Just… Exactly..!… How Precisely…‼…. Did We Even Land On the Moon … . . . ?¿? . . . …. Part II



● •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •●

First Man on the Moon (1969) Issued 10ȼ [en.wikipedia.org]
First Man on the Moon (1969) Issued 10ȼ [en.wikipedia.org] [1049×653]

● ••• • • • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • • • •••• ●

Exactly..!… Just… How . . . ?¿? . . . . Precisely……. Did We Even Land On the Moon . . .?¿?…~∿~..!¡!‼… Part II  . .. … …. ….. …. … .. .

…. . . . . …. … .. . [Part I]}⧽≻ . . . …

● ••• • • • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • • • •••• ●

Barring Divine Intervention… and  negating the assumption that the laws of science… the rules of physics… the principles of light and perspective…

 . . . …. are applicable to events only on the Earth… . . . but also apply to the Moon as well . . . ….

  • . .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. ….. …. ..!¡¡.!… .. … …. ….. …. .. … . . . ….

If… . . . assuming the rules of the known Universe . . . …. apply beyond the boundaries of the Earth . . . … then one should be able to reconcile the anomalous and even miraculous events that occured on the Moon…

. .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. . . . . ….. …. … . . . .. . . … .. .

… . . . defying all previously understood known laws and scientific precepts/concepts of reality to date . .. … …≺⧼ {[till 911… that is…..]}⧽≻»

. . . ….

. . . . …. . . . …  . . …

. .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. . . . . ….. …. … . . . .. . . … .. .

Apollo 11 Landing on the Moon (1969)
Apollo 11 Landing on the Moon (1969) [www.armstrongeconomics.com] [637×363]
● ••• • • • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • • • •••• ●

. . . … 

Yes . . . … I know. . . … it’s a Big ‘If ‘… because… as we know… this is not the case . . . …!¡!….

••• •••• •• ••• •••• ••• •••• ••• •••••

••• •••• •• ••• •••• ••• •••• ••• •••••
••• •••• •• ••• •••• ••• •••• ••• •••••

… . . . and I don’t thing Divine Intervention, Mass Psychosis, or Aliens had anything to do with what we saw in the Apollo program . . . ….

.. . . . … «≺⧼ { [[§]]}⧽≻»]}⧽≻»«≺⧼{[]}⧽≻»«≺⧼{{[(👽)³]}}⧽≻» …. .. . . .

. .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. . . . . ….. …. … . . . .. . . … .. . perhaps front screen projection… and Stanley Kubrick…. but… before we go there … . . . .

.. … …. ….. …. .. … …. . . . . ….. …. … . . . .. . . … .. .

. . . … let’s see what pre-emminent JFK researcher and photo analyst Jack White discovered when he looked at Apollo… an extensive study of Apollo imagery from Apollo 11 ~ 17 . . . . ….

 •• •••• •• ••• •••• ••• •••• ••• •••• •••• ••• ••• ••• •••• ••• ••••• ••••••



AULIS on Apollo


The prime reason for the Aulis investigation into Apollo is to question the official record of the exploration of the Moon in the late 1960s and early ’70s – especially the Apollo lunar landings themselves.

Research evidence revealed during this investigation suggests that surrogate astronauts may have been involved. Furthermore, it is the view of the Aulis authors that the famous named astronauts – for example Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Ed Mitchell – conceivably never left low-Earth orbit, remaining in the safe zones below the Van Allen radiation belts. By so doing they would have avoided exposure to the hazardous radiation which (in our present state of technology) awaits all those who venture into deep space.

Notwithstanding that the psychological behaviors of the named astronauts in the intervening years since Apollo would be evidence enough for our claims; the numerous inconsistencies and anomalies visible in the Apollo photographic record are irrefutable. The intentional ‘mistakes’ and lack of continuity between a number of still photographic images and the TV coverage is very apparent.

“Noticing the difference between the astronaut’s reports and the photographic record, we began to question everything … especially the validity of the TV recordings and immediately released NASA prints.
It was soon clear that the orbital photography and the ground-based images simply didn’t match.”

Richard C Hoagland and Mike Bara, Dark Mission

Some of the many errors evidenced were possibly due to haste and poor thinking. Others were probably planted deliberately by those who have been dubbed ‘Whistle-Blowers’. Individuals who were determined to leave evidence of the photographic manipulation and faking in which, no doubt, they were unwillingly involved.

It should also be emphasized at this point that we are not alone in making such claims. Other researchers have also produced hard evidence concerning massive fraud in the space program, and especially in the cover-up by the authorities of information concerning extra-terrestrials, not just on this planet, but on the Moon and Mars.

Since the publication of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, Jack White BA, a specialist in photo analysis and a professional photographer for over half a century, has produced numerous studies revealing further photographic fakery extant in the Apollo lunar EVA record. Phil Kouts PhD has found damming evidence within NASA’s own published documents, and many other specialist scientists have found evidence suggesting that the Apollo missions were faked and that the Saturn V could not have flown to the Moon.

