Apollo Moon Landings Faked?

[outsider]

There is another very convincing video, I can't find it at present.
But the Masonic connections of the 'Astronauts' is worth noting:

NASA Masonic Conpsiracy:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masonapo.htm

The Moon Landing Hoax:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/atlantean_conspiracy/a tlantean_conspiracy47.htm

Freemasons for Dummies:
http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/apollo-11-freemason s-and-moon.html

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

CHINA'S MOON LANDING
APPEARS TO BE ANOTHER
STAGED HOAX
December 21, 2013
SOURCE: LEE ROGERS, BLACKLISTED
NEWS
Last week China made international news
claiming to have successfully landed a
spacecraft carrying a lunar rover called the
“Jade Rabbit” on the moon. Unfortunately like
other publicized space exploration spectacles
this event is highly questionable and appears to
be another hoax. Many researchers have proven
conclusively that the American missions to the
moon during the Apollo era of the late 1960s
and early 1970s were faked in a television studio
on Earth. It is no wonder why Apollo astronauts
like Buzz Aldrin get angry and punch people
when confronted about their participation in the
fraud. It is truly sad that the Chinese have
decided to follow this same hoax formula as
they attempt to project national prestige through
their space program. It is however much more
cost effective to fake a mission into space than
to actually do it legitimately.
China’s space program already has a dubious
history after many independent researchers
questioned the authenticity of video footage
claiming to show the nation’s first manned
spacewalk back in 2008. The footage of the
alleged spacewalk at one point shows what
appear to be water bubbles floating past an
astronaut. This indicates that the footage the
Chinese passed off as their first spacewalk was
shot in a water tank and not in space. Details
surrounding the so-called successful spacewalk
including quotes from the astronauts involved in
the mission were released prior to the mission
even launching. In other words, the scripted
event was released to the public too early. This
embarrassing situation further confirmed
people’s doubts about the spacewalk’s
legitimacy and provided more proof that the
entire event was staged.
The circumstances surrounding China’s alleged
moon landing are just as questionable. When
the event was broadcast live by Chinese
television it focused primarily on the cartoon
animations of the spacecraft . Little if any useful
footage was shown from the spacecraft itself.
The little footage that we did see showed frame
by frame clips of the spacecraft supposedly
getting closer to the lunar surface. Once we
were told that it had landed on the moon, the
camera attached to the spacecraft showed
nothing that anyone would find remotely useful.
It is also hard to understand how no dust from
the surface was picked up by the on board
camera when the spacecraft landed. Surely the
spacecraft’s engine when approaching the
surface or the impact with the surface itself
would have kicked up some dust from the
surface. The footage shows none of this even in
the real time version that was released after the
live broadcast.
The only other footage we have been shown of
this mission is a brief video clip supposedly
showing the “Jade Rabbit” lunar rover rolling
itself out on to the lunar surface. Some of the
same questions that people have raised about
the Apollo footage pertains here. The footage
shows black sky with no stars or other celestial
reference points. In addition, the horizon shown
is curved in a very strange manner. It looks
man made without the normal inconsistencies
you’d expect to see if we were truly looking at
the real lunar horizon.
On top of this, there has been very little mention
of the space mission since the alleged landing
and rover deployment last week. We have also
seen no high quality pictures or video footage
taken of the lunar surface. If this were a real
mission, one would think that they would be
sending back hundreds if not thousands of new
images and video in high quality to show off the
powerful technological capabilities of the Chinese
state. None of this has happened which gives
more credence to the premise that this event is
being faked.
Besides the footage mentioned earlier the only
other significant material released so far has
been a panorama picture of the lunar surface.
Instead of releasing a high quality source image,
it has been released in the form of a video
camera recording the image off of a projector
screen . This is the same tactic that was used
during the Apollo 11 mission undoubtedly to
mask or hide imperfections of the stage.
Interestingly enough, the panorama which should
show both the sun and the earth are not seen at
all anywhere in the sky of the picture. All of this
raises some serious questions about the photo’s
authenticity along with the authenticity of the
mission itself. It is pretty sad that you could
actually argue that the James Bond film
"Diamonds Are Forever" released back in the
early 1970s provided a better hoax recreation of
the lunar surface than what we are seeing here.
It should be interesting to see how the Chinese
will deal with this moving forward since
everything we have seen so far indicates that
this mission is nothing more than a gigantic
fraud. The footage and images that we have
been shown so far are about the same quality of
the stuff we saw back in the late 1960s and
early 1970s during the Apollo hoaxes. This in of
itself is ridiculous considering that we’ve since
had over 40 years of advances in camera
technology. Take for example some of the high
resolution photos taken from the Hubble
telescope . Simply put, the Chinese have given
us no reason to believe that this mission is real
and every reason to believe that it is fake.
www.blacklistednews.com/China's_Moon_Landing_Appears_To_Be_Another_Sta ged_Hoax/31381/0/21/21/Y/M.html

