Author: outsider
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:45 am (GMT 0)
Faking Moon Landings: Parallax Experiments:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/21/faking-the-moon-landings-the-parallax-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.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.