The LCROSS Impact & Alleged Artificial Features On The Moon

[Bigfoot73]

LCROSS : failure or fake ?

Over the years NASA has released thousands of photos of the Moon which appear to have been tampered with. Conversations between the Apollo astronauts and Earth were scripted and censored. Transcripts of the conversations the astronauts had amongst themselves when out of contact with Earth reveal intriguing evidence of some very anomalous phenomena, which somehow NASA overlooked and made public ( although the original tapes have somehow got 'lost')
Now we have the LCROSS video. The image we were presented with shows a not-very-high resolution picture of the crater which doesn't get any sharper as it gets closer. Curiously, perhaps crucially, the perspective doesn't change either.
Once the 'shepherd' stage gets close to the surface the screen switches to the infra red camera, which can barely diffferentiate anything, and the control room. When it cuts back to the visual camera there's just blurred blackness and a a very indistinct image of a crater - then impact.

What we definitely do not see is the miles-high debris plume. NASA was urging amateur astronomers to observe the impact, promising easily visible results. Yet there was nothing, and NASA are now backtracking,playing down their previous emphasis on visual evidence and playing up the importance of other instruments.
The IR camera didn't reveal any debris either, just a square of pixels supposed to be the Centaur crater. In the control room a female voice announces confirmation of the IR crater image , but with a questioning intonation and a hesitant delivery, as if she's being fed something over the headphones rather than seeing it herself.

I would contend that the whole thing was bogus. The visual camera was a rostrum camera zooming in on a two-dimensional photograph of Cabeus. The IR image wasn't even that good. Either image of the alleged impact crater could be anything anywhere.
If it's all genuine and something really did go wrong then NASA have just wasted 79 000 000 dollars on crap cameras and a duff idea. Until 2 weeks ago the chosen impact site was Cabeus A, more easily visible from Earth and with definite hydrogen traces. So why change it?

I have no definite suggestions as to exactly what NASA was trying to conceal or obfuscate this time but whatever it is , they did a really bad job of it.

 

[tastyintestines]

How do you know they did a bad job of covering something up if you don't know what they were covering up? Obviously they did a good job.

 

[KarlD]

I would content that you need to stop reading scientificaly illiterate gibberish.


Once again we have an example of how nasty smelly humans are too stupid to do anything, meanwhile lovely aliens are happily skipping across the universe to come to the stupid humans rescue.
NASA have a history of touching up photographs before releasing them and had they know how many stupid people would pick up on this as 'proof' of whatever conspiracy they are burbling about now, they would have probably not bothered.
I always think of the aliens galloping over the horizon to save stupid humans to strains of the William Tell Overture.

 

[rynner2]

I watched this live on NASA's website, and I agree with most of the press reports that it was an anticlimax.

Given that we have still not been given any positive results from the experiment, it seems things did not go as planned, but hey, that's science. An unexpected result is often more important in the long run than confirmation of a prior expectation.

So why is this topic in Ufology? No UFOs were involved, or even 'covered up'. (If NASA had knowledge of some UFOs and wanted to cover it up, why invite the world to watch a live experiment which might draw attention to them?)

This is a topic for New Science, or possibly Conspiracy, but it has f--k all to do with UFOs.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

This is a topic for New Science, or possibly Conspiracy, but it has f--k all to do with UFOs.

Yep! No sign of UFOs. I've moved this to, 'New Science'.

I would also like to remind other Posters (KarlD, I'm looking at you), that going beyond directness, towards gratuitous rudeness, can look a lot like Flaming.

P_M

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

[http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=914089#914089]

I would content that you need to stop reading scientificaly illiterate gibberish.

Once again we have an example of how nasty smelly humans are too stupid to do anything, meanwhile lovely aliens are happily skipping across the universe to come to the stupid humans rescue.
...