[outsider]

Science proves that NASA faked the moon landings - Moon Landing Hoax:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7pzg9xpAOE&feature=youtu.be

Yet another 'Giant Step For Mankind' in nailing the NASA 'Big Lie'!!!

[scienceplease 2]

Even as an 11 year old I thought the moon landing video looked rather strange. It looked like er... rushing a camera down onto a model. I've heard of ground rush but they went from 20,000 feet down to zero in N seconds! (where N was a small number).

Hmm.

There are these though...

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites .html

[outsider]

Just more fake photos.

[TonyGosling]

Five Stupid Things About Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=401AXoN0mQE
Is there a group of conspiracy theorists more deluded and irritating and offensively irrational than the 9/11 Truthers? I think so. Their name? Well . . . I don't know all their names, there's too many of them — collectively, let's call them the Moon Landing Hoaxers. And they believe some pretty stupid things.
Extensive film and video footage of the Apollo Moon landings is available from NASA at:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

[outsider]

[outsider]

Is there Any Hope for a Moon Base:
http://www.aulis.com/moonbase.htm

'..Since NASA's Constellation Program (CxP), intended to return humans to the Moon by 2020 was cancelled in 2010, there has been no shortage of professional views as to what should happen next. Nevertheless, development work on systems to fly beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO) has continued without interruption, with the main targets remaining the same: to resurrect technologies that were allegedly available back in the late 1960s.

So, the key aspects of the current strategy defined in the US Authorization Act of 2010 are unsurprising: to develop a heavy launch vehicle and a module for the crew, capable of the safe return from space journeys beyond LEO. Doesn’t this simply mean a rocket analogous to the Saturn V launch vehicle and a capsule similar to the Apollo Command Module (CM)?

However, the CxP plan to return to the Moon was not the first of its kind. An historical review (Arch. Study, 2005) pointed to a number of NASA task forces which, since at least 1989, had been assembled periodically in order to formulate the next viable Moon mission. A permanent base on the Moon had seemed to be the most logical and attractive goal, bearing in mind the apparent success of the Apollo program. Had the planned road maps of the early 1990s been realised within a span of some 15 years, in all probability a functioning inhabited outpost would have been developed on the Moon by now.

The most recent of the human space flight projects, the CxP again planned to at last get to the Moon. Until its cancellation in 2010, the project had achieved remarkable progress in planning, design and early development at a cost of around US$10 billion. Yet, on 15 April 2010, President Obama – speaking to scientists, astronauts and policy makers – finally denounced the CxP. Instead of a program to return to the Moon, he outlined the plan for NASA:


"By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth," the President said. "And a landing on Mars will follow, and I expect to be around to see it!" (Pres. Speech, 2010)

Obviously, this totally new strategy means no landings, either on the Moon or on Mars, for at least some 20 years from 2010. So then, what is the major problem with landing on the Moon? What does it really mean in terms of technology and logistical challenges to repeat a feat which, according to the record, was confidently accomplished many times, more than 40 years ago?

The answer can be found in the latest US Government and NASA documents. Any such mission is a complex chain of essential operations all of which have to be accomplished safely. It is sufficient for one or two links in the chain to be unreliable to make a Moon return deadly dangerous, and the mission becomes absolutely impossible when just one link is incomplete. Such links were actually acknowledged by NASA.


