The idea that we went to the Moon - and that we were successful in our Apollo endeavours - is so firmly embedded in the cultural lives of most people on this planet, that to voice the opinion that this might be untrue smacks of paranoia and to present evidence for these doubts smacks of heresy. If this opinion is correct, then the majority of us have been conned; that, we've been taken for a ride that has lasted 27 years. A ride that's been generating its own momentum and most of us are still on it! Throughout aviation history and space exploration, the prime and lasting record of our achievements has been preserved as photographic images, movie film and in recent times, television coverage. We are in no doubt that these records reflect the actual events as they occurred, disasters and triumphs included. Particularly in the exploration of space - and going to the Moon is a perfect example in which there are no independent witnesses to the actual events- we have the right to expect the record to be genuine, honestly portrayed, and responsibly reported. In actual fact, mankind has no proof at all that we ever set foot on the Moon, other than the photographs that NASA has elected to publish. In this article, David Percy, an award winning film and TV producer, 'focuses' on some of these images, formulating the kind of brief that might have been given to the first lunar surface photographers to produce such questionable images. While such matters as the alleged Moon rocks are important, if the Apollo photos are faked, then they and everything else will find its own place in this NASA jigsaw.

We are now waking up to the possibility that NASA's photographic coverage of the landings on the Moon between 1969 and 1972 may not be genuine - this includes both the film and the TV broadcasts. Following detailed photographic analysis of NASA images, I have gained compelling evidence that there was indeed a falsification of the record and although NASA might seek to justify its actions, there can be no acceptable defence for such dishonesty. Those whom I call 'Whistle-Blowers' appear to have encoded the information needed to discover this sad truth. Their information is found in the photography, in the processing and in the final compositing and retouching. I have organised my discoveries under the headings of a series of photographic rules.

Photo rule No 1:

Light travels in straight, parallel lines at any given moment. Shadow directions are constant because the light comes from the sun over 90 million miles away.

Take a look at photo 1, typical tree shadows. Notice the virtual parallel lines of shadow - and the shadow side of the trees is dark. No detail. This is not surprising.

Now compare with the panoramic shot, photo 2, supposedly taken on the Moon, you can work out where the sources of light are! ... Not very far away! These shadows are not parallel.

In photo 3 they converge to a point on the alleged lunar surface. This is an impossible situation in natural sunlight. Also notice that the shadow side isn't dark and the shaded side of the gold visor reflects a bright source of light. Very surprising! Daytime on the lunar surface lasts for a period of 14 'Earth' days, but in the NASA images, shadow lengths vary within the time frame (a few hours or days) of the alleged mission. Shadow lengths are at odds with the sun angles at the time of the supposed trip.

For example, during 'Apollo 11' the sun was at 10 degrees above the horizon but the pictures depict 30 degrees or so! See photo 4. Is this a mistake, or a Whistle-Blower's clue? Varying shadow lengths within any given picture or TV scene imply more than one light source, sometimes positioned at different heights! Clearly, if a picture is genuine, it's not possible to have variations in shadow direction within any one picture.

The shadows in photo 5 are all over the place.

Again in photo 6, there are more shadow 'problems' with the rocks. Long shadows, short shadows, grey shadows, dark shadows, some filled-in, some not filled-in - real Whistle-Blowing!

The TV image, photo 7, is another example of differential shadow lengths. Additionally, there is visual evidence of the use of a large, very near, ARTIFICIAL source of light.

The TV image, photo 8, shows a reflection of a light source occupying approximately 25% of the convex visor. This, in my view, indicates the use of a super-light of an incredible size, positioned extremely close to the action.

Photo rule No 2:

Light in a vacuum is high contrast - ie. very bright on the sun side, very dark on the shadow side - and on the Moon there is no atmosphere to help fill-in or soften/lighten the shadows. Consider 'Apollo 16'.

In photo 9, you see the shadow area of an 'astronaut' filed-in, indicating the deployment of reflectors (not seen in the TV coverage) or other fill-in and/or secondary light sources. This lighting had to be high on a rig. That is why it was impossible for them to maintain the actual low (sun)light angles!

Calculations indicate that at the time of the alleged 'Apollo 17' the sun angle was approximately 5 degrees but the sun angle in the pictures is far greater (see photo 10). Note the filled-in astronaut and in photo 11 the filled-in LM (Lunar Module). Some very fed up Whistle-Blowers in action!

After running this article FT had a huge postbag. Read some more on this topic...