NASA is by no means the first institution to foster the suppression of information and the denial of knowledge. When appropriate, as a government agency, it acts in the interest of the national security of the United States, and when viewed though the lens of “National Security” any action always contains a military component.

There is absolutely nothing new in the organised withholding of newly-found discoveries.  More than two thousand years before space travel was a reality, in the 6th Century BC, Pythagoras and his group of mathematical philosophers who lived in Greece found themselves in just such a situation.

Suppression of Knowledge
The late Dr. Carl Sagan reminded us in his work Cosmos that the Pythagoreans considered the four regular basic solids made up terrestrial matter: earth, air, fire and water but they associated their discovery of the fifth solid with the heavens—it was named the dodecahedron, pentagons making up its twelve faces.

A crisis of doctrine also occurred when the Pythagoreans discovered that the square root of two could not be represented accurately as the ratio of two whole numbers, for the square root of two was irrational. It was not a whole number and these people regarded whole numbers as fundamental, as all other things could be calculated from them.

For the Pythagoreans, this knowledge was difficult to assimilate into their previous ‘database’, as we would describe it today.  This knowledge presented a serious threat.  So instead of sharing in their recently-acquired and perhaps not completely understood discoveries, the Pythagoreans suppressed knowledge of both the dodecahedron and the square root of two on the grounds that it was too dangerous for the public and ‘ordinary people’. The outside world was not to know!

Did history repeat itself (as it has done so many times before) when, instead of using the experiences acquired during the preparations for manned space travel to advance our understanding of the Universe beyond this planet, it was determined to deny access to the findings concerning space and physics that have been made?
Discoveries that were made both prior to and during our emergence as a civilization learning to struggle into space?

Poor decisions and ill-considered actions by the space agencies and their masters have accumulated over the last fifty years or so and the consequences of this behavior still block the threshold of the doorway marked “Progress of the Human Civilization”. For even today there are scientists who are opposed to sharing with ‘ordinary people’ certain scientific knowledge.

Prime Questions

The questions to be asked, therefore, are these:

  • If mankind went to the Moon as billed, why was there any need to fake the photographic record?
  • Did the United States/NASA present to the world the manner by which it was going to the Moon, when in fact another covert mission was undertaken?
  • Is there indeed a parallel with the events of 9/11, whereby the record states that aircraft brought down the WTC towers when, as is becoming increasingly evident, the buildings were felled by other means – actually turning the buildings to dust.


Jack White’s Apollo Studies – Index 1
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White BA
All studies © 2005/10 Jack White

Jack White
Jack White 1927-2012

Photographic specialist Jack White took time from his many commitments to help us investigate further into the Apollo photographic record.
Out of his interest came a strong friendship, and while immensely saddened by his leaving, we at Aulis are also joyful that we had the privilege of knowing this wonderful man. We will miss him greatly.


Apollo general file A














Apollo 11 file









Hatch Anomalies file



Apollo general file B




Apollo 12 file













Apollo 14 file



All photographs NASA unless otherwise stated
For copyright & licensing information please see About Aulis
Images used in banner montage: AS15-82-11056/7, 88-11863, 86-11602


“Jack White’s studies of anomalies in the Apollo space program raise the disturbing question, if man went to the Moon, then why was it necessary to fake so many photos? This parallels his earlier work on JFK, which raised a similar question about alleged assassin Lee Oswald, namely, if he really shot JFK, then why was it necessary to fake evidence to frame a guilty man?”
James H. Fetzer PhD
Dr. Fetzer is a Distinguished McKnight Professor at the University of Minnesota, Duluth

Jack White has a BA in journalism, interests in art and history and a solid career in advertising behind him. Having been a professional photographer for over half a century, Jack White is skilled in all aspects of photography, but his speciality is photo analysis. Indeed, Jack White is an expert on the assassination of President John F Kennedy and has served as photographic consultant to the US House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during the hearings. White has published two videotapes on his photographic studies of the assassination and was also a consultant on the Oliver Stone film JFK.
Not unnaturally, White has been following the Apollo ‘did they, didn’t they’ debate for many years. But it was in 2001, following the Fox TV documentary Did we land on the Moon? that he decided to undertake an in-depth investigation into the lunar EVA images, and found literally hundreds of them to be anomalous, considering the conditions under which they were alleged to have been taken. In other words, if the photographs were supposed to have been taken on the lunar surface – they were faked.