Strange to say, in your recent Post on the Climate Thread you do seem to believe that, "nasty smelly humans are too stupid to do anything", actually will pollute themselves to extinction, that this will be a good thing and that to believe otherwise is rank hypocrisy.

[http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=913975#913975]

...

I think what rubs people up the wrong way is the 'oh we are saving the earth' attitude, it always reminds me of the modern parents in viz.When i hear that phrase I always think no you are just saving your sorry arse, the earth will be able to cope quite happily without you.

Let's hope, to paraphrase Eric Idle,
"And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
Because there's bugger all down here on earth."

 

[Bigfoot73]

Scientifically illiterate gibberish? I mentioned nothing other than the NASA videos and other releases such as the Apollo transcripts. You don't seem to have managed as much as looking at the impact video yourself.
So NASA have a history of touching up photos but wouldn't have bothered if they'd anticipated people interpreting this as a cover-up of alien activity? What? What is it you think they were touching up the photos for?

NASA were not inviting the world to watch a live experiment - this wasn't a live experiment. It might (or might not) have been alien activity that they wanted to hide, which is why I started this in Ufology. Thought it might have picked up a few more viewers over there too!

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

NASA were not inviting the world to watch a live experiment - this wasn't a live experiment. It might (or might not) have been alien activity that they wanted to hide, which is why I started this in Ufology. Thought it might have picked up a few more viewers over there too!

That is stretching surmise a bit too far. There has been absolutely no hint of UFO, or alien activity, of any kind, in connection with this experiment.

The possibility of water on the moon leading to more space exploration and the promise of good space science, done on the cheap, is what has driven the public relations side of this mission. These days, NASA needs more cash and has to justify every red cent.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4317333.html

A visible puff of water vapour and ice crystals would have been the icing on the cake.

 

[Bigfoot73]

This might have actually been a live experiment, but what we saw wasn't live, possibly to avoid giving any hint of alien activity.
It might have been cheap, but was it good science? Instruments left by Apollo missions picked up signs of water in 1971. The Chandrayaan probe just found water. Cassini, on it's way to the outer solar system, found signs of water all over the Moon, but it took years to process the data.

 

[KarlD]

NASA has to deal every day with idiotic critisicm from people who don't know what they are talking about and get taken in by all the conspiracy theories so I wouldn't worry yourself about it.
But you just make yourself look stupid spouting about it all being a fake when you don't see what you expect.The conspiracy theories against NASA come from people who would like you to believe that humans are not capable of doing the things that they claim, because of course its only our friendly aliens who are capable of such things.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Why is any criticism of NASA idiotic?
Why assume anyone criricising NASA doesn't know what they're talking about?
Why should I not worry about it when I gave no indication I was worried about anything?
What is so stupid about my suspecting the videos are bogus 'just' because they don't contain what not just me but everybody expected to see i.e. some sign of the impact and a debris plume, which NASA led us to expect?
Have you actually got round to watching the video yet? The detail doesn't improve, and the perspective doesn't change. Rather telling , wouldn't you think?
Where do you get the idea that NASA's critics think it incapable of doing anything? Why do you think people suspect it's aliens who are crashing obsolete hardware into the moon?
Your entire post is utterly half-baked, well down to the standard of your mimicking of Ramonmercado's witticism about Condi on the 9.11 thread.
Or your gullible claims about coke dealers supplying the local cops on the "Britain..police state " thread. Or that hilarious cycling club conspiracy theory of yours.How do you get to criticise conspiracy theorists when you come out with nonsense like that ?
How you think posting nothing but groundless supposition and hackneyed cliches amounts to critique of conspiracists defeats me . It's exactly what conspiracists are usually accused of !
Try thinking before you post.

 

[stu neville]

Now, now. "Gullible" counts as an ad-hom, so don't go saying that again.

There. Consistent but fair.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Point taken.

 

[eburacum]

I would take issue with every point you raised in your first post.

Over the years NASA has released thousands of photos of the Moon which appear to have been tampered with.

