 On the photo AS17-133-20341, we have a view of the rover with the photographer's shadow visible. In the distance we see the other astronaut I have circled in red. As he is a little on the right of the photographer's shadow, his shadow should bend a little on the left (according to rules I have previously explained you).  But, when we make a close-up on this astronaut, we can see that his shadow, of which I have approximately indicated the direction, is absent. |
 On the photo AS17-133-20357,we can see a rock on the upper right of the photo of which I here show a close-up. We can see that there is a bit of shadow I have circled in red, which probably comes from the bit of rock I have circled in orange, which is largely oversized. |
 On the photo AS17-134-20383, why do stars which are close to each other, and at the same distance from the camera, appear with so different sizes? |
 On the photo AS17-134-20385, why do the horizontal hand which holds the flag appear vertical in the visor.  On the photo of the right of this double view, I have corrected the reflection of the right arm of the astronaut in the visor to give it a more probable representation. |
 On the photo AS17-134-20388, the right foot of the astronaut who is hidden by the LM appears to have no leg. |
 On the photo AS17-134-20389, observe the shadow the cable of the camera which goes through the front of the rover.  There is a part of the cable's shadow which is missing at the place I have circled. |
 On the photo AS17-134-20425, there is a part of the core the astronaut is holding, the one I have colored in red, which has no reflection in the visor. |
 On the photo AS17-134-20426, the hand which holds the core is folded on the photo, but unfolded in the reflection of the visor. |
 On the photo AS17-134-20443, we can see the shadow of the high gain antenna (which is on the right of the rover when seen from front); given the position of the photographer's shadow, the shadow of the low gain antenna is also bending on the left, a little more than the shadow of the high gain antenna, so there is no reason we should not see it, especially in view of the fact that the low gain antenna is located on the left of the rover (when seen from front). |
 On the photo AS17-134-20467, why is there a lit hole (I circled in red) in the shadow of the rear right wheel of the rover. |
 On the photo AS17-136-20739, the shadow of the multicolored strip is not connected to the shadow of the tripod (circled in red). |
 On the photo AS17-136-20743, a leg of the tripod, I have framed in red, has a too straight and perfect shadow if we compare it with the shadows of the other legs. |
 On the photo AS17-137-20872, we see a shadow on a white bag I have circled in red; this shadow can only come from the part of the LM I have circled in orange; the problem is that the way this shadow is projected on the bag is not compatible with the direction of the sunlight which is evidenced by the direction of the LM's shadow (yellow arrow). |
 On the photo AS17-137-20900, the shadow of a tripod's leg (I have framed in red) has a too perfect, straight shadow (it seems to often happen). |
 On the photo AS17-137-20963, on the shadow of the multicolored strip, there is a bit of this strip which seems detached from it...but only on its shadow! |
 On the photo AS17-137-20984, the shadow of a leg of the tripod is in two shifted parts; I would be surprised if the relief could explain a such anomaly! |
 The photos AS17-137-21010 and AS17-137-21011 show two views with the astronaut and the rover in the distance. It is interesting to see the astronaut closer on these two views...  ...For, if we make an animation with the astronaut on these two views, we can see that, on the second view, the astronaut seems to have pushed his left leg forward, which was almost hidden by his right leg on the previous photo. But in fact, this "left leg" seems really strange, and looks like a weird face which seems to leap from behind the astronaut.  And, on the next view, AS17-137-21012, if we have a close look at the backpack of the astronaut, we find it to be different from the one he had on the two previous views: There is a new element, I have circled in red, which was not present on the two previous views. |
 On the photo AS17-138-21069, the astronaut is pointing his left hand downward...but in the reflection of the visor, he is pointing it upward! |
 On the photo AS17-140-21391, the photographer is clearly on the left of the rover...but, in the reflection of the visor, he is well behind the rover (I have circled in yellow a rear wheel of the rover).  And the photographer is not the only personage we see in the visor...we also see a strange being, I have circled in red, which looks like some kind of gorilla. |
 On the photo AS17-142-21714, the astronaut is holding an object vertically with his right hand; but, in the visor, this hand appears enormous (circled in red), and his left hand appears much smaller (circled in yellow), although it is almost at the same distance from the visor (a little farther, but the difference of distance does not explain a so big difference of size in the visor). Furthermore, the object that the astronaut holds appears horizontal in the visor.  On the photo AS17-142-21791, the shadow of a tripod's leg appears disrupted (at the place I circled in red). No wonder that the tripod appears so often on the photos, for it is much used to create incoherences. |
 On the photo AS17-142-21811, except for the lit window between the astronaut's legs, the astronaut's shadow appears like he was facing the camera! |
 On the photo AS17-143-21924, the end of the antenna has an incorrect shadow. |
 On the photo AS17-145-22184, we see a strange pink object, partly hidden by the shaft of the high gain antenna, which is obviously not part of the standard equipment of Apollo. |
