ascending stage of the lem has left the moon; the photo on the right is a close-up of the supposed remaining part of the lem on a LRO picture (the white we see comes from an arrow pointing at the lem); the shadow we see on the LRO picture doesn't correspond at all with the shape of the lander; moreover, the shadow of the lander should be not be so much longer than wide, except if the sun is extremely low, razing the ground; but in that case the holes we see on the LRO picture would not be partially lit, they would appear completely blackened. |
Near the lem, on a photo of Apollo 11 (AS11-37-5469), we can see a set of holes I have circled. Where are these holes on the satellite photo, I can't see them?  |
Near the lem, we can see a hole on an Apollo photo (AS11-40-5861); but we don't see this hole on the satellite photo. In fact we can see a hole near the lem on the satellite photo, but it nothing looks like the hole on the Apollo photo, and nowhere it can be found on the Apollo photos.  |
Not far from the lem, we can find a crater on the Apollo photos (here AS11-40-5955). We can't find the same crater near the lem on the satellite photo.  Here is a panoramic of this crater reconstituted with two photos (AS11_50-5955 and AS11_50-5957)  |
 This is another LRO photo of the Apollo 11 landing site.  Let's make a close-up on the lander |
 We first can see that the lander has no definite shadow; the shadow is all around it. We can see three footpads of the lander (circled in red), but not the legs they are attached to. We cannot see the fourth footpad, but we can see the leg it is attached to (at least partially). And the lander appears too circular.  In reality the lander is not so circular. |
NASA claims that this part of a satellite photo shows the remains of the material of Apollo 12  |
Surveyor is not located at the same place relatively to the hole than on the satellite photo (on which it is close to the edge of the hole). We can see two holes that we can't see on the satellite photo, at least oriented the same way relatively to Surveyor.  |
On the satellite photo, the ALSEP is at some distance from the Lem. But on this Apollo photo (AS12-47-6918), it is quite close to it; we indeed can see the shadow of the top of the lem on the extreme left. Someone has told me that it was not the shadow of the LM but the one of the other astronaut; but, in that case, what is the shadow we see near the shadow of the photographer's left leg?  |
 This is another LRO photo of the Apollo 12 landing site.  Let's make a close-up on the lander |
 The lander has no definite shadow; the shadow is all around it. If we can see the four footpads (with an unequal luminosity) we can only see a leg of the lander; yet it is in a part which is as shadowed as the rest of the lander. |
 We can also see that the polygon which joins the footpads of the lander is irregular.  Normally the polygon joining the footpads should be a square like I show on the figure on the right which comes from a photo in Apollo 14 in which the CM takes a photo of the LM as the LM is showing its top to it. And this does not come from the fact that the lander would be taken in bias; the LRO photo is taken from above the landing site, not in bias! |
 Let's now make a close-up on the instruments. |
 This LRO picture gives in legend the meaning of the various brilliant spots we see.  This is a part of a photo of the mission Apollo 12. On it we can see the seismometer and the central station.  I have circled in green the brilliant spot which is indicated on the LRO photo as being the central station, and in blue the brilliant spot which is indicated on the LRO photo as being the seismometer, but what is the still bigger spot which is close to the latter spots and that I have circled in red? |
NASA claims that this part of a satellite photo shows the remains of the material of Apollo 14  |
If we consider the Lem's shadow, the sun is shining from the left of the photo to the right (red arrow). But, if we consider the way the Lem is lit, the sun would be shining from the bottom of the photo to the top (yellow arrow): Indeed, the lower part of the lem is well lit, whereas its upper part is darker.  |
If we draw a line between the scientific instruments and the lem, and two lines on each side of it delimiting the angle of vision of the Hasselblad camera, we can see that when the camera points at the lem from the scientific instruments, it must be able to catch two very visible holes. But on an Apollo photo taken from the scientific instruments, and with the lem in the background (AS14-64-9097), we can see none of these holes (and nor can we see them on the other photos)!  |
And if we compare the position of the scientific instruments (MET) relatively to two holes which are close on this Apollo photo (AS14-68-9405) and on the satellite photo, we can see it is different. On the satellite photo, the scientific instruments are closer to the hole which is the farther one (from the lem) than on the Apollo photo. On the Apollo photo, you can also see that the shadow of the bar the astronaut is holding is not visible!  |
NASA claims that this part of a satellite photo shows the remains of the Apollo 15 lem (descent stage).  |
In fact, on the satellite photo, we can see that the lem is on a fold of terrain. I have colored this fold of terrain on the satellite photo, as shown below. We can see that it looks like a hand, with a pointed finger, on which the lem would be. Of course, you could say, that it proves nothing, and that it just happens to look like a hand. Nevertheless, the lem is still in unstable position on this fold of terrain, and dangerously close to two holes. Yet, the astronauts could have landed the lem on a safer place.  |