All electronic images sent by radio transmission from remote satellites are processed; that is not the same as tampering.
Perhaps you would rather look at the digital information in its raw form. None have been deliberately falsified. No photographs on film brought back from the Moon have been altered at all. I challenge you to show one which has.

Conversations between the Apollo astronauts and Earth were scripted and censored.

They wrote the scripts them selves; none have been censored. I challenge you to produce one which has.

Transcripts of the conversations the astronauts had amongst themselves when out of contact with Earth reveal intriguing evidence of some very anomalous phenomena, which somehow NASA overlooked and made public ( although the original tapes have somehow got 'lost')

Utter nonsense. All such transcripts are fakes or at best deliberate misinterpretations. Sorry, but you are completely wrong.

 

[Bigfoot73]

I would take issue with every point you make in your post.
Both film and digital images have been released with signs of tampering. Raw data is not always made available. Any number of examples can be found at www.keithlaney.com, or JP Skipper's Mars Anomaly Research.com
Conversations between the astronauts and Earth were censored, and largely bereft of anomaly-related information simply because the astronauts were reluctant to tell mission control everything. Conversations they had betwen themselves were recorded on different tapes, in the Data Storage Equipment Assembly,and the transcripts are available at www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/ ... ranscripts.
They aren't fakes, they are all available for free in pdf. form from the official NASA website. Sorry, but you are completely wrong.

 

[KarlD]

Why is any criticism of NASA idiotic?
Why assume anyone criricising NASA doesn't know what they're talking about?
Why should I not worry about it when I gave no indication I was worried about anything?
What is so stupid about my suspecting the videos are bogus 'just' because they don't contain what not just me but everybody expected to see i.e. some sign of the impact and a debris plume, which NASA led us to expect?
Have you actually got round to watching the video yet? The detail doesn't improve, and the perspective doesn't change. Rather telling , wouldn't you think?
Where do you get the idea that NASA's critics think it incapable of doing anything? Why do you think people suspect it's aliens who are crashing obsolete hardware into the moon?
Your entire post is utterly half-baked, well down to the standard of your mimicking of Ramonmercado's witticism about Condi on the 9.11 thread.
Or your gullible claims about coke dealers supplying the local cops on the "Britain..police state " thread. Or that hilarious cycling club conspiracy theory of yours.How do you get to criticise conspiracy theorists when you come out with nonsense like that ?
How you think posting nothing but groundless supposition and hackneyed cliches amounts to critique of conspiracists defeats me . It's exactly what conspiracists are usually accused of !
Try thinking before you post.

I assume from your attack thats you havent really seen much of the real world, to get back to your idea that NASA fakes experiments for some reason and posts videos that are according to you easily recognised as fakes, the question to ask is why would they do that? the second point I would make is you were clearly expecting to see some kind of walt disney on ice special effects spectacular instead of what you got which was some vides which you claim doesn't change perspective which having looked at it I don't see the problem, thirdly when you have come up with some reason why NASA might want to try to fake an experiment, they couldn't have replaced the video with a computer generated walt disney on ice special effects spectacular for your entertainment. complete with Bruce Willis in his vest
I think the problem we have is that I do think about stuff people post on here and you just have this that NASA is trying to con people.
As for my cycling club experiance erm let me think, oh yes thats right I ended up joining this much better club where they do the kind of things which I said that they should have been doing at the first club without having to fight the commitee every step of the way about it, mainly because the new club doesn't have a commitee so thats all good. I always say that any club or society which has a commitee of old men who are all a bit stuck in their ways has got problems.
As for my drug dealler friend well you know I cannot really prove that to you because you are just going to shout it cannot be possible and as i don't really want to take it to the IPCC and get involved in all that you'll have to believe what you want.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

I would take issue with every point you make in your post.
Both film and digital images have been released with signs of tampering. Raw data is not always made available. Any number of examples can be found at http://www.keithlaney.com, or JP Skipper's Mars Anomaly Research.com
Conversations between the astronauts and Earth were censored, and largely bereft of anomaly-related information simply because the astronauts were reluctant to tell mission control everything. Conversations they had betwen themselves were recorded on different tapes, in the Data Storage Equipment Assembly,and the transcripts are available at http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/mission_transcripts.
They aren't fakes, they are all available for free in pdf. form from the official NASA website. Sorry, but you are completely wrong.