 On the photo AS17-146-22369, whereas there is a leg of the tripod which has a straight, well marked shadow (circled in orange), another leg has a very distorted shadow (circled in red), and even half of it missing; I doubt it can be explained just by the relief. |
 On the photo AS17-146-22401, the tripod appears to have no shadow; you could say that the shadow is on the other side, hidden by the slope, but I'll then tell you that it can't be the case, because we can see the shadow of a stone I have circled in red, and its direction is such that we should see the shadow of the tripod, for it is not in a direction that we would not see it. |
 On the photo AS17-146-22413, the connection of the shadow of the leg bearing the multicolored strip with the common point of the tripod is more than improbable. |
 This double view shows the photos, AS17-140-21386 (left) and AS17-140-21391 (right). The first one is a photo of Schmitt taken by Cernan, and the second one is a photo of Cernan taken by Schmitt.  Cernan has no camera for he probably gave it to Schmitt to take him with the same camera. You can see that there is the cap of a connector which is partially removed on Cernan's chest, leaving appear the blue connection which is under.  Now look, I have colored with corresponding colors the umbilics, and you can see that there is an umbilicus (the one colored in red) which arrives on Cernan's chest and which is missing on Schmitt's one. Yet the astronauts had the same equipment, at least in what concerns the connections with the PLSS! |
 In the close-up of third EVA, Schmitt takes a series of photos near the rover; these photos are referenced AS17-134-20472 to AS17-134-20479. You can see that there are two photos taken with the camera turned at 45° (AS17-134-20473 and AS17-134-20474).  In this new animation, I have turned the photos AS17-134-20473 and AS17-134-20474 to put them straight.  Now you can see that, on the close-up of a visor, we can see the reflection of the photographer turned at 45° counter-clockwise.  This certainly corresponds with one of the photos, on which the rover and Cernan appear turned at 45° clockwise, which means that the camera was turned 45° counter-clockwise. So, you are going to think that the visor's close-up I have shown you has been taken on one of the rotated photos, it would be logical; it's certainly what I did!  Not at all, the photo which corresponds with the photographer turned on the visor corresponds with the photo AS17-134-20476 (left of the double view), and it has been taken with camera straight and not rotated.  The visor's close-up which corresponds with the photo rotated (AS17-134-20474) is on the right of this double view (after it has been put straight).  On the close-up of the visor corresponding to the photo which is turned at 45° (AS17-134-20474), the reflection of the photographer does not appear on the visor. Of course it might mean that this reflection is hidden by the white cable which passes before the visor; but, as this cable is vertical, that would also mean that this reflection is perfectly vertical, and so is the photographer, yet taking the photo with the camera turned at 45°. |
 In EVA3, Cernan took two photos of Schmitt against a rock that I show on this double view, and which are respectively referenced AS17-146-22293, and AS17-146-22294. On the first one, Schmitt appears straight, and on the second one a little bent.  Meanwhile, Schmitt is taking a series of photos that I show on this animation, from AS17-139-21201 to AS17-139-21207.  In fact, if the first impression is that Cernan would be holding his camera horizontally (because we assume that the rock which is behind Schmitt is horizontal), the horizon line we see on the top left says otherwise; on the top right, we see the beginning of a hill.  I have turned the photo AS17-146-22293 of 19° clockwise to put the horizon line horizontal, so we can see the photo like Cernan had taken the photo with his camera held horizontally. And now we see that Schmitt appears no more straight on it, but with a consistent inclination instead, and this inclination is clockwise (relatively to himself).  And for the photo AS17-146-22294, it is the same thing: The horizon line also appears with a strong bias and not horizontal.  I have turned the photo AS17-146-22294 of 16° clockwise (a little less than for the previous photo) to put the horizon line horizontal, so we can see the photo like Cernan had taken the photo with his camera held horizontally. And now the inclination of Schmitt is quite more important than on the original photo, and it is clockwise too (relatively to himself). It means that, if Cernan had held his camera horizontally, we would not have seen this couple of photos...  ...But this couple of photos instead. Schmitt appears consistently bent clockwise on the photos put straight.  Besides...  ...The photos that Schmitt took also show an inclination. On this photo (AS17-139-21204) the close-up of the LM shows that it appears with a consistent inclination (the other photos of Schmitt show the same inclination).  And it is not because the LM is on an inclined terrain. The other photos show the LM on a flat horizontal terrain , like on the photo on the right of the double view (AS17-137-20873). Sometimes the LM appears in bias on some photos, but the horizon appears with the same bias.  So, at first view, the situation seems normal: Schmitt is inclined clockwise at 20°, and the LM is inclined at approximately the same angle counter-clockwise, which is normal since, when you take a photo with the camera turned clockwise, what you take appears turned counter-clockwise of the same angle. But does the orientation of the LM really reflect the real orientation of the photo?  On this photo, my camera is held horizontally, the table is horizontal, and the broom is vertical; yet, the table appears turned counter-clockwise and the broom turned clockwise, because I shifted left relatively to the table.  If the LM appears turned counter-clockwise though we know it is horizontal, it is not because the camera is turned clockwise of the same angle, but because of perspective, because the LM is on the right of the place where Schmitt and Cernan are. The true inclination of the photo is given by the baseline of the hills in the background, and this baseline is much more horizontal (turned 5° relatively to the horizontal). It means that this photo is taken with the camera closer to horizontal, not inclined like Schmitt appears on Cernan's photos after they have been put straight. |
