Stereoscopic Examination of Apollo Lunar Surface Photos Reveals The Moon Missions Were FAKED


“These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set – up to 300 metres in size.”
by Dr Oleg Oleynik, Ph.D.c, Aulis:

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.

The photographic validation method presented here is based on the detection of two-dimensional objects among three-dimensional objects, and determining the mutual arrangement of these objects in space and the distance to them by applying a technique known as stereoscopic parallax.

RELATED: Did Elon Musk just confirm that the moon landings were faked?

The word parallax derives from the Greek parallaxis meaning “alteration” where parallax is the difference in the apparent position of objects caused by shifting camera position. To achieve such a result, images are overlapped and are deducted/subtracted from each other using the function “difference” in an image processing application such as Photoshop®. Optical transformations are used when images are subtracted. During image convergence simple operations are applied: x and y axis scaling, rotation and distortion plus two additional processes: perspective and shift.

Such processes are referred to below as “optical transformations”.  Objects further than two kilometres distant, with a minor camera shift, have zero parallax.
Using Photoshop® the sequence of steps deployed is as follows:

    1. Two overlapping images are placed on different layers – thereby creating a PSD file.
    2. Application of function “difference” to the upper layer (subtraction of images from each other).
    3. Optical transformations are applied: axes x and y scaling, rotation, distortion, perspective and in addition a shift to the requirement specified above. As a result maximum density black for the background is obtained.
    4. The layer is returned to the normal view: function “normal”.
    5. The PSD file is pruned to remove non-overlapping parts.
    6. Sequentially, the converted layers are carried over into the application’s GIF animator.
    7. A stereoscopic GIF image is obtained that permits the creation of a 3D effect, even on a flat screen.

Stereo Wiggle
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.

Fig. 2. The Zmievskaya power plant Kharkov region Ukraine. HiRes image1HiRes image2.

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).

Fig. 3. Image subtraction.

Images are processed in a GIF-animator to obtain a stereoscopic image:

Fig. 4. Stereoscopic image of the Zmievskaya power plant.

(For more detailed information on creating stereoscopic images and obtaining intermediate images see this article – in Russian).

It is now possible to measure the parallax and the distance to all remote objects. The distance La to any
object A, is calculated as follows:

Knowing the distance to the front edge: 5 m, and the front edge offset: 85 mm (can be measured by a ruler, the two white grasses), plus the offset of the nearest electric pylon, about 1.2 mm. From the proportions ratio the distance to the nearer pylon is acquired, namely 350 metres; to the second pylon with the parallax of 0.6 mm is 700 metres. Distance to the trees (offset is about 0.2 mm) is close to 2 kms – at the boundary of parallax occurrence.

Conclusion: These simple image transformation operations preserve perspective proportions.

Similarly, as in the case of examining the parallax of the Apollo lunar surface images – where, according to NASA maps of the landing sites, the distance to the mountain background should be more than 5 kms – evidence of stereoscopic imagery is expected. If such evidence is absent, the image cannot have been taken in the stated environment, such a image must have been created elsewhere in a studio.

Having looked at stereoscopic parallax in images of terrestrial objects, some Apollo images are studied from the photographic record.

The Apollo 15 LM touched down at 22:16:29 UTC on July 30 1971 at Hadley (26°7’55.99″N  3°38’1.90″E), near Hadley Rille (also referred to as Rima Hadley), Montes Apenninus and Mons Hadley. The first lunar rover was used for extensive reconnaissance. Within 67 hours the crew carried out three EVAs, spending 18.5 hours in total away from the LM. A new 500mm lens, camera and accessories were used, which have provided photographic opportunities not available to previous missions. Lift off from the lunar surface was on August 2, 1971 and the astronauts returned to Earth on August 7.

The Apollo 15 crew comprised:

  • Commander David R. Scott (Dave)
  • Command Module Pilot Alfred M. Worden
  • Lunar Module Pilot James B. Irwin (Jim)

Fig. 5. Topographic map of the Apollo 15 landing site.

A series of Apollo 15 photographs will be considered and stereoscopic parallax or apparent change in the relative positions of objects will be analysed.

The first series. Astronaut Dave takes a few panorama images in EVA-1 near the LM, AS15-86-11601 and AS15-86-11602.