Heat Shield of the Command Module
One crucial link in any mission to the Moon requires that the return capsule is equipped with an effective and reliable heat shield to thermally protect the craft. In particular, it was literally the vital element in the construction of each Apollo CM. This essential protection was necessary for re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere on lunar return. The CM hits and enters the Earth’s atmosphere at the re-entry speed of 11.2 km per second (escape velocity value). Development of such a high specification shield must have been a highly significant scientific and technological challenge – especially in the mid 1960s – due to the complex technical requirements.

According to the chronology, the first successful use of the Apollo heat shield with a crew on board was in December 1968 during the return of Apollo 8 from the journey around the Moon. After that, all Apollo missions reportedly completed perfect landings and no problem has ever been highlighted or discussed.

However, the Architecture Report for the CxP reveals that NASA now does have a problem with the thermal protection material: ‘A Thermal Protection System (TPS) requires materials specifically designed to manage aero-thermal heating (heat flux, dynamic pressure) experienced during hypersonic entry, for both nominal and abort scenarios... Only ablators can meet maximum requirements; they are designed to sacrifice mass under extreme heating efficiently and reliably... The Apollo ablative TPS (AVCOAT–5061) no longer exists. Qualification of new or replacement materials will require extensive analysis and testing.’ (Arch. Study, 2005 p.629)


Apollo 14 CM
Apollo 14 Command Module, allegedly returned from the Moon, now housed at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida (Phil Kouts)


The essential requirement of a CM returning to Earth with its crew is to protect the module against enormous heat at deceleration from the high re-entry speed to a descent speed appropriate for parachutes to be deployed. At entry into the atmosphere, the protective material has to withstand around 2,700 degrees C, compared to the lower temperature of approx. 1,600 degrees C at which the Space Shuttle’s shield operates. (NASA News, 2006)

This subject has remained in the background for over 40 years but is now revealed as an outstanding problem. Worse still, it is perhaps a problem that has never been resolved satisfactorily. In a 2008 report by the Government Accounting Office (GAO), the admission is even more startling than the one made three years earlier: '[A]ccording to the Orion program executive the Orion Project originally intended to use the heat shield from the Apollo program as fall-back technology for the Orion thermal protection system, but was unable to recreate the Apollo material.' (GAO, 2008 p.6) The report clarifies: 'Heat shield design features required by the Orion, namely the size, have never been proven and must be developed.' (GAO, 2008 p.11)

The importance of a totally reliable and effective heat shield cannot be overstated. The availability of a proper heat shield was absolutely critical for the safe return of all the Apollo crews. NASA’s admission that the agency cannot now recreate the thermal shield of a return module is absolutely astounding. Such an admission could only be compared to an inconceivable statement that, for example, American military officials admit that after using armoured steel in their tanks during WWII, some 40 years later they don’t have the technology at hand to develop armoured steel, and have great difficulty in reproducing such steel despite the previous experience during the war. The GAO report concludes: 'With respect to Orion's thermal protection system, facilities available from the Apollo era for testing large-scale heat shields no longer exist.' (GAO, 2008 p.14)

Eighteen months later, possibly to soften the shocking revelation regarding the absence of an effective heat shield made in its first report, GAO provides clarification: 'NASA is using an ablative material derived from the substance used in the Apollo program. After some difficulties, NASA was successful in recreating the material. Because it uses a framework with many honeycomb-shaped cells, each of which must be individually filled without voids or imperfections, it may be difficult to repeatedly manufacture to consistent standards. According to program officials, during the Apollo program the cells were filled by hand. The contractor plans to automate the process for the Orion Thermal Protection System, but this capability is still being developed.' (GAO, 2009 p.11)

Does this help to convince the public that the problem is only one of small operations versus large operations, and therefore has been resolved? As recently as the end of 2012, it was announced that the Orion capsule is to be tested for a medium (around 8.9 km per second) re-entry speed at expected temperatures of up to 2,200 degrees C. (Orion Factsheet, 2012) This approach is entirely reasonable if NASA intends to investigate re-entry thermal conditions step by step, having had no preliminary experience. Again, it is evident that there is no reliance whatsoever on the claimed accomplishments of the Apollo program.