. .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. . . . . …..
● •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •●
● ••• • • • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • • • •••• ●
JFK Revelations}» JFK InSights… Revelations…. An Epiphany of Truth …. … .. .
•••ⱷ ••••ⱷ •• • • • •••ⱷ • • •ⱷ ••••ⱷ • • • • •••ⱷ • • • ••••ⱷ • • • •••ⱷ •••••
.. . . . … «≺⧼{[₪[§]₪]}⧽≻»]}⧽≻»«≺⧼{[-]}⧽≻»«≺⧼₪{[₪]}⧽≻» …. .. . . .
• . .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. ….. …. ..!¡‼¡.!… .. … …. ….. …. .. … . . . …. •
•••ⱷ ••••ⱷ •• • • • •••ⱷ • • •ⱷ ••••ⱷ • • • • •••ⱷ • • • ••••ⱷ • • • •••ⱷ ••••ⱷ •• • • • •••
. .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. . . . . ….. …. … .. .

. .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. . . . . …. … .. .

Exactly…!!!… Just… How… Precisely…‼…‼….

. .. … …. ….. . . . . …. … …. . . . . ….. …. … .. .

Did We Even Land On the Moon . . . …?¿?…. . . . 

. .. … …. ….. . . . . …. … …. . . . … …. … .. .

… . . . Part III . . . …
● •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •●
● •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •●

Yes… Virginia… ‘We Did It’… . . . but . . . ….
…Just… Exactly… How…’We Did It’… . . .

Not even NASA knows…∿~…!¡!…‼…∿~…?¿?∿~…
. . . ….
How… Very… Strange… We’ve forgotten how to go to the Moon . . . ….
. .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. . . . . …..


••• • ••••


by Jay Weidner

July 20,  2009

from JayWeidner Website

 . .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. . . . . ….. …. … . . . .. . . … .. .

. .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. . . . . ….. …. … .. … …. . . . … …. … .. …

[RedIce Radio] Jay Weidner on 'Kubrick´s Odyssey How Stanley Faked the Moon Landings'
[!][RedIce Radio] Jay Weidner on ‘Kubrick´s Odyssey How Stanley Faked the Moon Landings’ (60m)}

. .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. . . . . …. … .. . .. …
[!][RedIce Radio] Jay Weidner on ‘Kubrick´s Odyssey How Stanley Faked the Moon Landings’ (60m)}
● •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •●
Jay Weidner “Kubrick´s Odyssey How Stanley Faked the Moon Landings”

Published on (Apr 29, 2012) More than 56,310 views…
Further videos are available in favourites, play lists on my channel and complementary video responses. Mirrored: http://www.youtube.com/user/RedIceRadio “Jay Weidner is an 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. He returns to Red Ice to talk about his film, Kubrick’s Odyssey. Jay presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings. He reveals that the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick’s novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. Weidner also tells how Kubrick’s film, The Shining is the story of Kubrick’s personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.”

. .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. . . . . …. … .. . .. …

. .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. . . . . ….. …. … .. … …. . . . … …. … .. …

Jeff Rense & Jay Weidner - Kubrick & The Moon Landing
Jeff Rense & Jay Weidner – Kubrick & The Moon Landing [dpuH4rRs6bs]}
. .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. . . . . ….. …. … .. … …. . . . … …. … .. …  …. ….. …. .. …

Read “Alchemical Kubrick I” here.

“There are great ideas, undiscovered breakthroughs available, to those who can remove one of truths protective layers”
-Neil Armstrong, ‘First Man on the Moon’. July 20, 1994

 ● ••• • • • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • • • •••• ●

How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings:

. . . …
Or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Lies.
Alchemical Kubrick II

Apollo 11 – One Giant Leap – Did Kubrick Fake the Moon Landings...
Apollo 11 – One Giant Leap – Did Kubrick Fake the Moon Landings [Stanley Kubrick on the set of ‘the Shining’]
Jay Weidner

Copyright July 20, 2009
Sacred Mysteries Productions

“There are great ideas, undiscovered breakthroughs available, to those who can remove one of truths protective layers” 
-Neil Armstrong, ‘First Man on the Moon’. July 20 th 1994

 • . .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. ….. …. ..!¡‼¡.!… .. … …. ….. …. .. … . . . …. •

It has now been forty years since the fabled moon landings by NASA and the Apollo gang. 

When it comes to the subject of the moon landings, people tend to fall into two belief groups. The first group, by far the bigger of the two groups, accepts the fact that NASA successfully landed on the moon six times and that 12 human beings have actually walked on the surface of the moon. The second group, though far smaller, is more vocal about their beliefs. This group says that we never went to the moon and that the entire thing was faked.

This essay presents a third position on this issue. This third point of view falls somewhere between these two assertions. This third position postulates that humans did go to the moon but what we saw on TV and in photographs was completely faked.

Furthermore this third position reveals that the great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is the genius who directed the hoaxed landings. 


But why fake the moon landings at all? What would be the motivation?

Authors Joseph Farrell and Henry Stevens both have shown us undeniable proof that Nazi scientists had developed advanced flying saucer technology as early as 1943. These authors also show that the US Government brought these same Nazi scientists into this country in order to build these highly advanced flying machines.