Fig. 6. The LM with Jim standing at the rear of the rover; the Apennine front and the crater St. George are located in the background. The distance from the camera to the lunar module and rover is about 10 metres, and the Apennines and the crater should be 4-8 kms away.

A rectangle marks the sections of the photographs which were deducted for parallax examination and separation of 3D objects from any 2D objects.

Fig. 7. The subtraction of the two photos after the transformations of scaling, rotation, and distortion is shown on the left. The right image shows the parallax achieved after merging the two frames.

Nearby objects: the LM, the rover, and astronaut Jim are shifting relative to each other. The Apennines and the crater St. George are also moving as a whole. (Moreover, the shadow is changing on the mountains and the crater.) This finding indicates that it is less than 300 metres to the background (the ‘mountains’) instead of 5 kilometres!

Therefore, with such a small alteration to the camera position in Dave’s hands (several tens of centimetres), the mountains should not move, they should remain static (zero parallax).

In addition, the Apollo 15 stereoscopic photos feature a clear separation line between the ‘mountains’ and the foreground. Based on the distance between the camera and rover, the distance to the panorama of the ‘lunar’ scape cannot be more than 150 metres. 

Conclusion: It is very probable that these images were taken on Earth in a studio stage.

The second series. Jim is doing some panoramic photography (Fig. 8). The distance from his camera to the LM is approximately 40 m. Jim’s ALSEP Pan at the end of EVA-2.

Fig. 8. On the left Dave collects samples; Mount Hadley; LM in the centre; behind the LM the sun is shining into the camera and the Apennines are in the distance – over 35 kms; the Apennines and the crater St. George are on the right at a distance of 5-8 kms.

The two images with a view of Mount Hadley were selected from the Panorama (distance is about 30 kms, the height more than 2.5 kms) AS15-87-11849 and AS15-87-11850.

Fig. 9. Note the numerous boot prints left by Dave and Jim.

Rectangles highlight the selected areas selected for parallax examination.

Fig. 10. The subtraction of two images after scaling, rotation, and distortion is shown on the left. The stereoscopic image after merging two images is on the right.

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.

Fig. 11. The subtraction of the front parts of the two images is on the left. The parallax resulting from the two merged images is on the right. This image was obtained by the subtraction of two photos taken with a camera shift of not more than 20 cms. Transformations of scale, rotation, reverse distortion, perspective, shift and the convergence of the two images into a stereoscopic image were applied.

An error estimate is now performed. Assuming that this is a real lunarscape, then the distance from the astronauts to the lunar horizon should be 1.5 kms and the distance to the objects in the background, such as the foot and summit of Mount Hadley, is 20-35 kms.

The offset of 100 sampled pixels below the horizon is calculated – the AB line, obtaining an average shift ± a pixels (depending on the image resolution). The shift magnitude obeys Gaussian distribution, meaning this is noise.

A sample of 50 points is selected above the line (AB), i.e. objects located at a distance of 20-35 kms. Giving an offset value of (10-50)a pixels. The shift direction has a vector and is not subject to Gaussian distribution. Moreover, the higher a dot the greater value of the shift – at the foot it is 10a, at the top 50a pixels.

It is logical to assume that if any lunar objects at the interval [0.01; 1.5] kms are static, the noise amounts to ± a, the parallax is zero, then for more distant objects at the interval [20; 35] kms, the parallax is likewise zero with the same value of noise, i.e. the shift is ± a pixels and the shift value obeys a Gaussian distribution.

However, the results indicate otherwise. Objects above the (AB) line are moving synchronously with increase in shift depending on the height above the horizon.

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.

A series of Apollo 15 images are now examined near Rima Hadley for the presence of stereoscopic parallax. Rima Hadley measures in length at least 135 kms, with an average width ~1.2 and average depth ~370 m (from Greeley 1971 – quoted in F. Leverington, 2008).

The third series. Dave and Jim make a few trips in the rover to Rima Hadley (Fig. 12) to collect samples. One of the panoramas comprises photos from AS15-82-11165 to AS15-84-11284.