Neither of the links go anywhere useful, even after being fixed.

I would like to see some actual evidence that NASA has been actively doctoring the evidence. There is some out there to be found, how genuine, or well founded it is, is another matter.

--- --- --- --- --- ---

And, generally:

Please, everybody, let's stay on topic and avoid personal attacks, or flaming.

P_M

 

[KarlD]

This is the keith Laney website
http://www.keithlaney.net/

obviously someone who doesn't have any axe to grind

First of all NASA is accused of producing fake photographic evidence of the moon landings and then when they produce photos of mars which get everyone excited they produce high resolution photos which show them to be photos of natural features and they still get accused of conspiracy ao they cannot win whatever they do.

 

[eburacum]

I would take issue with every point you make in your post.
Both film and digital images have been released with signs of tampering.

Examples please? Especially film, as I am sure that none of the film brought back from the Moon has beed tampered with. As I said before all satellite digital imagery is processed in someway- so it is possible to call that tampering, but it is done in good faith. The only film photographs from the Moon which have been substantially altered are the ones which have been stitched together to form panoramas- and I believe the unaltered originals are also available.

Raw data is not always made available. Any number of examples can be found at www.keithlaney.com, or JP Skipper's Mars Anomaly Research.com

Please provide some. All have been debunked.

Conversations between the astronauts and Earth were censored,

Examples please...

and largely bereft of anomaly-related information simply because the astronauts were reluctant to tell mission control everything.

If they didn't say anything, it was because they had nothing to say. How can anyone speculate about what they didn't say?

Conversations they had betwen themselves were recorded on different tapes, in the Data Storage Equipment Assembly,and the transcripts are available at www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/ ... ranscripts.
They aren't fakes, they are all available for free in pdf. form from the official NASA website.

Exactly. And they only mention astronomical anomalies, like the Lunar Transient event that Armstrong saw. This was an important observation- and it certainly wasn't censored.

 

[eburacum]

Please, everybody, let's stay on topic and avoid personal attacks, or flaming.

P_M

The topic should be LCROSS and the science behind it. The pictures were a little disappointing; but I'm waiting to see the results of the analysis. If they find water then any future lunar colony might stand a chance of self-sufficiency; if not, then lunar colonisation is going to be difficult.
To be honest I'm not sure what flaming is, in this context. I'll take a look in one of the Urban Dictionaries, and try to avoid it.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Please, everybody, let's stay on topic and avoid personal attacks, or flaming.

P_M

The topic should be LCROSS and the science behind it. The pictures were a little disappointing; but I'm waiting to see the results of the analysis. If they find water then any future lunar colony might stand a chance of self-sufficiency; if not, then lunar colonisation is going to be difficult.
To be honest I'm not sure what flaming is, in this context. I'll take a look in one of the Urban Dictionaries, and try to avoid it.

Bigfoot73 was first to start the Thread, over in the UFO Forum. I moved it, because of a total lack of evidence of UFO activity, of any sort.

I doubt very much that Bigfoot73 is alone in being suspicious of NASA motives, however unfounded some may consider such suspicions to be. That is what we Forteans usually find interesting. We are as much along for the ride as to reach some final destination, labelled, 'Incontrovertible True Facts'. It's the curly bits round the edges of the fractal map of knowledge that are the interesting bits.

Remember, you may have known the true facts for years, but many people come up against this stuff fresh, often on internet websites, all the time.

It's always good when someone is prepared to state their case and provide evidence to back it up. A sense of humour, patience and perspective is useful. Calling people idiots and questioning their sanity, less so.