Re-entry into the Earth’s Atmosphere
Another critical link in the successful chain of operations is the choice of landing trajectory. The re-entry profile in particular determines critical requirements for the thermal shield. According to NASA, the Apollo systems performed a "direct entry", i.e. that which is along the simplest, shortest trajectory. But this choice carries with it the penalty of the maximum atmosphere resistance – resulting in maximum heat for the landing capsule and the maximum gravitational deceleration overload for a crew in the module. Another technique known as "skip entry" seems now to be preferred for returning crew modules from the Moon.

A skip entry means entering the Earth’s atmosphere with a longer gliding path and a soft bouncing on the Earth's atmosphere which allows the landing capsule to experience less heat and, at the same time, far less gravitational overload. NASA has reviewed trajectories for returning to Earth from the Moon and concludes that compared to those used during Apollo, the new concept should be implemented: ‘…it is recommended that NASA utilize skip-entry guidance on the lunar return trajectories. The skip-entry lunar return technique provides an approach for returning crews to a single ... landing site anytime during a lunar month. The Apollo-style direct-entry technique requires water or land recovery over a wide range of latitudes.’ (Arch. Study, 2005 p.39)

A wide range of latitudes would normally mean a few degrees on the globe which in turn would mean a large territory a few hundred kilometres across, which is in line with theoretical estimates for direct-entry. Strangely enough, to say that Apollo-style direct-entry requires a large territory, entirely contradicts the historical records regarding the Apollo CM splashdowns that were regularly done within a short distance from the recovery aircraft carriers. Typical splashdown miss distances of just a few kilometres were recorded for each Apollo mission recovery. Which should make the present day recovery teams very envious – as they currently pick up astronauts returning from the International Space Station (ISS) in territories dozens of kilometres across.

As a matter of fact, by mentioning "a wide range of latitudes" the modern NASA research teams denounced the declared achievement of the Apollo program in using the direct-entry technique. Today, NASA teams will have to actually develop a precise landing technique which was apparently available in the late 1960s...'

How gullible can some folk be? NASA can't replicate a technology it supposedly had and used successfully back in the '60's? With all the technological advances made since then? Oh, sorry, I forgot - our 'Leaders' wouldn't lie to us, now, would they?

[outsider]

Faking Moon Landings: Parallax Experiments:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/21/faking-the-moon-landings-the-p arallax-experiments/

'We have long known the Moon landings were faked: Jay Weidner explains how it was done:

by Jay Weidner (with Jim Fetzer)

'During a visit to London with my wife, Jan, we were staying at The Morgan Hotel on Bloomsbury Street (which backs up on The British Museum), I was astonished to find “Conspiracy Theory: Did we land on the Moon?” (2001) on one of the BBC channels. It gave proof after proof that we had not landed on the Moon, the vast majority of which were scientific, which appealed to me as a professional philosopher of science. I regard it as exemplary among studies of the Apollo program:



Among its many points are that the lunar lander does not disrupt the dust covering the Moon when it blasts off with its thrusters, where its “lift off” appears to have been done using a crane; that the astronauts walking on the Moon appears to have been done by slowing down ordinary footage taken on Earth; and that the scientific obstacles to making it to the Moon would have been insuperable. To this day, I regard it as the most instructive about the hoax. But it is far from alone, where Bart Sibrel produced another memorable study, “A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon”,

the most striking sequence of which shows a view of Earth from great distance, but when the camera pulls back, you see that the roundness of the Earth was created by viewing it from a portal in sub-space orbit. The question that has lingered has not been whether or not man went to the moon–where space science, as Winston Wu has documented, is the only to have regressed across time–but how it was done. The classic, “Capricorn I” (1978), which featured James Brolin, Elliot Gould and even O.J. Simpson (before his disgrace), provided the major clue of having used a single broadcast source:

But the use of a single, grainy broadcast source was only part of the solution to how it was done. In this article, Jay Weidner–whom I have previously interviewed on my program, “The Real Deal”–on 26 March 2012:





explains how it was done using front screen projection. This complements what we have learned about the fakery–including a brilliant series of studies of the Moon landing photographs by Jack White–and leaves no room for doubt. The Moon landings were faked on a stage by Stanley Kubrick to serve the political agenda of “proving” that the United States was not scientifically and technologically behind the Soviet Union. It may have been the most spectacular of all forms of fakery foisted off upon the American people to benefit the government and deceive the nation and the world at large.