Fig. 12. Jim is holding the camera. Rima Hadley is in the foreground. Dave is collecting samples near the rover. Mount Hadley is in the background. The sun is shining into the camera in the centre. The Apennines are over 35 kms away. Apennines Front and the crater St. George are on the left. 
(Panorama assembled by the author)

In two panorama frames is the bottom of Rima Hadley, which extends to Apennines Front and the crater St. George. The distance from the camera to Rima edge is about 5 m, to the Apennines and the crater is 4-8 kms. The frames are taken with a shift of no more than a few tens of centimetres. AS15-82-11178 and AS15-82-11179.

Fig. 13. The view of Rima Hadley, Apennines Front and the crater St. George.
Rectangles mark the sections used for parallax examination.

Fig. 14. The foreground subtraction of the two images after scaling, rotation, distortion, shift and perspective is on the left. On the right is the resulting parallax obtained after merging the two frames.

It is possible to see the movement of the surface areas relative to each other along the edge of the trench between points A and B. This situation cannot occur in real world photography. 

Conclusion: These images were probably taken on Earth in a dome-shaped studio location where movable panorama backgrounds were installed, and even treated afterwards by further adjustment in a photographic lab.

Fig. 15. Landscape and Traverse map of Apollo 15 landing site by NASA artist (showing stations 1-14).

Images AS15-85-11423 and AS15-85-11424 were selected, taken at station 2 with Rima Hadley observation.

Fig. 16. Images AS15-85-11423 and AS15-85-11424 station 2 with a view of Rima Hadley. Photo camera stereobase is not more than 0.5m.

Fig. 17. Lunar Topophotomap of Rima Hadley, Apollo 15. Green dot marks the photo sessions site.

The topophotomap (Fig. 17) shows that the opposite slope is over 1 km away, the depth is 300 metres, and it is 7 kms to the turn on Rima Hadley brow (green arrow, added July 2017). It is impossible to excavate an artificial canyon of similar size. Therefore, if fakery was involved, the opposite slope would have to be ‘painted’ or have a length of several tens of metres, simulating a lunar landscape. On the other hand, if the photographs are genuine, the parallax analysis will show that the distances correspond to the actual lunar surroundings, confirming the NASA record.

Horizontal stereoscopic effect

For this parallax we apply the next set of transformations: optical zoom, rotation, distortion, perspective, shift in x and y directions to the image as a whole. The requirement of maximum deduction of remote landscapes is imposed to extract horizontal stereoscopic effect.

As a result, we obtain the following stereoscopic pair of images:

Fig. 18. A stereoscopic pair of images AS15-85-11423 and AS15-85-1142 with horizontal stereoscopic effect after applying image transformations.

Stereoscopic parallax is clearly visible in Fig 18, and we can make a preliminary estimation of the distance to the opposite slope of Rima Hadley. The distance is 50 metres (recall that it should be at least 1 km according to the map). The distant background is shifting slightly, although the parallax must be zero, since according to the map it is about 20 kms to the mountains.

In general, given that in the true lunar background remote objects should be located many kms away, it is impossible to achieve a zero stereoscopic parallax using only previously-mentioned image transformations – confirmed by converging dozens of pairs of Apollo lunar surface images (as well as numerous efforts by other researchers). This strongly suggests that the distance to remote objects in the Apollo photographs which should be many miles/kms is indeed not so.

These images are a simulation of being on the Moon.

How were these fake Apollo lunar surface images taken? Due to incomplete convergence of remote background imagery a parallax error at the foreground of stereoscopic images is revealed. The relative error is a ratio of the foreground object’s shift in relation to the background object’s shift.

Distortion grid of background lunarscape

The remote terrain in a stereoscopic pair of images can be converged precisely with each other. To do so it is necessary to go beyond the optical transformations applied to the image as a whole and introduce digital distortion to the sections of the image.

This method can determine the nature of simulation of any background ‘land’scape i.e. build a distortion grid and inspect it. Obviously, if the distortion grid has a curved surface, then it corresponds to projection at the rear onto a circular panorama screen, creating a simulation of a remote background scape on the projection screen. Instead of taking pictures in a remote lunarscape the ‘astronauts’ take pictures of a foreground with the background projected onto a screen.

The radius of the circular panorama can be roughly estimated by a distortion grid.

Fig. 19 below shows the distortion grid. A million pixels were involved in the transformation of these two images. In mathematical terms this is a system of a million equations solved with sub pixel accuracy.