 On the photo AS17-149-22866, we see a strange object coming from the CM. If we look closer (close-up on the right of the double view), we can see that it looks like a harpoon. Is the CM going to harpoon the LM like a whale? |
 The photo AS17-151-23201 shows the LM leaving the CM (it still has its legs). The LM we see on this photo (left of the double view) does not look serious, it rather looks like a model. In particular, its footpads seem unrealistic; I have represented a close-up of one of the them on the right of the double view; it is obviously not centered on the leg. And also all the sides of the LM are black, only the footpads are brilliant. |
 On the photo AS17-152-23274, is this really the earth? It looks different on all other photos.  If we compare with the earthrise on Apollo 11, it looks extremely different.  And it strongly makes me think of a stylistic representation of the moon. |
 On the photo AS17-152-23391, what is this strange object I have circled in red, what is its purpose? How is it attached to the astronaut? We can see a handle; is there a cable which comes from the hidden part of the handle and attaches it to the astronaut? In that case it could only be attached to the belly of the astronaut; but, when the latter had to climb the ladder, it was certainly not practical to have it attached to his belly, it must have hindered him in his moves! And, why is this object hardly shadowed on the front when the astronaut appears to be strongly shadowed on his front (his helmet appears almost entirely black)? |
 On the photo AS17-152-23401, we can see the reflection (circled in red) of the handrail (circled in orange) on the visor. But this reflection is at the wrong place, it should be lower on the visor, because, at the place it is on the visor, it would mean that the handrail is placed above the astronaut and not under him. And what is this luminous spot I have circled in yellow?  I'll be damned if this is the earth! |
 The condition for the video filmed by the rover's camera to be transmitted toward the earth is that the high-gain antenna be oriented toward the earth. As the earth is seen under an angle of 2° only from the earth, it means that the antenna should be oriented with this precision, for the video can only be seen by the earth if the wave sent by the high-gain antenna reaches the earth. |
 In order to orient the antenna toward the earth, the antenna could be turned around the transversal horizontal axis, to adjust the elevation angle. |
 It could also be turned around the vertical axis to adjust the azimuth angle. But, how could these adjustments be made. |
 The landing site of Apollo 17 was located at 30.8 degrees longitude East and 20.2 degrees latitude North. This allows to compute the angles of elevation and azimuth for Apollo 17. |
 The computation of the elevation angle for Apollo 17 gives an angle of 52°; it means that the direction of the earth was making an angle of 52° with the horizontal. |
 The computation of the azimuth angle for Apollo 17 gives an angle of 29°, it means that the horizontal direction of the earth on the site of Apollo 17 was making with the direction of the earth as seen from the moon's center an angle of 29°. |
 These angles allow to know how to orient the high-gain antenna. The branch of the antenna had to make with the antenna's pole an angle equal to 90° minus the elevation angle, so 38°. The sun is shining from the East, so the shadows are oriented West; the consequence is that the antenna had to be oriented at an angle equal to 90° minus the azimuth angle, so 61°, with the direction of shadows, on the left of this direction. As the video was always transmitted to the earth, we must deduce that the high-gain antenna had to be oriented this way throughout the mission. |
 Most pictures seem to respect this rule. For instance, on this photo, AS17-134-20477, the antenna seems to follow this orientation; we see how the wheel's shadow is oriented, and how the high-gain antenna is oriented, and the latter is oriented on the left of the shadow's direction of an angle which might correspond with the desired angle, though we cannot measure it precisely. But there are a certain number of pictures which do not respect this rule, which was not preventing the rover's camera to transmit its video to the earth meanwhile. |
 On this photo, AS7-134-20447, the high-gain antenna is obviously not oriented on the left of the direction of shadows. |
 On this photo, AS17-135-20544, the antenna is oriented on the left of the direction of shadows (we can well see the rover's shadow), but the angle is makes with the direction of shadows is well beyond 60°, and is even greater than a right angle. |
 On this photo, AS17-140-20544, the antenna is practically oriented in opposition with the direction of shadows. |
 On this photo, AS17-140-21397, the direction of the antenna is also practically in opposition with the direction of shadows. |
 On this photo, AS17-143-21836, the high-gain antenna is obviously not correctly oriented too. |
 On this photo, AS17-143-21924, there seems to be a problem too. We see a thin shadow which is oriented on the right of the direction of the lengthwise axis of the rover, and yet the high-gain antenna is turned of a quarter of turn on the left; in other words, the antenna's direction makes more than 90° with the direction of shadows. |
 On this photo, AS17-146-22297, we see how the high's antenna is oriented, and also how the shadows are oriented (the circled parts indicate their direction), and we can see that the high-gain antenna is nearly aligned with the direction of shadows; it can't make an angle of 60° with them. |
 On this sequence extracted from the video of the close-out of the third EVA, at time 70:18:00, we can see how the antenna is oriented, and we can also see how the shadows are oriented; the antenna is obviously oriented along the lengthwise axis of the rover, and the shadows also approximately follow the same direction; it is obvious that the antenna is not turned left to the direction of shadows of an angle of 60°, and yet the video can be transmitted to the earth. |
 On this sequence extracted from the last video of the close-out of third EVA of Apollo 17, the rover's camera is turning, but we can also see that the earth is moving relatively to the high-gain antenna; it can't come from the camera, for, if it can turn, it can't move on the rover, which means that it does not move relatively to the antenna. So, either the earth moves, which is unlikely unless it is a fake earth, or, more plausibly, it is the antenna which is turning. The point is that the antenna does not remain correctly oriented toward the earth throughout this sequence, and yet the antenna manages to transmit to it the video we are currently seeing! |
 This short sequence is in the close-out of the third EVA of Apollo 17, with the following comment: "Transmission to Earth requires that the high-gain antenna be pointed almost exactly and, here, we get a bit of video by luck." Effectively, in order for the earth to receive the transmission of the video, as the earth is seen under an angle of 2°, the error of orientation should not exceed this value. We can see the shadow of the high gain antenna on the rover, and we can see how it plays the gig on the rover; the way we see it moving, it certainly does not remain correctly oriented toward the earth, far from the admissible error of orientation. Yet, we can see that the quality of the video does not consistently suffer from it, and remains even all along the sequence. |
 I have already shown that there was evidence that the lunar module had been turned between two photos of Apollo 17. In what follows I am going too give a new evidence that the lunar module has been moved between two successive photos. |
 When I saw these two photos (AS17-137-20873, left, and AS17-136-20691, right), showing the same background, I first thought that I could find evidence that the lunar module had been moved between these two photos. But first the close artefacts are very different... |
 ...and second, when I measured the height of the hill in the background, I found that it was a little higher on the photo without the LM than on the photo with it; it means that the photographer is closer to the hill on the second photo than on the first one, and consequently it is normal that we don't see the LM on the second photo, for the LM is behind the photographer on this photo and not in front of him. |
 So, I turned approximately a half turn in the panoramic made by the astronaut, and I logically found this photo (AS17-136-20699) on which we can effectively see the lunar module in the distance, so it has not disappeared. |
 The lunar module can also be seen on the next photo (AS17-136-20700). But the fact that the lunar module is visible on these two photos allows to make a demonstration I am going to show you. |
 We'll get interested in a trio of three objects, on which I have made a close-up: - What appears to be a monitor in the close foreground. - A device attached to the ALSEP a little farther. - And still farther the lunar module itself. |
 I have made a more contrasted image from this close-up to improve its visibility. |
 I have also made a close-up on these three objects on the next photo. |
 I have also made a more contrasted image from this close-up to improve its visibility. So, what's interesting with these two close-ups? |
 If we put them side to side we can see that: - The photographer has visibly moved right between the two photos, for the monitor shows a left shift relatively to the objects in the background. - But he doesn't seem to have consistently moved forward, for the ALSEP's device seems to be at the same vertical distance from the monitor; it only seems to have shifted right horizontally relatively to the monitor. Yet, you can see that the lunar module has not only shifted horizontally relatively to the monitor, but also vertically, almost equivalently. |
 What talks in the most eloquent way is to make a superposition between the two trios of objects. On this superposition, on which I have superposed the two monitors of the two trios, you can see that the ALSEP's device shows a clear horizontal shift, but a vertical shift quite reduced relatively to the horizontal shift. But, in what concerns the lunar module, you can see that its vertical shift is quite consistent relatively to the horizontal shift. It means that its vertical shift does not exclusively come from the photographer's move, it has also been physically moved, which would be impossible on the real moon. Of course, it could also come from the fact that the monitor or the ALSEP's device has been moved, but it can't be the case, for we see the same artefacts near the monitor, proving it has not been moved, and the ALSEP's device cannot have been moved either, for the cable connecting it to the ALSEP is strictly identical on the two photos. |