The Parallax Experiments: Faking the Moon landings

by Jay Weidner

Whether we actually went to the moon or not has never been proven. What is clear, however, is that the photographic evidence, taken on the surface of the moon, is faked and shot in a studio. There is clear evidence in the photographs of a Hollywood technique called front screen projection. Front screen projection was a technique used in the 1960s and 1970s and even into the 1980s.

Now largely replaced by green screen and other digital technologies, front screen projection was the best way during those years to shoot in side the studio but make it look like the actors are somewhere else. For instance the scenes in the 1978 movie, “Superman”, where Christopher Reeves is flying are front screen projection.

Basically front screen projection uses a mirror that splits the background image so that it is projected onto a screen behind the actors and into the camera. It was invented by Philip V. Palmquist while working at 3M company in 1949. The key to its success is that the screen is made up of thousands of tiny glass beads that are highly reflective:

process came into fruition when the 3M company invented a material called Scotchlite. This was a screen material that was made up of hundreds of thousands of tiny glass beads each about .4 millimeters wide. These beads were highly reflective. In the Front Screen Projection process the Scotchlite screen would be placed at the back of the soundstage. The plane of the camera lens and the Scotchlite screen had to be exactly 90 degrees apart. A projector would project the scene onto the Scotchlite screen through a mirror and the light would go through a beam splitter, which would pass the light into the camera. An actor would stand in front of the Scotchlite screen, and he would appear to be “inside” the projection.
The process came into fruition when the 3M company invented a material called Scotchlite. This was a screen material that was made up of hundreds of thousands of tiny glass beads each about .4 millimeters wide. These beads were highly reflective. In the Front Screen Projection process the Scotchlite screen would be placed at the back of the soundstage. The plane of the camera lens and the Scotchlite screen had to be exactly 90 degrees apart. A projector would project the scene onto the Scotchlite screen through a mirror and the light would go through a beam splitter, which would pass the light into the camera. An actor would stand in front of the Scotchlite screen, and he would appear to be “inside” the projection.

The first movie to use front screen projection was the Japanese film, “Matango: Attack of the Mushroom People” in 1963.

Front screen projection was a big step up from the technique which proceeded it, rear screen projection. The main problem with rear screen projection is that the background elements were always about a full f stop below that of the actors in front of the screen, giving away that there a trick was going on. Rear screen was frequently used in automobile scenes where the background in the rear of the car where the actors are situated as going by. The background always looks fake, however, because the background is just a little darker than it should be.

Front Screen Projection

Front screen projection was perfected, in 1966, by Stanley Kubrick, during the making of his masterpiece, “2001: A Space Odyssey”. The ape scenes at the beginning of that film were all shot indoors using front screen projection. Many people are surprised by this because the front screen projection technique was done so masterfully by Kubrick that the apes really do look like they are out in a desert somewhere.

But there are telltale ‘fingerprints’ that will often reveal the use of front screen projection. In the wide shots there always has to be a way to hide the bottom of the screen. Frequently Kubrick uses a raised set and then carefully places Styrofoam ‘boulders’ in places so that the background screen is hidden. So one of the fingerprints of its use is that there is always a line between foreground and the background screen.

Another ‘fingerprint’ which can be seen in certain points in the film, “2001: A Space Odyssey”, is that the ‘seams’ of the screen are evident. Turning up the contrast and lowering the gamma we can see the seams much more clearly. A network of these seams appears in the sky above and around the ape.

Kubrick also used front screen projection in some of the scenes depicting the lunar surface in 2001.

As I have shown before these same ‘fingerprints’ appear in most of the Apollo imagery taken on the surface of the moon. There is almost always a mysterious horizon line where there is a change if texture of the surface. This is a dead give away that front screen projection is being used. Here is a scene from “2001: A Space Odyssey” done with front screen projection:

From 2001- A Space Odyssey 1

And here is the same image with my Photoshop line separating the set with the ape-man actor and the Front Projection Screen:

From 2001- A Space Odyssey 2

In the 1990s, researcher Richard Hoagland began experimenting with the recently emerging desktop digital imaging. He took Apollo photographs and lowered the contrast and increased the gamma. He discovered the same network of seams and geometry around the astronauts just as I have discovered in the ape scenes in “2001″.