Fig. 19. Digital distortion grid of background objects in AS15-85-11423 after optical transformations converging with AS15-85-11424.

A precise, curved concave transformation applied to the megabit pixels image confirms the fact that a ‘lunar’ scape was projected onto a forward-tilted, slightly convex panorama background screen. Any other technique fails to replicate the nature of the remote ‘land’scape simultaneously for a million pixels of the image.

Fig. 20. Illustrates the logic and simplicity of a simulated Apollo lunar surface panorama.
The grid represents the projection screen which surrounded the Apollo simulation studio.

Below is the final result of the transformation (optical transformations and the circular panorama are already taken into account).

Fig. 21. Rima Hadley view. Apollo 15 stereoscopic photographs AS15-85-11423 and AS15-85-11424 after image transformation and digital non-linear distortion of the distant landscape.
Distances to the image elements are specified in metres with an accuracy of 1{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528}, 2{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528}, 15{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528}, 30{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528}
and 45{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of distances 3, 11, 20, 40 and 60 metres respectively. According to the map
the distance to the opposite slope of Rima Hadley should be about 1,000-1,200 metres.

The parallax of the distant background is zero. In Fig. 21 we can see that the distance to the opposite slope of Rima Hadley is only 40 metres, while according to NASA’s map it should be nearer to 1,000-1,200 metres. The difference is more than one of magnitude! This finding is seriously at odds with the official Apollo 15 record.

Scale stereoscopic effect

A scale stereoscopic effect was considered for AS15-85-11423 and AS15-85-11424 along the z axis. For example a photographer takes a photograph in one position, then moves closer to, or further from the subject and takes another photograph.

Fig. 22. A stereoscopic pair of images AS15-85-11423 and AS15-85-11424 with scale stereoscopic effect after transformations: 1) applying transformations: scaling, rotation, distortion, perspective, shift, and offset in x and y to the image as a whole; 2) digital distortion of the distant background terrain; 3) maximum subtraction of a distant background terrain, and 4) acquisition of scale stereoscopic effect. Distances to the image features in metres are specified with 60{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} accuracy.

Scale stereoscopic parallax is clearly visible in Fig. 22, which is used to estimate the distance to the opposite slope of Rima Hadley. The distance is about 40 metres. The scale stereoscopic effect also points to fakery of the genuine Rima Hadley on the Moon.

Verifying the universal nature of a distortion grid
for a distant background scape

To verify the possible presence of a circular panorama background screen, another pair of Apollo 15 lunar surface images AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449 with a view of the Rima Hadley taken at station 2 are examined.

Fig. 23. AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449 with a view of Rima Hadley taken at station 2.

Below is a digital distortion grid on the distant background landscape present in images AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449. A million pixels of the two images are converged with sub pixel accuracy.

Fig. 24. Distortion grid of the distant background ‘land’scape in AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449.

This confirms the previous finding that the ‘lunar’ mountain backscape was projected onto a forward-tilted, slightly convex, circular panorama background screen.

Horizontal stereoscopic effect

By the following procedures of:

  1. applying optical transformations such as scaling, rotation, distortion, perspective, shift and
    offset in x and y to the image as a whole;
  2. taking into account presence of a circular panorama;
  3. satisfying the requirement of maximum subtraction of a distant landscape;
  4. extraction of horizontal stereoscopic effect, we obtain the following stereoscopic pair:

Fig. 25. A stereoscopic pair of AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449; view of Rima Hadley after transformations and digital distortion of the distant background backscape. Distances to the features of the picture are specified in metres with errors of 15{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528}, 45{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} and 95{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} for distances 20, 45 and 140 m respectively. According to the map the distance to the opposite slope of Rima Hadley is approximately 1,000-1,200 metres; to Rima Hadley bow is about 7 kms.

From previous calculations the distance is known to the foreground rocks at the bottom of Rima Hadley. Based on parallax it is possible to estimate the distances to the other objects as indicated in Fig. 25. Obviously errors are accumulative, the sum of any distance errors to the foreground rocks at the bottom of Rima Hadley as well as any errors in determining the shift of other features of the image – in this case 15{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528}.

Scale stereoscopic effect

A scale stereoscopic effect was also obtained for AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449 along the axis when the camera was moved nearer to the object.