Furthermore, they believe that the idea that aliens from outer space are invading the Earth is a clever cover story concocted by NASA to hide this technology.

Many sources inside the military industrial complex have related to me that after John Kennedy was shown the flying saucer technology early in his Presidency, he realized that the advances in technology promised by the flying saucers could solve many of the pressing problems of the world. He saw that releasing this exotic technology would point the way towards cheap and environmentally friendly energy among other things.

Soon after seeing the flying saucer technology, JFK made his famous speech asking NASA to land a man on the moon before the decade was out. 

Many insiders believed that this was a ploy by JFK to get NASA, and the secret government, to release their saucer technologies. Since it was obvious to everyone that standard rocket technology could not get man to the moon and back, JFK may have thought that NASA would be forced to release the knowledge of the technology behind the flying saucers in order to fulfill his vision and get to the moon by the end of the 1960’s. 

JFK’s ploy was therefore intended to free this advanced technology from the insidious hands of the shadow government.

After the assassination of Kennedy in 1963, NASA began a new plan that would solve the problem that JFK initiated. This new plan would allow NASA, and the shadow government, to keep the saucer technology secret and to still make it look like standard rocketry had taken man to the moon and back.

Someone high up in the shadow government decided to fake the entire moon landings in order to conceal the United States’ extremely new and advanced Nazi technology both from us, the citizens and our enemies.

In some ways NASA’s position on this was understandable. We were in the middle of the cold war with the Soviet Union. 

Did we really want to show the Russians what we had? 


In early 1964 Stanley Kubrick had just finished his black satire Dr Strangelove and was looking to do a science fiction film.

While directing Dr. Strangelove Kubrick had asked the US Air Force for permission to film one of their B-52 bombers for the movie. The Pentagon turned him down.

The movie, Dr. Strangelove, was about a flight squadron that had been ordered to fly to Russia and drop nuclear bombs on that country. The Pentagon read Kubrick’s script and rejected his request to actually film the inside, and outside, of a B-52.

The reason for this rejection was that Kubrick’s film was clearly a satire on the military and US nuclear policy. The Pentagon did not want to assist Kubrick in this satirical undertaking.

Undaunted by the rejection, Kubrick used various special effects to create the B-52 in flight. When viewing Dr. Strangelove today, these special effects look quaint and old fashioned, but in 1963 they looked very good. It is possible that someone in NASA saw what Kubrick had done in Dr. Strangelove and, admiring his artfulness, designated Kubrick as the person best qualified to direct the Apollo Moon landing. 

If he could do that well on a limited budget – what could he do on an unlimited budget?

No one knows how the powers-that-be convinced Kubrick to direct the Apollo landings. Maybe they had compromised Kubrick in some way. The fact that his brother, Raul Kubrick, was the head of the American Communist Party may have been one of the avenues pursued by the government to get Stanley to cooperate.

Kubrick also had a reputation for being a notoriously nasty negotiator. It would have been very interesting to have been a fly on the wall during the negotiations between Kubrick and NASA.

In the end, it looks like Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings in return for two things. The first was a virtually unlimited budget to make his ultimate science fiction film:2001: A Space Odyssey, and the second was that he would be able to make any film he wanted, with no oversight from anyone, for the rest of his life.

Except for his last film, Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick got what he wanted. 


It is uncanny the way that the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey parallels the Apollo program. The film production started in 1964 and went on to the release of 
2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968. 

Meanwhile the Apollo program also began in 1964 and culminated with the first moon landings on July 20th 1969.

Also it is very interesting to note that scientist Frederick Ordway was working both for NASA and the Apollo program and was also Kubrick’s top science advisor for 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Once he negotiated the deal, Stanley, got to work. The most pressing problem for Kubrick in 1964 was to figure out a way to make the shots on the ground, on the surface of the moon, look realistic. 

He had to make the scenes look wide-open and expansive, like it was really done on the moon and not in a studio back lot. 


No one knows how many things he tried but eventually Kubrick settled on doing the entire thing with a cinematic technique called Front Screen Projection.

It is in the use of this cinematic technique that the fingerprints of Kubrick can be seen all over the NASA Apollo photographic and video material.

What is Front Screen Projection?

Kubrick did not invent the process but there is no doubt that he perfected it. Front Screen Projection is a cinematic device that allows scenes to be projected behind the actors so that it appears, in the camera, as if the actors are moving around on the set provided by the Front Screen 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 .4mm 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.

Today Hollywood magicians use green screens and computers for special effects and so Front Screen Projection has gone the way of the Adding Machine and the Model T, but for its time, especially in the 1960’s, nothing worked better than Front Screen Projection for the realistic look that would be needed both for the ape-men scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey and the faked Apollo landings.

To see how Front Screen Projection looks on the screen let’s examine the ape-men scenes at the beginning of Kubrick’s film 2001: A Space Odyssey.

While viewing the stills from these scenes, or watching them in the film, one has to remember that the early scenes in 2001 with the actors in Ape costumes were all done on a soundstage. None of what you are seeing in the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001 was actually shot outside. The scenes that surround the ape-men in 2001 are actually slides of a desert being projected onto Scotchlite screens standing at the rear of the set.

In order to create these desert backgrounds Kubrick sent a photographic team to Spain to shoot 8” X 10” Ektachrome slides. These slides were then projected via the Front Screen Projection system onto the Scotchlite screen. The actors in ape costumes stood in front of the screen acting out the script.

If you watch 2001 on DVD you can actually see the ‘seams’ of the screen occasionally behind the gyrating apes. Kubrick was doing Front Screen Projection on such a huge and grand fashion that the technicians were forced to sew together many screens of Scotchlite so that Kubrick could create the vastness needed for the ape scenes to be believable.

In this still taken from an early scene in 2001 you can see the seams in the blue sky if you look closely.

Next is the same image as above only I have processed it through a graphic program. In this processing I have increased the gamma and increased the contrast.

Please examine:

Now we can clearly see the ‘seams’ and the ‘stitching’ of the Scotchlite Front Projection screen in the sky.

To get the perspective correct one has to realize that the Scotchlite screen is right behind the rocky outcropping set, which was built on the soundstage.

The lines on the screen are the flaws in the Scotchlite screen. These flaws in the screen give the sky give a peculiar ‘geometry’ when the image is properly processed to reveal the Front Projection Scotchlite Screen.

Let’s show another example.

Here is a still from the famous ‘water hole’ scene from 2001:

This next image is again the same image as above but with the gamma and contrast increased:

While watching 2001,with the scenes of the ape-men, one can begin to see the tell tale fingerprints that always reveal when the Front Screen Projection system is being used.

It should be emphasized that the sets that surround the ape-men in the movie are real. Those are ‘real’ rocks (whether paper mache or real) that surround the ape-men. But behind the fabricated rocks on the set, the desert scene is being projected via the Front Screen Projector.

One of the ways that you can tell the Front Screen system is being used is that the bottom horizon line between the actual set and the background Scotchlite screen has to be blocked. Kubrick strategically located rocks and other things near the bottom of the scene in order to hide the projection screen. In other words, the camera and the viewers would see the bottom of the background projection screen if it weren’t blocked in some fashion.

As part of the ‘trick’ it became necessary to place things in between the screen and the set to hide the bottom of the screen.

I have photo-shopped a line differentiating the set and the background Scotchlite Front Projection Screen.

Please note how everything is in focus, from the pebbles on the ground in the set to the desert mountains beyond.

You will see that hiding the bottom of the Scotchlite screen is always being done when the Front Screen Projection system is used in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hiding the screen is one of the fingerprints; it is evidence of its use.

Just like the stage magician who needs the long sleeves of his costume to hide the mechanism of his tricks, so too Kubrick needed to hide the mechanism of his trick behind the carefully placed horizon line between set and screen.

Here is another example from 2001: A Space Odyssey:

And here is the same image with my photo shop line separating the set with the ape-man actor and the Scotchlite Front Projection Screen.

And you will see, before this article is finished, that this same fingerprint, this same evidence, is clearly seen in all of the NASA Apollo stills and video footage.

It is this fingerprint that reveals, not only that NASA faked the Apollo missions but also HOW they faked them.

Let’s examine a few NASA Apollo images now…

This is a still from Apollo 17. This is also a great example of the Front Screen Projection process.

Again I have photo-shopped a line indicating the back of the set.

One can see that there is a slight uprising behind the rover, which is hiding the bottom of the screen. Also notice that even though everything is in focus from the lunar rover to the mountains in the background, there is a strange change in the landscape of the ground right behind my lines.

This is because the photo of the mountains being used on the Front Projection system has a slightly different ground texture than the set. As we go on we will see that this fingerprint is also consistent throughout the Apollo images.

Here is another Apollo image⇩ & my version where I show the line between set and screen⇩


Again notice that the texture of the ground changes right behind my lines.

Now let’s go to some more Apollo images. We can see that the same thing occurs here as in the ape-men scenes in 2001. There is always a line separating the set from the screen. Even if you do not see it at first it will become apparent, as one grows more familiar with the Front Screen Projection process and how it is being used to fake the astronauts standing on the lunar surface.

Go to any NASA site like this one and start looking for yourself.

Not all lunar surface shots are using the process. Sometimes the astronauts are just standing on the set with a completely (and suspicious) black background. The early missions used the Front Screen Projection system only when they had to. But as the missions went on and they had to look better, Kubrick began to perfect the process.

Although you can see the Front Screen Projection process on every mission, the seriously revealing images are in the later missions, particularly Apollo 14, 15, 16 and (my favorite) 17.

Here are a few from Apollo 17…


That astronaut is driving the lunar rover parallel to the screen and the rover is only three or four feet away from the Scotchlite. Please note how the tire treads just lead to nowhere.

Actually they are going to the edge of the set.


The astronaut is about six feet in front of the Scotchlite screen.

Please note how everything is in focus from the rocks and pebbles close to the camera all the way to the crystal clear mountain behind the astronaut. As we shall see very soon, even that is impossible.

Also please note the other tell tale evidence that permeates the Apollo images: There is a stark difference in the ground texture between the set and what is being projected onto the screen. You can almost count the number of small rocks and the granularity of the ground is clearly seen on the set. But once we get to the screen on the other side of my line this granularity disappears.

This next image is slick little piece of work. When first viewed one is sure that they are looking across the vast unbroken lunar surface from beginning to end.

With the Earth rising, it is truly a stunning shot.


But sure enough – a close examination reveals the set/screen line once again. Again please note the change in the texture of the ground immediately on each side of the line.

The little pebbles and dust seem to disappear behind the line.


. . . …


Doesn’t the fakery just make you all patriotic inside?


Besides the telltale evidence of the horizon line between set and screen and the changing granularity of the texture of the ground, there is another telltale fingerprint that comes with Front Screen Projection. This has to do with a photographic situation called depth of field.

Depth of field has to do with the plane of focus that the lens of the camera is tuned to.

The main rule of thumb in photography is that the larger the format of the film the less depth of field. For instance, 16mm film has a large depth of field. 35mm has a smaller depth of field and 70 mm (which Stanley was using in 2001 as were all of the astronaut-photographers in the Apollo missions) has an incredibly small depth of field.

What this means is that it is virtually impossible for two objects that are far apart in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane of focus. One of the two objects will always be out-of-focus. Filmmakers like to use depth of field because it creates soft out-of-focus backgrounds that are visually very pleasant to the human eye.

While watching the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001, one can see that everything is in focus.

Whether it is the apes – or the far away desert background – they are all in focus. This is because the Front Projection Screen on which the background desert scenes is projected is actually not far away from the ape actor. In reality the Scotchlite screen containing the desert scene is right behind the actors just as the Scotchlite screen is right behind the astronauts in the Apollo images. So whatever is projected onto that screen will usually be in the same plane of focus as the actor-ape or the actor-astronaut.

This depth of field is impossible in real life using a large format film like 70 mm. Keeping everything in focus is only possible if everything is actually confined to a small place.

It may look like the ape-men are somewhere in a huge desert landscape but in reality they are all on a small set in a studio.

It may look like the astronauts are on a vast lunar landscape but actually they are on a small confined set.

According to the NASA literature, the Apollo astronauts were using large format Hassleblad cameras. These cameras were provided with large rolls of 70 mm film on which they took the images. This large format film is exactly the same size film that Kubrick was using when shooting 2001.

The plane of focus, the depth of field, on these cameras is incredibly small.

This should have been a huge problem for the astronaut-photographers, who would have to be constantly adjusting the focus. We therefore should expect to see a lot of out of focus shots taken by the astronauts. When you consider the fact that, because of their helmets, they did not even have the ability to see through the viewfinder of their cameras, this would have only increased the chances that most of what they would be shooting would be out of focus.

I have gone through the entire photographic record of Apollo program, both at Goddard in Greenbelt, Maryland in the main photographic repository at NASA’s Houston headquarters.

When the Apollo photographic record is examined, the exact opposite of what one would expect to find is discovered. Instead of many out of focus shots, we find that nearly every shot is in pristine focus. And these amateur photographer-astronauts have an uncanny sense of composition, especially when one remembers that they are not even able to look through their camera’s viewfinders. Their images have the unmistakable quality of a highly polished professional photographer.

Before embarking on his film career Stanley Kubrick was a professional photographer working for Look Magazine.

Honestly, even a professional photographer looking through the viewer of the camera would be hard pressed to come up with the pristine imagery and crystal clear focus of the Apollo astronaut amateur photographers.

Unfortunately though, for everyone involved, the fact that everything is in focus in the Apollo record is the old telltale fingerprint of Front Screen Projection.

Examine the above photographs from Apollo. Please note how everything is in focus. As one goes through the entire Apollo record they will discover that the astronaut photographers never seem to have a problem with depth of field. Even though you could never get everything to remain in focus over such vast distances here on Earth, somehow the rules of physics are bypassed when men shoot photographs on the lunar surface.

Indeed the very physics of lens dynamics and depth of field apparently disappears when the astronauts shoot photographs. (Just for the record the cameras were not altered at all by Hasselblad or anyone else).

As a professional photographer and a filmmaker I have wrestled with depth of field problems for over 40 years. I am surprised that no other photographer has noticed the lack of depth of field problems encountered by the astronaut-photographers.

In reality the lack of depth of field problems is a nail in the coffin of the Apollo program.


Former NASA consultant Richard Hoagland has examined many of the photos of the Apollo landings and, although he has never noticed the impossible depth of field, he has found other strange anomalies in the NASA material.

Examining the photographic record of the Apollo missions, and processing Apollo images through various graphics programs, Hoagland has discovered ‘geometries’ in the skies surrounding the astronauts on the moon. He postulates that these geometries are evidence of some kind of gigantic glass-like structures behind, above and surrounding the astronauts as they stand on the lunar surface.

Hoagland even shows us that there are rainbow lights reflecting in the sky high above the astronauts.

Many people, especially in NASA, have attacked Hoagland for these interpretations. Yet, no matter how much they attack Hoagland, they can never explain what it is that he is finding on these Apollo images. In the same way that evidence in the JFK assassination and the high weirdness around 911 is never examined and explained by the anti-conspiracy theorists, so too, is Hoagland’s evidence just simply ignored by the critics.

Instead they have created an ad hominum attack machine that criticizes Hoagland – the man – while deftly ignoring his intriguing evidence.

His critics are either wrong or they know what is really happening.

I have known Richard Hoagland for a long time. I was with him during his initial discoveries of artifacts on the lunar surface. I have seen photographic evidence that there are very strange things on the surface of the moon. I am not here to start an argument with Mr. Hoagland or anyone else.

I, like Hoagland, believe that NASA has actually gone to the moon. I believe that moon rocks were taken from the surface of the moon. I believe that there is strong evidence of some kind of past intelligent activity on surface of the moon.

But I do not believe that standard rocket technology is what got mankind from the Earth to the surface of the Moon.

I am not trying to debunk Hoagland’s discoveries. All I am trying to do, with the following evidence, is show that the Apollo landings were a hoax. And that Stanley Kubrick, using the Front Screen Projection system, directed them.

Again I want to make sure that I am understood here. I am not saying that there are not strange structures on the moon. What I am saying is that the structures and geometries that Richard Hoagland is seeing in the photographs taken on the lunar surface are not what he thinks they are.

Here are a few of Hoagland’s images.

He believes that these images are proof that NASA is hiding evidence of alien cities.

This is a processed photograph of astronaut Ed Mitchell on the surface of the moon taken during the Apollo 14 mission.

Of course all of the stuff in the sky, as seen in this processed Apollo image from Hoagland, is impossible if it was taken on the lunar surface. There is no atmosphere on the moon. Therefore there can be nothing in the sky. Yet when Hoagland processed much of the Apollo lunar surface imagery he discovered, over and over again, all of this ‘crud’ in the sky above the astronauts.

No one in NASA even attempts to answer Hoagland, or anyone else, about the strange stuff that he, and others, is finding in the skies above the astronauts.

Richard Hoagland theorizes that this is photographic evidence of huge, abandoned ‘glass cities’ on the surface of the moon. He says that what we are seeing in the above processed image is huge glass towers that only show up on the images after they have been processed through graphics software.

Here are some other of Hoagland’s images:

Hoagland has taken the image on the left and processed it in a manner very similar to how I processed the above images from 2001: A Space Odyssey. By increasing the gamma and the contrast of the image he arrived at the picture on the right.

Hoagland interprets the image on the right as proof of giant glass structures behind the astronaut and, for that matter, all over the surface of the moon.

What Hoagland is really seeing, though, is the imperfections in the background Scotchlite screen that Kubrick used to create the lunar backgrounds. These imperfections can also be found in the desert backgrounds in the ape scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey (see above).

What Hoagland, and the above image reveals, is the texture and geometry of the Scotchlite screen.

Because of the vastness of the set, because he needed it to look like it was NOT DONE ON A SOUNDSTAGE, Kubrick had to sew several Scotchlite screens together. It was only when he had created a large enough Scotchlite screen was he then was able to get a large enough background image that would look expansive enough to appear to be the surface of the moon or a desert four million years ago.

The same process that created the desert backgrounds in 2001 is the same process that created the lunar mountains backgrounds for the Apollo missions.

This is picture from Hoagland’s research.

The processed image reveals a rainbow-like reflecting light high above the astronauts in the sky on the moon. Hoagland theorizes that this is a light reflecting off of one of the giant glass towers standing right behind the astronaut.

What this is really is a light reflecting off of one of the tiny glass beads of the Scotchlite screen. For some reason that particular glass bead was slightly off from its 90-degree angle and so it caught the projector light and reflected it back to the camera.

Again a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey (processed):

And one of Hoagland’s processed Apollo shots:

It is pretty clear from the two images above that Hoagland’s ‘geometries’ are really the patterns and flaws and stitches in the Scotchlite screen.
Maybe this is why NASA suddenly lost all of its lunar images.
Maybe this is why NASA just admitted that they ‘accidentally’ taped over the original high-resolution tape of Apollo 11.
Maybe this is why Neil Armstrong, ‘the first man to walk on the moon’, doesn’t want to participate in the 40th anniversary parties.
Maybe this is why we have never gone back to the moon.