We have guidelines re such things as 'Flaming':

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/faq.php#27

...

A Flame is an insulting criticism or remark meant to incite anger. Flaming isn't exclusive to Trolls however. Otherwise amiable board users can find themselves suddenly spitting out bile at other members, for the pettiest of reasons. Again - try to keep your hair on, and remember it's just a message board at the end of the day.

...

The definition of 'Trolling' can also be found there.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Today's posts have been up for several hours so in case you were wondering where I'd gone I will be back with a list of evidence sources soon.
To start with, the LCROSS film itself is a NASA film that has been tampered with inasmuch as it's bogus, if you ask me. It was the primary subject of my original post after all , and comments are invited.
It was my underlying suppositions about alien activity on the Moon that led me to put this in Ufology, along with a suspicion that this is what the bogus film and moving of the impact site were intended to conceal.
Some evidence of the debunking wouldn't go amiss.
No , NASA didn't censor out the Lunar Transient Phenomena but they would have found that difficult since they can be seen from Earth so easily. Rather they tried blaming them on cosmic rays and had the astronauts doing daft experiments with blindfolds to prove it, which they didn't.
Sorry about the links :- Keith Laney's site is of course .net, not .com. Don't know why the NASA link didn't work, it was a straight copy frrom an address bar.
Keithlaney.com deserves better than being dismissed a priori.
Back soon.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

If anyone has a history of tampering with photos and covering up the truth, it's those with a vested interest in the "reality" of alien craft.

 

[Bigfoot73]

To start with I would like to remind everyone again that it was the LCROSS visual camera film that was the principal focus of my thread-starter. It might help keep the thread on - topic ( if only for a while) if people addressed the issue. Why the lack of improving detail ? Why the lack of perspective change ? Why have 3 major observatories just announced they didn't see anything either ?
This film is important not just because of the obviousness of it's flaws but because it's a rare example of tampering with moving images ( or rather their complete replacement) Usually the only tampering with films is to remove any detail from the sky, possibly to hide images of anomalies on the horizon or in the sky - possibly alien craft, possibly evidence that the Moon has some sort of atmosphere, an issue NASA is very reluctant to address.
I realise that some evidence for alien activity on the Moon has been successfully debunked, but by no means all. Much as people come to such evidence anew and unaware of it's status, new evidence by more thorough researchers keeps being introduced. It might seem lazy to refer to websites, and wherever possible I give specific references, but originals can be a pain to locate :- the Clementine Lunar Image Browser is an infernal piece of webware which could be suspected of being part of the obfuscation process itself ! Still photos can be found in the respective Apollo mission Image Libraries, and on Mars Anomaly Research. Keith Laney has much Apollo 17 stuff.
Apollo 17 EVA 1 ALSEP / Panorama JSC2007e045385 - demonstrate the strange phenomena of duplicated rocks, as do pics from Apollo 17 Station 5, and Panorama JSC 2004e20304.
CLIB images are found by coordinates and I really would recommend an initial perusal of the website. Clementine's results are subject to a far greater level of blurring and pixellation than any other lunar satellite. 65 lat. 265 long./ 70 lat. 240 long show an obfuscated tower. 70 lat 137 long shows a structure.
AS17-135-20680 is in the official records as being of the lunar rover floor and glared out by the sun : you can still discern a pyramid which is seen better if the contrast is enhanced. Yes I said pyramid but please bear with me folks !
AS17 Station 6 JSC 2007 e045387 shows a large boulder in the centre of the view. AS17 Station 7 JSC 2004e52775 shows the same view but the boulder has gone. Many Apollo 17 images have landscapes which do not match other pics of the same subject, or the overhead orbiter images. as indeed to many other Apollo images.
Apollo 17's main purpose was ostensibly geological , but their main interest seems to have been the remarkably strange mountain called the South Massif.So much so that they drove past the pyramid, only stopping for one photo which was then misdescribed and overexposed in the released print.This is a symmetrical 6-sided hill covered in diagonal cross-hatching, visible in 2309 A17 Panoramic Dec 1972 and AS15-9297.It appears to have a large central void, the roof of which has collapsed.It has a hole in the side, called Nansen by NASA, and the astronauts spent much of their mission examining it.
The transcripts have evidence for anomalies , the relevant exchanges go on for pages and pages and will require interpretation, which of course I would do if people are actually prepared to withstand even more of my febrile rantings after they've debunked, demolished or just ignored the above