Fig. 26. A stereopair of images AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449 with scale stereoscopic effect after transformations of: 1) scaling, rotation, distortion, perspective shift and offset in x and y to the image as a whole; 2) maximum subtraction of the remote landscape; 3) obtaining a scale stereoscopic effect. Specified distance to the elements of image in metres with an error not more than 85{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528}. 

The scale stereoscopic parallax is clearly visible in Fig. 26. Using distances determined from the scale parallax, the distance can be estimated to the opposite slope and to Rima Hadley bow. The distance to the opposite slope of Rima Hadley is no more than 40 metres, and the distance to the Rima Hadley bow does not exceed 140 metres.

According to the topographic map, distances to these locations are more than 1 km to the slope and to Rima Hadley bow it is about 7 kms. Here again, there are serious anomalies in this Apollo record. From a scale stereoscopic effect it is possible to estimate the distance to Rima Hadley bow and to the background projection screen.

Fig. 27.  A stereopair of images AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449 with a scale stereoscopic effect after transformations and application of the distortion grid
for a
 distant landscape. The relative error in distances is no more than 60{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528}.

Based on the stereoscopic result, the calculated distance to the mountains on the horizon is 140 metres (accuracy 60{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528}). According to the map it should be more than 20 kms. The difference in distance is more than 100 times! These serious errors in the Apollo 15 photographic record indicate that these images were undoubtedly faked.

The study of stereoscopic effect in photographs AS15-85-11423, AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449 shows that these images do not contain distant objects farther than a few hundred metres away. The distance to the opposite slope of “Rima Hadley” is about 40 metres (should be 1,000-1,200 metres), to Rima Hadley bow is about 90 metres (based on the topographic map is about 7 kms) and to the mountains it is 100-140 metres (should be nearer to 20 kms based on the lunar geography). The error in calculation of these distances is 15-60{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528}.

Contradictions in the photographic record of the Apollo program point to the simulated nature of the lunarscape: creation of an artificial canyon, 40 metres wide and 90 metres long, simulating Rima Hadley with help of a rear background screen, depicting a distant lunarscape.

Was there a way to simulate the remote lunar surface on a projection screen for any other Apollo 15 lunar surface photographs?  More Apollo 15 images are considered from the NASA record with distant lunarscapes.

In Fig. 7 after optical transformations, all the foreground objects: the LM, the rover, and astronaut Jim move relative to each other. Any distant object such as the Apennines and the crater St. George also move as a whole. Shadows on the mountains and on the crater change as well. The separation line between the mountain and the foreground area is clearly visible. A rough estimate of the stereoscopic effect gives the distance to the background (mountains) as less than 300 metres. Instead of the 5 kms according to the Apollo record.

To converge a remote lunarscape a distortion grid was superimposed onto the optically-transformed images AS15-86-11601 and AS15-86-11602.

Fig. 28. A distortion grid of the distant backscape for the converged images
AS15- 86-11601 and AS15- 86-11602 in the stereopair.

Fig. 28 shows the distortion grid for converging AS15-86-11601 and AS15-86-11602 to obtain zero stereoscopic parallax. Recall that introducing a distortion grid is the method of going beyond the standard optical transformation – the system of creating equations for a one-million pixel image. Going beyond the laws of optics in converging two pictures into a stereopair questions the veracity of the image and results in a postulation that the lunarscape was faked.

The regular curved repetitive distortion grid for other pairs of images indicates projection of the distant background mountains onto a rear screen positioned about 100 metres away with the ‘astronauts’ in the foreground.

After applying the distortion grid we obtain the following stereopair:

Fig. 29. Stereo image after combining two pictures AS15-86-11601 and AS15-86-11 602 for parallax study. Line AB is a horizon mark at the foot of the mountain, above which is a projection on the screen to simulate a lunar mountainscape. The contrast was increased and the brightness was reduced.

The familiar distortion grid was superimposed on to the “distant” ‘land’scape in photographs AS15-87-11849 and AS15-87-11 850, and after optical transformation:

Fig. 30. A distortion grid of the distant ‘land’scape for converging two photographs
AS15-87-11849 and AS15-87-11850 into a stereopair.

Fig. 30 shows the distortion grid of the distant background in images AS15-87-11849 and AS15-87-11850. Taking this distortion grid into account, a stereopair is obtained:

Fig. 31. A stereopair of two images AS15-87-11849 and AS15-87-11850 to study the dynamics of the scene after application of optical transformations and imposing the distortion grid.

