Moon and Rover fakery - Shocking PROOF like never before seen!!!

reply to post by CatherineD


If you're curious to learn all the specifics www.clavius.org... is a great place to start. It has a wealth of information that is presented in a very easy to understand way.

reply to post by captainpudding


This is the best site for investigating the appollo hoax

aulis.com... |It is a nightmare to find in the search engines - NASA must spend a fortune on SEO

"Vsevolod Yakubovich is a Director of Photography of the famous Mosfilm Studios in Russia, probably the oldest film studios in Europe. He teaches the Technology of the Cinematograph Process. He graduated from the All-Union State Cinema Institute (VGIK) in 1968.

Currently Vsevolod Yakubovich is an Associate Professor of the VGIK Camera Department. As a highly experienced Special Effects Cinematographer he has been involved in the photography of more than 200 movies.

Vsevolod Yakubovich has concluded that in his professional opinion it looks as though the rover on the Moon was created in a large studio production utilising front projection. The rover appears to him to be a radio controlled model that mimics a rover running on the lunar surface.

In addition he has concluded (as have other researchers) that the foreground is different to the backing/background, possibly resulting from the mismatching of the front projection process."

reply to post by rolfharriss

"Vsevolod Yakubovich is a Director of Photography of the famous Mosfilm Studios in Russia, probably the oldest film studios in Europe. He teaches the Technology of the Cinematograph Process. He graduated from the All-Union State Cinema Institute (VGIK) in 1968.

No, he is not. Try finding him in the IMDB. His critique reveals a complete lack of film-making technology. You cannot use front projection to put a dark background behind a bright foreground. This has been explained countless times on these threads. Aulis has zero credibility.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by rolfharriss

 

"Vsevolod Yakubovich is a Director of Photography of the famous Mosfilm Studios in Russia, probably the oldest film studios in Europe. He teaches the Technology of the Cinematograph Process. He graduated from the All-Union State Cinema Institute (VGIK) in 1968.

No, he is not. Try finding him in the IMDB. His critique reveals a complete lack of film-making technology. You cannot use front projection to put a dark background behind a bright foreground. This has been explained countless times on these threads. Aulis has zero credibility.

If you let us know your authority on stating the credibility of the Aulis site it would help? Yes you can use front projection, but you project from above the stage behind the foreground. These are more likely to be backdrops rather than projections.

I am trying to figure out how you save money with this scenerio. You would have to pay off so many people in the US and then pay off the Russians our cold war enemy and every other nation with the ability to track the lauch, and then keep paying pretty much every nation that sends a probe to the moon to send back some fake pictures. Then you have spend who knows how much to create moon rocks that could fool every scientist on earth or pay off evey scientist on earth. Then payoffs to news agencys etc. Landing on the moon would be way cheaper than faking it and then keeping up the illusion for over 50 years. Of course I suppose common sense, science and logic have no place among the moon landing hoax crowd.

Originally posted by MrSpad
I am trying to figure out how you save money with this scenerio. You would have to pay off so many people in the US and then pay off the Russians our cold war enemy and every other nation with the ability to track the lauch, and then keep paying pretty much every nation that sends a probe to the moon to send back some fake pictures. Then you have spend who knows how much to create moon rocks that could fool every scientist on earth or pay off evey scientist on earth. Then payoffs to news agencys etc. Landing on the moon would be way cheaper than faking it and then keeping up the illusion for over 50 years. Of course I suppose common sense, science and logic have no place among the moon landing hoax crowd.

The moon landing was a pet project of the elite bankers and played both sides to achieve the goal. When it was realised it couldn't be done there was no option but to fake it. The added bonus was faking it proved a great source of revenue as it was cheaper to fake it and steal the difference. With 1960's technology it simply was not possible to do it for real.

By using compartmentalization during the mission no one single group had knowledge of the whole program. When you control the world's reserve currency pay offs are not a problem. Pay-offs and assassinations have kept many of the world's secret buried. The science and logic point is important because of the hierarchical nature of science it only takes a few authoritative figures to dictate to everyone else what we should think.. If you have worked with academics you would know that they are just as vulnerable to corruption.

If you want to get a paper published it is peer-reviewed, if what your study contradicts a study of any of the peers then it simply won't be published. An academic will rarely admit to being wrong nor will they criticize the source of their funding.

It is better to form your own opinion and not let it be dictated to you. What do you think DJW001 is this a good strategy for learning?

reply to post by r2d246


Ooof there's a LOT of stupid crap in this.

Simple one, the flag isn't waving due to the wind, but because of how it's made and how they're handling it... not how it doesn't wave once they stop touching it... real basic stuff..

Another thread that screams, "SHOCKING PROOF" which actually only offers a bunch of childish easily debunkable nonsense.

NASA landing is a pure HOAX . Every post on Moon landing in ATS should be put into HOAX group . Moon Landing was done right in the middle of Arizona desert .

reply to post by rolfharriss

The moon landing was a pet project of the elite bankers and played both sides to achieve the goal. When it was realised it couldn't be done there was no option but to fake it. The added bonus was faking it proved a great source of revenue as it was cheaper to fake it and steal the difference. With 1960's technology it simply was not possible to do it for real.