 

[Bigfoot73]

Further to the above I should point out something anyone reading the above post is probably perfectly aware of - that many of the images I refer to have not been tampered with. There are reasons why this is so: firstly NASA may have thought them too ambiguous to need it; secondly plain straightforward human error.Maybe an individual editor just didn't think there was anything anomalous in a particular image. There are literally millions of images to be viewed and anyone can make a mistake. Priority would have been to hide the immediately obvious.
The transcripts were actually released in the mid 80s. Possibly NASA thought 'losing' the actual tapes would be enough, and maybe they just didn't inspect the transcripts closely enough, particularly the DSEA transcripts. It wasn't until the past 10 years, if that long, that the faked Moon landings theory took off ( before you all reach for your 'Post Reply' boxes I actually believe they landed !). The issue laid dormant until then. hiding evidence in plain sight and not saying much about it has served NASA rather well.

 

[eburacum]

To start with I would like to remind everyone again that it was the LCROSS visual camera film that was the principal focus of my thread-starter. It might help keep the thread on - topic ( if only for a while) if people addressed the issue. Why the lack of improving detail ? Why the lack of perspective change ? Why have 3 major observatories just announced they didn't see anything either ?
This film is important not just because of the obviousness of it's flaws but because it's a rare example of tampering with moving images ( or rather their complete replacement) Usually the only tampering with films is to remove any detail from the sky, possibly to hide images of anomalies on the horizon or in the sky - possibly alien craft, possibly evidence that the Moon has some sort of atmosphere, an issue NASA is very reluctant to address.

There is no evidence of tampering with the LCROSS images. The fact that the plume was minimal is an important observation, but we don't know what it signifies until the analysis comes in.

Apollo 17 EVA 1 ALSEP / Panorama JSC2007e045385 - demonstrate the strange phenomena of duplicated rocks, as do pics from Apollo 17 Station 5, and Panorama JSC 2004e20304.

Duplicated rocks in panoramas are a result of the process of stitching the photos together. Try making a panorama yourself using photos taken on Earth. That is not evidence of a cover-up.

CLIB images are found by coordinates and I really would recommend an initial perusal of the website. Clementine's results are subject to a far greater level of blurring and pixellation than any other lunar satellite. 65 lat. 265 long./ 70 lat. 240 long show an obfuscated tower.

That will be a digital processing problem. All the anomalies from Clementine are a result of digital processing; the cameras used CCDs to record the data, which was then compressed and sent to Earth. Most of these pyramids and so-called structures are compression artifacts; others are due to hot pixels and data-loss. However with the earlier Lunar Orbiter photos, there is the added complication of fIlm processing on board the satellite.Scratches, emulsion problems, damaged film all add to the mix. But in general Lunar Orbiter worked very well for 1960s technology.

AS17-135-20680 is in the official records as being of the lunar rover floor and glared out by the sun : you can still discern a pyramid which is seen better if the contrast is enhanced.

Here is the offending photo; it shows the floor of the rover.
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-135-20680.jpg
Compare it with the previous photo, of the lunar rover;
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-135-20679.jpg
There's the pyramid again, obviously part of the rover.

AS17 Station 6 JSC 2007 e045387 shows a large boulder in the centre of the view. AS17 Station 7 JSC 2004e52775 shows the same view but the boulder has gone.