Fig. 31 shows a stereopair of images AS15-87-11849 and AS15-87-11850 to study the dynamics of the lunarscape after application of optical transformations and imposing the distortion grid. Obviously the distortion grid is a method of going beyond optical alterations and is an indicator of simulation of the lunarscape and the lack of really distant objects that should be several kilometres away. The nature of simulation for a given pair of images is similar to the previous pairs of images.

Fig. 32. A stereopair based on AS15-82-11178 and AS15- 82-11179, after scaling,
rotation, distortion, shift and perspective.

Fig. 32 shows a stereopair of images AS15-82-11178 and AS15-82-11179, which is obtained based solely on optical transformations. A distortion grid is superimposed on the remote lunarscape of one of the stereo photos AS15-82-11178 and AS15-82-11179, and obtain:

Fig. 33.  A distortion grid of the remote ‘land’scape for converging photographs
AS15-82-11178 and AS15-82-11179. 

Another pair of photographs taken at the station 9-11, AS15-82-11121 and AS15-82-11122 points up the fact that the image of the mountain and central part of the Rima Hadley was projected onto a background screen. Below is the final stereopair after optical transformations were applied and imposing the same distortion grid on the remote lunarscape as previously.

Fig. 34. A stereopair AS15-82-11121 and AS15-82-11122 after optical transformations and overlaying a distortion grid on the remote landscape. Official distance to the slope of Rima is indicated as being not less than 1,500 metres and the value based on parallax –
50 metres (error not more than 60{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528}).

The distance to the opposite slope of the Rima Hadley is 50 metres. The foot of the mountain and the Apennines can be clearly seen. Undoubtedly, this is a projected image on to a screentaken by ‘astronauts’ (AS15-82-11121 and AS15-82-11122). The actual length of the Rima Hadley on the Moon is actually 135 kms, the width is about 1.2 kms, and the depth ~370 metres.

Study Conclusion

Professor of University of California G. Schiller has noted: “To be successful, manipulation should remain invisible. The success of the manipulation is guaranteed when the manipulated believe that everything happens naturally and inevitably. In short, manipulation requires a false reality in which its presence will not be felt”. Very often this false reality is amplified by the media.

In the convergence of these Apollo 15 pictures, more than a million equations (the number of pixels in the images) were calculated obeying the laws of optics. In order to obtain a zero stereoscopic effect for a remote landscape, typical distortion grids were generated around the photographic session sites.

Numerous Apollo 15 photo examples indicate an identical distortion grid – a projection screen at the distance of 100-120 metres from the front of the studio stage. A serious falsification of the true lunarscape, in particular, an artificial trench 30-60 metres in width given for the lunar Rima Hadley which is actually 1,200 metres in width; the image of this remote lunarscape being projected onto the curved background screen; and ‘astronaut’ photographers taking pictures in front of it in a studio set.

The Apollo 15 photographic record contradicts the stereoscopic parallax verification method. The apparent change in the relative positions of objects by moving the camera when the camera angles are separated by several tens of cms show that:

  • the distance to distant objects such as mountains is not tens of kilometres but is no more
    than a few hundred metres;
  • the landscape is not continuous, but with clear lines of separation;
  • there is movement between nearby sections of the panorama relative to other sections. 

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.

Dr Oleg Oleynik

Aulis OnlineApril 2012 (fig. 17 updated July 2017)
English translation from the Russian by BigPhil

About the Author

From 1984 to 1993 Dr Oleg Oleynik graduated from the Physics and Technology Department (Phystech) of the Kharkov State University. He obtained a  Master’s degree in physics in physical metallurgy.
From 1993 to 1999  Oleynik was a senior engineer, scientific assistant, postgraduate student, and a Soros postgraduate student.

In 1999 Oleg successfully graduated from the Phystech postgraduate school, obtained his Ph.D.c specializing in experimental nuclear physics and the physics of charged particle beams at the  Physics and Technology Department of the Kharkov State University.

This was followed by a preliminary defense of the thesis, with a positive review by D.S. V.T. Lazurik.
After 1999 Oleg left the Phystech department to pursue an independent career.
From 1999 to 2012 Oleg Oleynik organized non-state research on humanism on the Web, founded a School, a College, and a University with academic degrees.