But all of the money was spent on contractors. They were the ones who profited, not the "bankers." So long as they were making money, why shouldn't the contractors actually build what they were supposed to. Certainly all the contractors who worked on the Saturn V did their jobs:

By using compartmentalization during the mission no one single group had knowledge of the whole program. When you control the world's reserve currency pay offs are not a problem. Pay-offs and assassinations have kept many of the world's secret buried. The science and logic point is important because of the hierarchical nature of science it only takes a few authoritative figures to dictate to everyone else what we should think.. If you have worked with academics you would know that they are just as vulnerable to corruption.

If things were compartmentalized, someone would have to design the compartmentalization. This would require an enormous amount of attention to detail. In fact, it would probably require a large committee composed of individuals with specialized knowledge. Organizing such a committee and assuring that it was able to coordinate the compartmentalized sections would be much, much more difficult than simply managing the project openly.

If you want to get a paper published it is peer-reviewed, if what your study contradicts a study of any of the peers then it simply won't be published. An academic will rarely admit to being wrong nor will they criticize the source of their funding.

You can always re-submit it elsewhere. In fact, a recent study shows that papers that were re-submitted get cited more frequently than papers that were submitted only once!

www.the-scientist.com.../articleNo/32787/title/The-Benefits-of-Rejection/

It is better to form your own opinion and not let it be dictated to you. What do you think DJW001 is this a good strategy for learning?

Absolutely! For example, when a website devoted to propagating a particular agenda makes a statement, one should evaluate it critically. Aulis claimed that a Russian special effects expert opined that the Apollo photographs were made using front projection technology. First, one can try to determine if said special effects expert actually exists. Anyone with as much film experience as is claimed would have a listing on the IMDB. He does not. Second, one can investigate whether it is possible to use front projection in this way:

However front projection has some obvious disadvantages as it is very sensitive to ambient light. The contrast level is directly dependent on the amount of ambient light striking the screen.

Using traditional (i.e. white) front projection the black parts of the images are not really black, but are perceived as such because hardly any light from the projector strikes these parts of the screen. The contrast will be diminished by the amount of ambient light striking the screen.

www.dnp-screens.com...

Third, he claims that subtle differences between foreground and background suggest projection. Everyone's common experience is that there are variations between foreground and background in every day life. Now, who are you going to believe? Your own experience or a non-existent Russian filmmaker?

I suppose there are pitfalls to using anyone else's information.

If we can't trust any websites for information on either side of the debate we can simply look at the character and depth of deception committed by the U.S government at the time.

The Mafia: This secret crime society was virtually unknown until the 1960s, when member Joe Valachi first revealed the society’s secrets to law enforcement officials. What was known was that organized crime existed, but not that the extent of their control included working with the CIA, politicians and the biggest businesses in the world.
3.
MK-ULTRA: In the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA ran a mind-control project aimed at finding a “truth serum” to use on communist spies. Test subjects were given '___' and other drugs, often without consent, and some were tortured. At least one man, civilian biochemist Frank Olson, who was working for the government, died as a result of the experiments. The project was finally exposed after investigations by the Rockefeller Commission.

Operation Mockingbird: Also in the 1950s to ’70s, the CIA paid a number of well-known domestic and foreign journalists (from big-name media outlets like Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS and others) to publish CIA propaganda. The CIA also reportedly funded at least one movie, the animated “Animal Farm,” by George Orwell. The Church Committee finally exposed the activities in 1975.

Watergate: Republican officials spied on the Democratic National Headquarters from the Watergate Hotel in 1972. While conspiracy theories suggested underhanded dealings were taking place, it wasn’t until 1974 that White House tape recordings linked President Nixon to the break-in and forced him to resign.

CIA Drug Running in LA: Pulitzer Prize Award winning journalist Gary Webb exposed this alongside LAPD Narcotics Officer turned whislteblower and author Michael Ruppert, CIA Contract Pilot Terry Reed, and many others. In August 1996 the San Jose Mercury News published Webb’s “Dark Alliance”, a 20,000 word, three-part investigative series which alleged that Nicaraguan drug traffickers had sold and distributed crack coc aine in Los Angeles during the 1980s, and that drug profits were used to fund the CIA-supported Nicaraguan Contras.


www.infowars.com...

The list goes on..

If this were a court of law I would not take the word of this United States fellow. Corruption, lies and deception.

But all of the money was spent on contractors. They were the ones who profited, not the "bankers." So long as they were making money, why shouldn't the contractors actually build what they were supposed to. Certainly all the contractors who worked on the Saturn V did their jobs:



I see, all of the contractors that built the Saturn V did an incredible job. I don't think the same goes for the moon lander.. There were two separate missions here.

reply to post by rolfharriss


The tape used was not Scotch tape. It was Kaptom tape, made from Kaptom Polymer film and a special silcone adhesive. Kaptom is still used for spacecraft (and other industrial uses) because of its insulating value and ability to withstand thermal extremes.