If we compare the satellite photo with this view of the lem, with the hills in the background (AS15-82-11057), we can see that it's completely different. Where are the holes of the satellite photo on the Apollo photo? And where are the hills of the Apollo photo on the satellite photo? Some have told me that what I call "hills" is in fact "mountains" and that they are much farther away; but we see photos of these "mountains" some photos before, and they appear twice higher; that means that, between these photos and the photo I show, the rover would have covered a distance which is greater than the total distance which has been covered by the rover during the whole mission.  Here is a wider view of the panorama of the photographic mission of Apollo 15 made with two adjacent photos (AS15-82-11056 and AS15-82-11057)  |
Where is on the satellite photo the hill which is behind the astronaut on this photo (AS15-88-11864)?  And why does this hill appear so blurred, when it should appear this way?  |
NASA claims that this part of a satellite photo shows the remains of the Apollo 16 lem (descent stage).  |
The lem (circled in yellow on the photo below) had landed very close to a crater, but why so close? It was rather dangerous to land the lem so close to this crater when the lem could have landed on a safer place! Moreover, on the other side of the crater, we can see another object (I have circled in red) which looks like the lem, and which creates an inverted shadow!  |
In fact there is a crater not far from the lem, but it's not immediately close to the lem on this Apollo photo (AS16-109-17789), it's at a little distance from the lem.  |
And behind the lem on this Apollo photo (AS16-113-18339), we can see a hill that we can't find on the satellite photo.  |
NASA claims that this part of a satellite photo shows the remains of the Apollo 17 lem (descent stage).  |
If we take a bigger part of the original satellite photo, we can see another object (I have circled in red) which looks like the lem (I have circled in yellow), and which creates the same type of shadow. If the first object is the lem, then what is the second object?  |
On this view of the Lem in Apollo 17 (AS17-134-20508), why don't we see the hole I have circled in red on the satellite photo?  |
Not far from the lem, there is this very characteristic crater (AS17-137-20992); but we can't find a such crater on the satellite photo.  Here is a panoramic of this crater made with two photos:  |
And finally, finding that this view in Apollo 17 (AS17-139-21204), with the (circled) lem in its center, corresponds with what we see on the satellite photo requires a delirious imagination!  |
 This is another LRO photo of the Apollo 17 landing site.  Let's make a close-up on the lander |
 This time the lander has a well definite shadow unlike in the LRO photos of the other missions. According to the shadow of the LM, the sun is shining along the direction indicated by the green arrow. We can see a bright footpad of the LM I have circled in orange. There is another footpad of the lander I have circled in yellow which is dim in comparison; yet it is symmetrical relatively to the direction of the sunlight, and therefore it should be lit the same as the other footpad, and be as bright as it! |
 Let's make a close-up on the flag they indicate. |
 The flag of Apollo 17 appears as two perpendicular black parts; the vertical part corresponds to the flag itself (the cloth, not the pole), and the horizontal part (oriented on the left) to its shadow.  But there is a little problem, for we can see that the direction of the flag's shadow is completely different from the direction of the LM's one.  Even if it was the vertical part which would be the flag's shadow, it's still would be differently oriented from the LM's shadow. |
 Another proof that the LRO photos are faked is the way that the crash of the jettisoned lunar module appears on the photos of the LRO. After the lunar module had come back to the command module (ascent stage), it was jettisoned and deorbited to crash on the moon.  In the descent on the moon, the powered descent does not start from the orbit of the command module, for it is too far from the lunar surface, but there is first a deorbit maneuver which allows to bring the lunar module to an orbit closer to the moon, from which the powered descent can start; the deorbit maneuver consists in decreasing a little the speed of the lunar module, so that it takes a descending orbit (called Hohmann transfer).  The deorbit maneuver which is made after the lunar module is jettisoned is similar, except that the speed of the lunar module is descreased a little more, so that the lunar module will not avoid the lunar surface and will crash on it. The direction of the impact is mostly horizontal, for the remaining propellants only allow a limited decrease of speed. For the impact to be vertical, the speed of the lunar module would have had to be nulled, but the remaining propellants were not allowing it. And it is besides confirmed in the mission report of Apollo 12, which says: "The angle between the impact trajectory and the mean lunar surface was 3.7 degrees at the point of impact". 3.7° is very close to horizontal.  But the LRO photo showing the crash of the lunar module of Apollo 12 is absolutely not convincing: Indeed, on this photo, the impact of the lunar module appears to be vertical while we know that it was almost horizontal. All the other LRO photos of crash of jettisoned lunar modules show the same vertical impact, the same as the impact of the S-IVB directed toward the moon to crash on it, after the command module had separated from it; but, in what concerns the S-IVB, it is normal that its crash appears vertical, for it was effectively crashing on it vertically...unlike the jettisoned lunar module. One evidence more that the photos of the LRO are fake. |
After having given a visual evidence, I am even going to give a scientific evidence that a photo taken by the LRO can only be fake. This is a photo which would have been taken by the LRO of the site of Apollo 15, and which is shown in a page of NASA which talks about the retroreflector of Apollo 15.  The legend says that a pixel of this photo represents 52 cm; this photo is 540 by 540 pixels. So the width and the height of this photo represent 540x52=28008 centimeters, or 280.08 meters (the 391 meters they are talking about represent the diagonal length). I have measured the width of the photo on my screen, and have found 134 millimeters. From this, I can obtain a distance on this photo, by measuring it in millimeters, and then multiplying this length by 280.08, and then dividing it by 134. I have measured the following distances: Measured distance of the lunar module to the lunar rover (LRV1) = 41 mm. Measured distance of the lunar module to the ALSEP = 34 mm. Measured distance of the lunar module to the retroreflector (LRRR) = 43 mm. The real distance is obtained by making a rule of three like I have shown: Distance of the lunar module to the lunar rover = 41x280,08/134 = 85,69 meters Distance of the lunar module to the ALSEP = 34x280,08/134 = 71,06 meters Distance of the lunar module to the retroreflector = 43x280,08/134 = 89,87 meters The lunar rover was supposed to be a 100 meters from the lunar module; yet, according to the photo of the LRO, it would be closer, at 85 meters only. Can we determine in another way the distance of the lunar module to the ALSEP and to retroreflector? Yes, we can, thanks to their official coordinates. These coordinates can be found on this table which is given by NASA:  Given that the differences of latitude are very small, the distance which corresponds to a difference of latitude can be computed as the product of the moon radius by the tangent of the difference of latitude. Likewise, as the differences of longitude are very small, the distance corresponding to a difference of longitude can be computed as the product of the radius of the moon's section at the latitude of the site by the tangent of the difference of longitude. The radius of the moon is equal to 1737 km or 1737000 meters. The radius of the section of the moon at the site's latitude is equal to the product of the moon radius by the cosine of the site's latitude. The difference of latitude between the ALSEP and the lunar module is equal to: 26.13407-26.13224 = 0.00183°. This difference of latitude corresponds to a distance equal to: 1737000xtan(0.00183°) = 55.48 meters. The difference of longitude between the ALSEP and the lunar module is equal to: 3.62981-3.63400 = -0.00419°. This difference of longitude corresponds to a distance equal to: 1737000xcos(26.13°)xtan(0.00419)=114.04 meters. The distance between the lunar module and the ALSEP is then obtained by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of these two distances: Distance ALSEP->Lunar module = Square root (55.48²+114.04²)=126.82 meters. So, 126 meters when it should be, according to what has been measured on the photo of the LRO, 71 meters! That makes quite a difference, almost the double! Let's also compute the distance between the lunar module and the retroreflector from their respective coordinates. The difference of latitude between the retroreflector and the lunar module is equal to: 26.13407-26.13333 = 0.00109°. This difference of latitude corresponds to a distance equal to: 1737000xtan(0.00183°) = 33.04 meters. The difference of longitude between the retroreflector and the lunar module is equal to: 3.62981-3.63400 = -0.00563°. This difference of longitude corresponds to a distance equal to: 1737000xcos(26.13°)xtan(0.00419)=153.23 meters. The distance between the lunar module and the retroreflector is then obtained by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of these two distances: Distance Retroreflector->Lunar module = Square root (33.04²+153.23²)= 156.75 meters. And, again, the distance between the retroreflector and the lunar module, computer from their official coordinates, is almost the double of the distance measured on the photo of the LRO. In other words, the distances which are shown on the photo of the LRO are remarkably wrong, what completely discredits it. Now, if we make the ratio between the distance of the retroreflector to the lunar module, and the distance of the ALSEP to the lunar module, computed from their official coordinates, we find: 156.75/126.86=1.23. Likewise, if we make the ratio between the distance of the retroreflector to the lunar module, and the distance of the ALSEP to the lunar module, as they are shown on the photo of the LRO, we find: 89.87/71.06=1.26. These two ratios are quite close, which means that, if the absolute distances are wrong on the photo of the LRO, on the other side, the relative distances are quite correct. There is another closer photo of site of Apollo 15 which has been recently taken (it does not show the retroreflector):  On this photo, there is a reference to show a distance of 50 meters. I have measured 37mm for this reference on my screen. In order to obtain the distance in meters corresponding to a distance measured on the photo, I just have to measure it in millimeters on my screen, to multiply it by 50, and then to divide it by 37. For the distance of the lunar module to the ALSEP, I have measured a distance of 67mm, which gives a real distance of: 67*50/37=90.54 meters. For the distance of the lunar module to the lunar rover, I have measured a distance of 80mm, which gives a real distance of: 80*50/37=108 meters. These are not even the same distances as on the previous photo. The LRO photos are not even compatible with each other. And the distance of the lunar module to the ALSEP, although