Evil Academy

Full Version: Ukrainian Physicist tackles Apollo Moon Landing
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Stereoscopic Parallax Analysis

by OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D.c
Previously of the Department of Physics and Technology
Kharkov State University, Ukraine


Photographs taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo missions are regarded as the most compelling pieces of evidence that mankind went to the Moon.

[Image: Stereo_wiggle_3D.gif]

Fig. 1. A stereoscopic image or ‘wiggle’ stereoscopy. GIF-animation allows the creation of a crude sense of dimensionality, even with monocular vision. Stereoscopic imagery can also determine the relative position of objects in space and enable judgment of their remoteness. Image Wikipedia

If any given image was taken inside a pavilion or dome with a panoramic background, i.e. when there are no distant objects with null parallax, then such a 2-dimensional object can be detected among any 3D bodies. In the case of such a finding, reaching the conclusion that there was deception could be stated with confidence.
Example 1. The method of creating a stereoscopic image is examined in the following example of images of the Zmievskaya power plant, Kharkov region, Ukraine. The camera shift is 1.5 m.

2 IMAGES:

[Image: ZmievPowerPlant1.jpg]

[Image: ZmievPowerPlant2.jpg]

The distance to the power plant is about 4 kms and to the tree planting (left horizon) is about 2 kms.

The image convergence shown below (the main criteria is the most complete background subtraction, and since the distance is more than 3 kms, the parallax is zero).

[Image: ZmievPowerPlantDiff.jpg]
Resulting Stereoscopic Image:

[Image: ZmievPowerPlantStereo.gif]
Same method applied to Apollo

[Image: apollo-15_5.jpg]

[Image: apollo-15_6.jpg]

[Image: appolo_15_S3.gif]
Despite a slight offset of the camera, the mountains are moving, which contradicts the condition of distant mountains. If the image subtraction criteria are changed, the most darkened background condition is replaced with the most darkened front area.
Quote:Conclusion: Mount Hadley moves and ‘bows’. The wrong initial assumption was probably made that this is a real lunarscape. As this research demonstrates, this setting must be a totally artificial panorama, several tens of metres in depth with a mock ‘Hadley’ in the background, moving horizontally and vertically to create an illusion of remoteness and of perspective.
proposed technique: Frontscreen Projection

[Image: apollo-15_16.jpg]
Quote:Thus, based on the above examples, this study concludes that the Apollo 15 photographic record does NOT depict real lunarscapes with distant backgrounds located more than a kilometre away from the camera.

These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set – up to 300 metres in size. A complex panorama mimicking the lunarscape shows degrees of movement, such as horizontal and vertical changes to give an impression of imaginary distance to the objects and perspective.
tttt
yeah thanks man I love this stuff

There are many examples of why the 'stage set' fake background theory is not so crazy. I remember once there were multiple photos of apparently different spots, but with the same formations in the BG but I couldn't find em now (only searched for a bit)

I don't know if people ever went to the moon, but there is DEFINITELY something fishy about the images/videos that we were fed. We did not get the whole story imo at all
Who ever thought in the sixties that your lame fakery technology would creep up and bite you on the ass one day


Sent from my iPhone using Made up Hand Signs
Actually, while eating lunch just now I just thought of something that (at least in the moment) seemed quite significant that I haven't yet seen addressed in all my moon-hoax hunting:

MOST of the video footage from the Apollo missions all have a STABLE CAMERA, as if it was on a tripod or mounted to something solid. Some zoom in or out, but very few actually ever pan around or move from a static/locked position.

This would conveniently avoid the very problems EY is presenting in his OPs (judging depth of field of the backgrounds).

But WHY would they do this? Wouldn't it be MUCH more difficult to set up a tripod on the moon with those big bulky gloves etc, and level it properly? Wouldn't it be much more efficient to have a camera attached to the suit, or hand-held? (in which case the videos would all be moving, shaking, panning around etc... and this depth perception issue would become very apparent)

Where were these cameras placed? What kept them from moving around? How are they all so well levelled to the horizons? Why do we see so little moving shots?
they did supposedly have a remote controlled camera on a tripod like device.

that's how they filmed this beautiful money shot:



My old man, a career military dude in Canada before he retired and went onto other things, said to me last summer that if I believe the moon landing story, I'm a bigger idiot than he thought I was.

And he thinks I'm a pretty big fucking idiot because of my alternate theories. I was shocked.

He told me to think about the fact that all that happened the year I was born, and with the developments in technology, why haven't we been back?

Good question.
But we can't find a passenger plane going from Malaysia to Beijing anywhere, 44 years later.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Reference URL's