Besides, I'm not sure what you are saying about the LM. Are you saying that because it was ugly and had exposed parts that it could not have worked? The LM is meant to only operate in space, and does not need to withstand the stress of launch or reentry. Therefore, it could successfully operate with its insulation exposed to space.

Originally posted by DJW001
Try finding him in the IMDB.

Hiya DJW,

It's a small thing, but I wouldn't use IMDB as a method for finding all technical film makers, especially not Russian ones. There are plenty of western post production staff that simply don't have extensive IMDB credits, but with Russians especially a lot of information has never been put up there.

To further explain, one of my friends has the same name as a famous producer. According to that producer's IMDB profile, the person decided to become a junior technician after years of producing TV shows. IMDB just isn't that great for the little guys all the time unless they update it themselves.

That said ...

Originally posted by rolfharriss
reply to post by captainpudding

 

This is the best site for investigating the appollo hoax

aulis.com... |It is a nightmare to find in the search engines - NASA must spend a fortune on SEO

Aulis unfortunately has all the hall marks of poor image analysis and faux forensics. (And I found it first try on google)

Source

The lack of chain of control/source info is bad enough unless I'm just not finding it, but how did these images end up pink and green??? No one knows because they haven't written it down. To say that 'computer enhancement shows' then produce a bright pink image with squares all over it with no known or documented process is not the sign of ... well anything. The art of finding rectangles with photoshop filters and tools is an arcane art handed down from generation to generation it seems.

Unfortunately, such shapes are one of the most likely things to find when over processing an image. Mostly it means lay off the button pressing ...

Originally posted by rolfharriss
reply to post by captainpudding
Vsevolod Yakubovich is a Director of Photography of the famous Mosfilm Studios in Russia, probably the oldest film studios in Europe. He teaches the Technology of the Cinematograph Process. He graduated from the All-Union State Cinema Institute (VGIK) in 1968.

Currently Vsevolod Yakubovich is an Associate Professor of the VGIK Camera Department. As a highly experienced Special Effects Cinematographer he has been involved in the photography of more than 200 movies.

There are assistant producers who have done over 200 episodes of TV before they hit 21. Editors and colorists with piles upon piles of submissions. There are assistant cam ops, DOPs, VFX artists ... all with massive resumes who actually spent their entire life doing one or two very narrow focused jobs and all teach at universities, technical colleges and the rest ...

How many of them worked on Star Wars? How many of them worked on Space Oddessy? The less than 0.3% with the credentials so that they could ramble for 2 minutes and 13 seconds and it mean something would oddly enough still show up with something a bit better than a very basic opinion.

Observations like ... the ground is different texture etc ... They're not that special observations. Projection techniques and several digital compositing techniques rely on this being the case to fool the human eye, and carve out back ground mattes. So the comparison is valid in so much as one (the effect) is trying to mimick the other (reality). Simply exchanging the order of comparison doesn't make reality fake. Also the astronaut reaction ... I'm not really sure how a person in a space suit is meant to react? Raise eye brows?

Yes, the persons body language is odd but they are in a space suit. I'd rather see more in depth investigations.

The old person is welcome to their opinion, but that is all that is presented here. No technical expertise, no ground breaking insights. Certainly no counter argument or further investigation.

On a side note, the color change in the video between 0.54 and 1.05 drives me nutso! If the poor man has worked on over 200 films, I'm sure he wouldn't be that pleased either.

reply to post by rolfharriss

If we can't trust any websites for information on either side of the debate we can simply look at the character and depth of deception committed by the U.S government at the time.

Why not the character of the people who run Aulis?

www.aulis.com...

Originally posted by rolfharriss



"Vsevolod Yakubovich is a Director of Photography of the famous Mosfilm Studios in Russia, probably the oldest film studios in Europe. He teaches the Technology of the Cinematograph Process. He graduated from the All-Union State Cinema Institute (VGIK) in 1968. . .

The problem I have with this source is that I honestly can't find any evidence that this man exists outside of hoax websites. I'm not saying he doesn't exist but it seems very suspicious to me that someone of his supposed credentials can't be found on google. It feels to me like another Una Ronald

reply to post by r2d246


Yep you are correct. I always saw the writing on the wall but I never paid any attention to it after somebody said look you can see a pepsi can in there, I didn't see it...

But this is crazy. I am search for more videos to confirm this however.

Awesome post thought

I heard That The rocks in the Foreground were Label Prop c..Anyone know if this is true? Or where it came from..Id Like to see the Proof for this claim.

Originally posted by ParanormalJessy
I heard That The rocks in the Foreground were Label Prop c..Anyone know if this is true?

No, it is not true, just a silly moon was a hoax claim.

reply to post by hellobruce


Thank you for clearing that Up!

Originally posted by ParanormalJessy
I heard That The rocks in the Foreground were Label Prop c..Anyone know if this is true? Or where it came from..Id Like to see the Proof for this claim.

The "C" rock as it is called in some circles is a product of sloppy reproduction/copying. The following video by BlisterHiker is a good explanation: