Articles listed by JSmithwick

Apollo Investigation, Scientific Analysis of Apollo images by Pyrrhon Amathesa and Paul Christodoulides. AULIS Online – Different Thinking

Pyrrhon Amathesa PhD and Paul Christodoulides PhD


Since the mid-1970s there have been claims that elements of the Apollo program and its associated Moon landings were staged by NASA. A growing number of people maintain that the lunar landings were faked and that the Apollo astronauts did not actually walk on the Moon. In this paper we analyse some of the Apollo lunar surface images through computer software and basic scientific reasoning in order to prove or disprove whether the EVA photographs were staged. We examine some of the most outstanding cases through the use of Photoshop® and Google Earth (Moon) applications.

The resultant image analysis demonstrates that the Apollo photography was staged, manipulated and/or altered. Consequently, the Apollo lunar surface photographic record cannot be relied upon as evidence of humans walking on the Moon. Google Earth (Moon) simulations also indicate that in the case of Apollo 17, the mission was staged. The Apollo moonscapes used were inaccurate presentations of reality with incorrect elevations and serious lunar feature omissions. An Apollo 15 mission panorama as presented in Google Earth (Moon) leads to the same conclusion.

Apollo Investigation, Apollo 11: A Second Light Source in the Famous Photograph. AULIS Online – Different Thinking

Luis E. Bilbao PhD

Analysis of Apollo image AS11-40-5903

Using Ray Tracing to determine the source of light


The iconic image of Aldrin standing alone on the lunar surface is probably one of the best-known photographs of all the Apollo missions, and over the years modified versions of this photograph have been published (for example Life magazine, 8 August 1969). Taking the original NASA photo AS11-40-5903, and magnifying the image reflected in the helmet visor, it is possible to see the reflection of the astronaut taking the photograph.

The Earth is apparently visible in the reflection. The fact that a scene and its reflection can be observed, together with the knowledge of the coordinates of the Sun and Earth at the time the photograph was taken means that there is redundant information available to ascertain whether the observed features are compatible with one another. In this paper the position of the light source in the film plane is determined using different methods.

The prime conclusion reached is that the shadows (including the analysis of shadows seen in the helmet reflection) are incompatible with a single point-like source of light, and that the alleged reflection of the Earth in the helmet visor is not correctly positioned


Apollo 14: Second Light Source Confirmed

Luis E. Bilbao PhD


It has been said that if just one single lunar surface photograph allegedly taken during an Apollo mission was proven to be a fake image, then the entire mission record would be called into question. Here, a monochrome photograph taken during Apollo 14, AS14-68-9486 is investigated further. [...]

Natural sunlight cannot result in the shadow divergence seen in AS14-68-9486. Moreover, while the foreground rocks have dense shadows rendering part of these objects totally black, detail is still visible on the shadow side of the LM (and the astronaut). [...]

A closer inspection reveals that all the rock shadows in this image are consistent with illumination from the same (artificial) light source. [...]


Analysis carried out for this paper indicates that in the case of image AS14-68-9486, while the astronaut casts no shadow in a region where it should be visible, there are significant anomalies present with the LM and the flag shadows, suggesting the presence of a second source of light.


Separation, Transposition and Docking (STD) of Apollo 11 was in low-Earth Orbit

Julius A. Birch PhD

Analysis of the 70mm Apollo 11 images numbers AS11-36-5301 through AS11-36-5313 and the 16mm film magazine strongly suggest that at the time of their filming the Apollo 11 craft was only in low-Earth orbit.

In determining the location of the Apollo 11 craft, the sizes of Earth and the S-IVB rocket and their distances from the camera are extracted from the media assuming a selection of camera lenses. The extracted CSM flight data include the turning rate and the turning angle, the maximum separation distance, and the docking velocity.

From their comparison to the Flight Plan, the Mission Report and to the oral transcripts from the Apollo 11 Flight Journal, it is found that the 16mm Data Acquisition Camera (DAC) was filming with the 10mm lens, and not with the 18mm lens as NASA reported. Consequently, the photography must have been done with a Hasselblad manual camera with the 38mm lens and not with the Hasselblad electric camera with the 80mm lens as NASA reported.

Conclusion: The visual media recorded with these new lenses puts the craft at the time of Separation, Transposition and Docking (STD) in low-Earth orbit, rather than Moon-bound after successful Trans Lunar Injection.


India releases Chandrayaan-2 image files of Apollo sites

Jarrah White BSc

It is clear as day that while the blobs in LROC image M175124932R resemble the expected arrangement of the Apollo LM descent stage seen from above, the object photographed by Chandrayaan-2 better resembles an unmanned Surveyor lander seen from above.

Apollo Investigation, Putting the Record Straight. Jarrah White - AULIS Online – Different Thinking

2.3: Russian 'Rivals'

As explained in the previous section, the Russians fooled the US into thinking that Zond 5 was the first mission to send man around the Moon. If the US pulled a similar fast one with Apollo, the Russians would be none the wiser. Therefore, the only way the Russians could "prove us wrong" would be to cry foul on Apollo by citing the radiation hazard.


So if the Soviets could not prove Apollo was a hoax with radio transmissions, the only way practical way to blow the whistle would be to reveal that the radiation was too hazardous. But this would also shoot themselves in the foot.


Apollo Investigation, Illusory Apollo: the Ultimate Mega Show by Aerodynamicist Alexander Onoprienko. AULIS Online – Different Thinking

Why the Soviet Union conceded

*The top Soviet leadership was faced with a dilemma – to go to considerable effort to gather evidence and then publicly prove the illusory nature of the Apollo Space Project, or to keep silent by agreeing to the US geopolitical exchange.

In the first case, the parties were facing a military conflict, at least a strike on the Soviet space infrastructure. Under no circumstances could the US allow the truth to come out, as in this case instead of triumph, the country would run into ontological catastrophe: their chosen role as the prime purveyors of truth, goodness, and justice, in the eyes of its citizens and the self-appointed policeman of the world in the eyes of everyone else, America would become the generator of a ubiquitous lie without the moral right to geopolitical leadership.

As the global lie is exposed in the eyes of its citizens the elite loses the right to exercise their power: any communication with the public could be interpreted as an attempt to deceive, which would mean paralysis of governance. In terms of financial, rather than administrative dictatorship this stance could result in deep social disorder or even disintegration of the country.

In the second case, it is prudent not to engage in an exposé; the Soviet Union gets peace and access to useful financial resources and western technologies. The situation created by the US did not allow for partial solutions – either peace, friendship and chewing gum – or war. Facing a difficult decision the Soviet leaders, at first glance, acted wisely and humanely.


[...] In surrendering the space race in exchange for Coca-Cola and ice cream, the Soviet elite actually signed its future defeat.

Why keep silent now

Firstly, because we, the USSR, took a direct part in the Apollo hoax, confirming it with our silence, and we even made money out of it. According to the ‘rules of the game’, if anyone was to denounce the event, it would have to be a third player, not Russia.

Secondly, serious declarations require convincing evidence. NASA will go to considerable lengths to prevent any such evidence from surfacing in a way that would alert the general public. Stuck in an old paradigm, and still fearful of destabilising the perception of US power in space and elsewhere, NASA cannot acknowledge the ‘illusion’ component of the space program.