greater than the one which has been obtained from the previous photo, is still wrong, for it is only the seven tenths of the distance which has been calculated from the official coordinates of the lunar module and the ALSEP. NASA is not even able to produce LRO photos which correspond to each other...But it is obviously wanted as such by the engineers, who would not be stupid enough to unintentionally make such blunders. For those who would doubt that I have correctly calculated distances from the lunar coodinates, you can also use this tool I have found on the net to calculate them, and check that you find the same distances. Link to lunar distance calculator  Some have also said that the LRO photos could have been taken with an angle instead of being taken in perpendicular, in which case it could cause a dilatation of distances, this argument can easily be discarded by showing that the altitude at which the photos are taken is much greater than the width of the landing sites, which makes that the landing sites are in fact seen under a very small angle, which means that the dilatation of the pixel from an edge of the photo to the other one is not even of 1%, supposing that the photo would not be vertically taken. |
 I am now going to give a new example of incorrect distances on a LRO photo of Apollo 17. This is a LRO photo of the landing site of Apollo 17.  They have indicated a scale on this photo, which allows to measure distances.  I have used the indicated scale to measure the distance between the lunar module and the ALSEP, and also the distance between the lunar module and the lunar rover. On my screen, and at the size that I have displayed the photo, I have measured 84 millimeters for the bar representing 100 meters, 175 millimeters for the distance between the lunar module and the ALSEP, and 123 millimeters for the distance between the lunar module and the lunar rover. This gives, by making a rule of three, a distance of 208 meters between the lunar module and the ALSEP, and a distance of 146 meters between the lunar module and the lunar rover. But the official distance between the lunar module and the ALSEP is 190 meters (this distance is mentioned in the dialog of Apollo 17, at time 118:56:03).  The lunar coordinates of the lunar module and the ALSEP are indicated in the official table of lunar coordinates of the Apollo missions. The lunar coordinates of the lunar module of Apollo 17 were Latitude 20.18809 North, and Longitude 30.77475 East, and the lunar coordinates of the ALSEP were Latitude 20.18935 North and Longitude 30.76796 East.  If we input these coordinates into the the lunar distance calculator (of which I have given the link above), we find a distance of 197 meters between the lunar module and the ALSEP, according to these lunar coordinates.  So we have three distances between the lunar module and the ALSEP, 190 meters for the official distance, 197 meters for the distance calculated from the lunar coordinates, and 208 meters for the distance measured on the LRO photo, and they all are different from each other. Still better: if we measure the distance between the lunar module and the lunar rover, still using the indicated scale, we find a distance of 146 meters. But the official distance between the lunar module and the lunar rover was 158 meters!  And, if we use the official distance between the lunar module and the lunar rover instead of the indicated scale as a reference, then we find a distance of 225 meters between the lunar module and the ALSEP, still more different from the official distance and the distance calculated from the lunar coordinates!  To finish crucifying this photo, let's concentrate on the close-up of Challenger. First we see a lunar module which is obviously asymmetrical, very far from the regular shape it should have.  Then we can see a footpad shining in the shadow of the lunar module. How is it possible?  And we can't see the fourth footpad which is exposed to the sun.  The footpads we can see are not symetrically disposed around the lunar module.  A last thing: On the photos of the LRO, the rover tracks appear darker than the lunar ground.  Yet, on the photos of the missions, they don't appear darker than the lunar ground, they appear with the same color as the lunar ground.  If they were appearing as dark on the photos of the missions as they appear on the photos of the LRO, they would then appear as what I show on the right view. And, if the rover tracks were appearing with the same color as the lunar ground on the photos of the LRO, as they should, they would appear invisible. So, what credibility may have this LRO photo of the landing site of Apollo 17?  Now, someone has shown me a table with new more recent coordinates of the landing sites, which would have been obtained with the LRO.  So, I have calculated a new distance between the descent stage and the ALSEP of Apollo 17 by using the coordinates of this new table. And I have found exactly the same distance as I had found with the previous table of NASA. So the demonstration I have made with the LRO photo of Apollo 17 remains unchanged.  I have also calculated a new distance between the descent stage and the ALSEP of Apollo 15 by using the coordinates of this new table. And this time I have found a distance very different from the distance I had found with the previous table of NASA (105 meters instead of 127 meters). How could it be so different? Would the artefacts of Apollo 15 have moved between 1987 and 2017? However this new distance remains very different from the distances between the descent stage and the ALSEP I have measured on the photos of the LRO of Apollo 15, by using the scale indicated on them (90 and 71 meters). So the anomalies I have spotted on the demonstration of the LRO photos of Apollo 15 remain valid. |