Richard Hoagland’s discoveries

Richard mistakenly considers these networks of geometry to be huge, miles high glass cities built by ancient aliens. What he had really discovered was the fingerprint of the use of front screen projection.

Mr. Hoagland has also subsequently discovered mysterious rainbow lights appearing in the sky above the astronauts. He also thinks that this is evidence of alien structures hanging high in the sky behind the astronauts.

But what he is really discovering here is the fact that one of the millions of tiny glass beads must have come slightly loose from it’s ninety degree position and is reflecting the studio lights back at the camera.



Previously I have argued that Stanley Kubrick may have been the director of the Apollo footage because of his expertise in using front screen projection. I won’t belabor that too much here in this article but I do want to repeat earlier parallels between the Apollo program and the making of the motion picture, “2001: A Space Odyssey”.

Both the movie and the program got off the ground (pun intended) in 1964. “2001: A Space Odyssey” was released in 1968 and Apollo 11 landed in 1969.

Both the movie astronauts and the Apollo astronauts moved around as if they were shot in slow motion during the low gravity shots. In low gravity one would expect that it would be easier and quicker to move not slower and more difficult.

Both the movie and the Apollo program had employed Fred Ordway as their top scientific advisor. The screenwriter for “2001:A Space Odyssey”, Arthur C. Clarke, was also friends with many of the astronauts and top big wigs at NASA.

The use of front screen projection

The point of this essay is not to prove it was Stanley Kubrick who directed the Apollo moon landings. I believe I have successfully argued that position in previous articles and in my documentary, “Kubrick’s Odyssey, Part I: Kubrick and Apollo”.

What I would like to address here is the question of whether there any other evidence to show that front screen projection was used in the Apollo imagery. The answer to this question, due to the work of Physicist Oleg Oleynik, is a big, “Yes!”

What Oleynik has done with his Apollo/Parallax experiments not only proves that the astronauts are in a studio but also the use of screens in the background.



You can find his article with the evidence at “A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images”. For those who do not want to dig through his compelling but technical, scientific paper, allow me to paraphrase his work and hopefully make Oleynik’s discoveries more easy to understand. But to fully appreciate the stereoscopic effects, you must read his original.

How 3-D movies are made

Before going into Oleynik’s visual experiment, let’s discuss how 3d movies are made. On the set of a 3d movie are two cameras slightly set apart from each other. When the film is processed these two sets of images are placed on film. That is why when you watch a 3d film without the special glasses all you see is a blur because of the overlapping double images. It is the special glasses that ‘melts’ the two images together to create the 3-D effect. What that means is that the image has depth and is more realistic.

What Dr. Oleynik did with his experiments was to take parts of two Apollo images that were taken slightly apart from each other. He then uses digital image technology to marry the two images together so that he has a 3d view of the moon and the astronauts

Now, using parallax, Oleynik can see and measure the distance of objects in the Apollo imagery. What is parallax? Quoting Wikipedia, “Parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle of inclination between those two lines”.

understanding parallax




In other words imagine you are sitting in the passenger seat of your car driving by some distant mountain range. Objects close to the car, rocks and trees and other things, go by much faster than the mountains in the distance.

Astronomers use parallax when they measure the distance of nearby stars. They measure the inclination of the star from both sides of the sun. This gives the astronomer a 3d view of the star and they can therefore measure the distance away from the earth that the star is.

The Parallax Experiments

Parallax is a tried and true method of measure distance. Here is Oleynik’s first example of parallax.

First example of parallax

The distant factory does not move between the two offset images because it is far away. The closer to the cameras the more the offset, the further away an object is, the less the offset.

Oleynik takes two images that are slightly offset and combines them in photoshop. The images he uses come from the Apollo 15 mission which was manned by Commander David R. Scott, Module Pilot Alfrd Wordon and Lunar Pilot James Irwin.

The lunar landscape map




He shows us a lunar map so we can see how far away the Apennine mountains are behind the two astronauts. The crater and the mountain should be four to eight kilometers away. Therefore when we perform parallax on two offset images those objects should not move when they are combined. But that is not what Oleynik discovered when he combined two photographs together.