Two years have passed since the original publication of this article in Russia. During that time, NASA decided to create a series of stereo photographs for 3D red-cyan glasses (anaglyph images), superimposing overlapping parts of Apollo surface photos. Reports slip out now and then that some of the photos on NASA’s Web sites have been replaced by retouched counterparts.

An article entitled “The method of correlative calculation of parallax and camouflage” was published (in Russian). I criticized the article stating that: “The merging of frames is carried out in the application for creating 360 degrees panoramas PTGui, which erases parallax, and eventually the distance to background objects artificially increases. Please double check the algorithm of the application”. More here (In Russian).

There was no answer from NASA. Instead, in the Russian Wikipedia, late 2009, the following paragraph was added (and removed on July 31, 2011) to The Moon Hoax article: “Also, analysis of the lunar surface images, taken during the missions shows that distance to background objects is indeed vast and cannot be achieved in a soundstage with trick photography”, referring to “The method of correlative calculation of parallax and camouflage” publication.

Any attempts to change or correct the information in Wikipedia, and to point out the serious errors in the Wikipedia article did not succeed, the moderator continued to erase the link.
Dr Oleg Oleynik

Read More @

RELATED: Does this sound like three men who just went to the Moon?

Apollo 11 astronaut press conference upon “returning from the moon”, July 20,1969*:



  1. Can anyone think of anything the federal government has proclaimed that HAS NOT been a lie, fabrication…? As former CIA Director William Casey said:
    “We will know our disinformation campaign is successful when everything the American public believes is false.”

    Any examples out there of government actually telling the truth. Even one instance?

    I didn’t think so.

    • I’m in total agreement with the conclusions of the article, but the author’s bio is… suspect, to say the least:
      “From 1984 to 1993 Dr Oleg Oleynik graduated from the Physics and Technology Department (Phystech) of the Kharkov State University. He obtained a Master’s degree in physics in physical metallurgy. From 1993 to 1999 Oleynik was a senior engineer, scientific assistant, postgraduate student, and a Soros postgraduate student.

      Limited disclosure? Insider turned “rebel academic”? One wonders. Seems significant that a Soros-financed Professor is making such claims regardless. They can’t hide it forever and certainly won’t be able to in an era of disclosure, be it contrived or organic.

  2. Man going, landing, walking, and returning home from the moon is just plain silly. I mean, I would believe in Santa Claus before I would believe man went to the moon nearly 50 years ago. I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure man has never even been past low orbit of the earth.

  3. The “Flat Earth” stuff is obvious disinfo & BS but I am open to evidence the moon landings were faked. Sadly, much of the world/system we were brought up to believe in was just a lie.

    • We’ve solved the Byzantine Generals Problem through cryptography and created an asynchronous, decentralized, open-source, near-instantaneous payment system but haven’t been back to the moon.
      That tells you all you need to know 😉

  4. I certainly don’t believe in it, Stanley Kubrick was payed a visit by Kiussinger and brushinky to create this epic landing.. All lies, nothing but lies.. I mean even a top official at NASA is now stating that all the vital information on going to the moon has been lost, yes it has.. And Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, yes, we should believe that too, what the hell, 19 hijackers did actually pull off 9/11.. We ate supposed to believe what we are told.. Don’t forget to drink your milk, poison to a human body, but hey its good for you, have 2 glasses. over 90{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of the truths we are conditioned to believe are total lies..

  5. What Happened On the Moon? Part 2 – Environmental Dangers & The Trouble with Rockets

    • If any one here thinks NASA actually brought a DUNE BUGGY to the moon, sorry, you are a dupe. That “lunar rover” is a smoking gun like WTC-7. It’s completely absurd.

      • Sean, there are many that believe what they are told, no questions asked.. Guys like Bob have had too much Koolaide.. The claimed Moon landing was a joke to see how gullible we are, and surprisingly people believe whatever they are told, no deep thinking, no questions asked.. Bob will line up for his RFID chip, because it’s a wonderful thing.. He’ll be first in line.. with his GMO popcorn.