I can't find the numbers you have given. Any chance of a direct link? Some photos are taken from vantage points which are reasonably close together, which differ only because of foreground rocks. Note that one is taken from Station 6 and one is taken from Station 7.

Many Apollo 17 images have landscapes which do not match other pics of the same subject, or the overhead orbiter images. as indeed to many other Apollo images.

All these anomalies can be explained by consideriing the exact viewpoint.

The transcripts have evidence for anomalies , the relevant exchanges go on for pages and pages and will require interpretation, which of course I would do if people are actually prepared to withstand even more of my febrile rantings after they've debunked, demolished or just ignored the above

There is no censoring, as can be proved by the fact that the transcripts are available. Some of the speech is indistinct or ungrammatical, but compared to other large scale sources of recorded speech (such as Nixon's Watergate Tapes) the transcripts are models of grammatical language and clarity.

 

[Bigfoot73]

It's not that the LCROSS visual camera video was tampered with as much as replaced altogether. Why that should be I don't know, especially as there is evidence of an impact from the IR camera - unless that is bogus too
If those are stitched-together photos, the landscape should be duplicated too. It does not appear to be , particularly in 20304 I wiill try and track down some other duplicated pics I've come across.
As for Clementine's artifact and pixel problems, I think the images are too large, symmetrical and geometric for this to be the cause.
Lunar Orbiter was a great piece of kit for it's time, and I don't think I have referred to any of it's images.
20680 doesn't seem to show anything but the pyramid. 20679 does indeed show the rover floor but doesn't seem to have anything like the pyramid in it and despite being described as sunstruck a clear image is discernible. Notice the question mark after "LRV floor" in the Image Library catalogue.

The boulder/no boulder pics are on Mars Anomaly Research - "More Moon Evidence 4" section. Yes they are taken from slightly different points, but not I think far enough apart to miss the boulder.
I don't think any of the landscape dicrepancies can be explained by differences in viewpoint.

The transcripts are indeed available but the DSEA tapes have been 'lost' As I said, they do not have many signs of censorship, but what they do show is astronauts talking about features on the Moon which they do not seem so willing to discuss when back in contact with Earth.

 

[eburacum]

The boulder/no boulder pics are on Mars Anomaly Research - "More Moon Evidence 4" section. Yes they are taken from slightly different points, but not I think far enough apart to miss the boulder.

These two pictures
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evid ... tion-6.jpg
and
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evid ... tion-7.jpg

were taken at Station 6 and Station 7 on the Rover's traverse; these two stations were roughly 500 metres apart. No wonder that the rock has disappeared.
The distant mountains in the background haven't changed- they are many kilometers away.
Don't forget that the Moon is a very different world to the Earth; there is effectively no atmosphere, therefore no distance haze, and even mountains kilometers away look like they are right next to you.

 

[Bigfoot73]

The boulder pics - actually you might be right about that one. The link is to a page on another forum, which id the best I can get for the image. It's not NASA I admit, but it is a very blatant example of feature duplication.
http://www.keithlaney.net/TheHiddenMissionForum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12135&start=0
Look at the larger craters - at roughly a 7'o' clock position there are the same 2 small mounds visible by at least 6 craters. Same vaguely exclamation mark - looking feature, same position. It's arrowed in the boxes.

 

[eburacum]

If those are stitched-together photos, the landscape should be duplicated too. It does not appear to be , particularly in 20304

To understand this, I recommend you try to make a panorama yourself. No matter how hard you try, you can't stitch photos taken on a flat-film camera together to make a panorama; you would need a curved film for a perfect match. So the photo editors have to chop the edges around a bit; that is why you see some rocks as duplicated, and not others. The panoramas are not evidence of tampering in the originals - they have to be tampered with to fit together. But as I've said, the original untampered components of the panoramas are also available.
It needs a little research of your own, but you can prove to yourself that there is no tampering; don't take Laney's word or any one elses.