Vertical Pairing




In a stunning validation of my front screen analysis of the Apollo imagery, Oleynik’s combined images show the telltale break that creates that nagging line, seen in almost all Apollo imagery. It is the dividing line between the stage and the screen. But, more importantly, is the fact that the mountains and the crater–which should not be moving at all because they are so far away (four to eight kilometers)–do in fact move.

Moon rover




Oleynik estimates that the image was done in a studio and that there is a screen with the mountain and crater projected onto it. The screen can be no more than 150 meters away.

Images of Mount Hadley

Next Oleynik takes two offset images of Mount Hadley. The foot of the mountain is 20 kilometers away and the top is 35 kilometers away. With parallax the mountain should not move at all.

Parallax 1 and 2

But it does. Again the offset images prove beyond any shadow of doubt the background mountains and the set are separated, just like you would find if this was front screen projection. Oleynik concludes that Mount Hadley is a projected image.

Mount Hadley a projected image

Oleynik concludes that the background is a screen with a hidden projector casting the image of the mountains. I presume that Dr. Oleynik does not understand film technology as well as I do so he has not heard of front screen projection. The problem with his theory on how the trick was done using a screen and projector is that the background screen would be darker by about one stop then the foreground astronauts. He is advocating a type of rear screen method.

Whoever directed the landings has to be someone who understood cinema and special effects. They would know that using the type of rear screen projection advocated by Dr. Oleynik would not be realistic enough. The problem of making sure the background image was the same luminosity as the actors in the foreground would be instantly solved by going with front screen projection.

Oleynik can be forgiven for his lack of knowledge of motion picture techniques from the 1960s. His work on the Apollo imagery is solid and confirms all of the theories that I spoke about in my other work on Kubrick, including “How Stanley Kubrick faked the Apollo Moon Landings”.

Jay Weidner, called by Wired Magazine an “authority on the hermetic and alchemical traditions,” and “erudite conspiracy hunter, ”Jay Weidner is a renowned author, filmmaker and hermetic scholar. Considered to be a ‘modern-day Indiana Jones’ for his ongoing worldwide quests to find clues to mankind’s spiritual destiny via ancient societies and artifacts, his body of work offers great insight into the circumstances that have led to the current global crisis. He is the director of the powerful and insightful documentaries, “Kubrick’s Odyssey”, “Infinity; The Ultimate Trip”, and the forthcoming feature film, “Shasta”. He is also the producer of the popular documentary films, “2012 The Odyssey” and its sequel, “Timewave 2013'.


There are a number of pictures, diagrams and videos in the main article, so I suggest readers go to the link.

[Cosmored]

Here's a collection of hoax evidence I made.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487

Sorry about linking to another forum. I would have had to click on all of those hotlinks to post it all here.

[petros]

[outsider]

Young Russians plan to build micro-satellite to ascertain if US landed men on the moon or not:

'Micro-satellite to inspect if Americans did land on Moon':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dAOcGtJH08

[scienceplease 2]

Video has emerged which (apparently) has Kubrick admitting he faked the photography for the moon landings... I must admit it is strange that there are no real high resolution photos from the moon landings just a few film set type photos. Nothing which looks around 360 degrees...

http://yournewswire.com/stanley-kubrick-confesses-to-faking-the-moon-l andings/

Great stuff!!! The 'rough edit' of the full film Mr. Murray has made is hard going, but it's the clips of the interviews that are important.
My mind has long been made up that the Moon Landings were faked (plenty more good video earlier on on this thread).

[outsider]

[scienceplease 2]

Yes, but it looks like it was all faked! I don't think it was the real Kubrick...

[Jastreb_J21]

I'm bringing back the thread from the dead, but I wanted to add some input: if the moon landings were fake, how come the USSR would have let it slide?

I mean, Moscow would have had the PERFECT occasion to call out the USA on their BS, would have sent a person there themselves and it would have been one hell of a propaganda boost for them.
Plus, they couldn't have been fooled by just Kubrick movies since they had radars scanning thoroughly both space and the American airspace (from Cuba and spy boats), and if they weren't 100% sure an American rocket had reached the moon and that something came back, they would have brought out every single argument they had to prove the USA never went there.

And instead, they told about the moon landings in their news outlets and stopped their own manned moon program since the US had beaten them to this game; something they wouldn't have done if NASA had lied about their feat.

[conspiracy analyst]