      • Sean if man was so buoyant that they could not stay on the surface of the moon, then how does the dune buggy stay on the surface? Good point. As for the critics, I myself have noticed a few more “plants” lately. Your site is rising in popularity, so too are those seek to infiltrate and spread the gospel of the machine.
        Just keep posting stuff, we can decide for ourselves.

  6. SGT, it’s apparent that you did not even bother to watch the video because the video actually makes the argument against astronauts being able to travel through the magnetosphere (Van Allen Belts)and traveling to the moon and then landing and walking around on the moon. I suggest you watch the video first and not make snap judgements based upon a picture used for the video. This is part 1 (What I posted earlier was part 2 & 3)What Happened On the Moon? – Analysis of the Lunar Photography

    • ERGO, you misunderstood. I wasn’t criticizing that video, I was responding to the screen shot and addressing BOB who evidently thinks it’s completely rational and scientifically viable to transport a damned dune buggy to the moon aboard a 1969 Saturn V rocket and then reassemble it on the moon’s surface so that the “astronauts” could take a joy ride. The very idea of it is not only patently absurd, it’s preposterous.

  7. There is one quick way, to put all this BS to rest.
    Pointing a big observatory LASER beam range finder at one of the several RETRO-REFLECTORS on the surface of the moon, and measure the returning beam for the proper wavelength, and time of travel to the moon and back.

    There are three such reflectors placed there from US missions.

    Here is one such verification test from Myth Busters TV show. The laser was also fired at an area of the moon where NO such reflector exists, just to test the baseline reflectivity of the moon’s surface, and then the same laser was pointed at one of the well known locations of one of the retro-reflectors. BINGO. Human equipment is on the moon.

    You can even buy low priced, smaller retroreflectors from many places (they are commonly used by surveyors). I got one from Ebay for about $10-20. It’s about the size of a baseball, and collecting dust in one of my junk-drawers, right next to a defunct (no longer functional, but still very pretty) Laser Rod made of Titanium Sapphire glass, and it measures about 12mm X 8 inches.

    • Craig, LOL man, good one! Mythbusters “proved” 9/11 truthers are nuts too, the “official” story is 100{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} true. Mythbusters, Popular Mechanics and Snopes say so.

      • Well some 9/11 truthers are nuts to believe some of the nonsense that I read that comes from them. No planes were used during 9/11, they were just little cruise missiles they say. Tens of thousands of witnesses saw planes hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. In the past ten years I have not read one account of someone seeing a cruise missile and no plane.

  8. Unmanned missions to the moon could have placed beacons and reflectors on the moon via robots. Unmanned landings on Mars has placed exploration vehicles there that were controlled via relay satellites and cameras.

  9. I knew Neil Armstrong and Edgar Mitchell. Mr. Armstrong taught engineering at the University of Cincinnati, Dr. Mitchell taught at the Red Stone Arsenal in Huntsville Alabama, among dozens of other places. I am 100{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} convinced we went to the moon. However, I suggest Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Hillary Clinton all board a rocket and search for proof of the lunar landing sights. If there is still room on board the rocket, perhaps Dave Hodges and Michael Snyder could hitch a ride. That will settle the matter once and for all.

  10. If the photo tech slip didn’t escape them those many years ago, the sham coulda gone on forever….besides, you gotta admit those moon rocks aka meteorites (cough) tested genuine 🙂

  11. I am no expert, but given today’s technology, should we not be able to confirm the moon landings? As an example can’t we point a telescope or something and see the flag that was planted? I have to agree the moon landings is at least suspect if not a downright lie! Why haven’t we been back? could we not do it better and cheaper with today’s technology? We talk about planets like Keplar that are 1400 light years away and we can’t know everything about the moon and sun which are relatively close?
    I also do not believe in a flat earth. I hate it when people point to or use the bible for that argument. Nowhere in the bible does it say that the earth is flat…period! Now if you can prove it scientifically that is different, but science proves otherwise.

    9/11…like the moon landing but much more so! Just way to many inconsistencies. The official story is definitely not true. Fire causing a building collapse, WTC7, Larry Silverstein taking out insurance days before the event, why were they so anxious to get rid of all the evidence, you don’t clean it up right away you put the pieces back together to examine what happened…on and on. Truly a coverup of some sort, at the least our top leaders were ignorant and at the worst they were complicit which led us into the war on terror.

Comments are closed.