Many researchers have pointed out the different angles of light on the surface of the moon.

Because there is only one light source (the sun) how can there be multiple light angles on the moon such as this?:

How can the astronaut’s two shadows not be consistent with each other? If they were actually standing in the bright light of the sun, their two shadows should be at the same exact angle. Yet they are not.

Why? Because Kubrick used studio lighting!

But why would Kubrick make a mistake like the inconsistent shadows in the above image? A great filmmaker like Kubrick must have realized that this was a huge mistake.

My answer is that Kubrick did this on purpose.

He left behind telltale evidence for his work. And he did this on purpose. Not just in the above shot but actually all over the Apollo photographic record.

In my forthcoming documentary on the NASA Apollo fakery titled “Kubrick’s Odyssey”, I will reveal much more photographic evidence than I possibly can in this short essay.

One thing that I am sure is that some part of Stanley Kubrick wanted everyone to know what he had done.

And that is why he left behind clues that would explain who did it and how.


Those of you who are familiar with my essay, written in 1999, on 2001: A Space Odyssey called Alchemical Kubrick already know that I believe that 2001 A Space Odyssey is the greatest esoteric film of all time.

For the first time anywhere, in that essay, I show how Kubrick designed the black monolith to be exactly the same size as the screen on which 2001 was projected. The monolith and the screen are the same thing. The monolith is the screen and the screen is the monolith. It is truly one of the greatest discoveries in cinema history.

When one realizes that Kubrick also used the Front Screen Projection system – not only for the ape scenes in 2001 – but also the fake the moon landings – we can see a double, or even possibly a triple meaning, inside the idea that the screen is the monolith and the monolith is the screen.

If the monolith is that device that enlightens humanity then the Front Screen Projection system, and it’s unmistakable fingerprints, is the device that enlightens humanity as to how the Apollo landings were faked.

But also we can see that Kubrick used the faking of the Apollo moon missions as an opportunity to make one great film.

Because he had negotiated a deal where no one would be given oversight on the film, Kubrick was allowed to make whatever movie he desired. Knowing that no one would object to his anti-Hollywood methods, he created the first abstract feature film, the first intellectual movie and the greatest esoteric work of art in the 20th century.

The President of MGM, at the time in 1968, publicly stated, that he never even saw a rough cut of 2001: A Space Odyssey during the entire four years of production. Does that sound like the manner in which a head of a major studio would act?

2001: A Space Odyssey was one of the most expensive films ever made at that time. Does it even seem remotely possible that no one at MGM even cared to see the continuous progress of the film?

No way.

I am sure that 2001: A Space Odyssey is the only film in MGM history where the executives who funded the movie never scrutinized the film.

Why weren’t they more interested in this very expensive endeavor? Because MGM did not fund 2001, the US Government did.

Outside of the Front Screen Projection evidence, which I believe nails the fraud of the Apollo landings; there is other circumstantial evidence that forces the conclusion even more in the direction of Kubrick directing the entire Apollo missions.

For instance:
In the original release of 2001 there were many credits thanking NASA and many of the aerospace companies that worked with NASA on the moon landings. These credits have since been removed from all subsequent releases of 2001.

But for those of us old enough to remember, in the original credits, Kubrick thanks a vast array of military and space corporations for their help in the production.
As these are the same corporations that supposedly helped NASA get the astronauts to the moon – one has to wonder – what kind of help did they gave Stanley?

And for what price?

In the film ‘Wag the Dog’ Dustin Hoffman plays a movie producer hired by the CIA to ‘fake an event’. His name in the movie is Stanley. In that movie ‘Stanley’ mysteriously dies after telling everyone that he wants to take credit for the ‘event’ that he helped fake.

Stanley Kubrick died soon after showing Eyes Wide Shut to the executives at Warner Brothers.

It is rumored that they were very upset concerning that film. They wanted Kubrick to re-edit the film but he refused. I personally was in France when Stanley died and I saw, on French television, outtakes from the forthcoming Eyes Wide Shut. I saw outtakes from several scenes that were never in the finished film.

Warner Brothers has even come out and admitted that they re-edited the film. To this day they refuse to release a DVD of Stanley Kubrick’s cut. Not only is this a direct violation of the agreement that Kubrick had with Warner Brothers but also it means that we will probably never see the un-edited version of this film.

One has to wonder what was cut out?

And finally:
Eyes Wide Shut was released on July 16th 1999.
Stanley Kubrick insisted in his contract that this be the date of the release.
July 16th 1999 is exactly 30 years to the day that Apollo 11 was launched.
Happy Fortieth Anniversary Stanley.

Now you can rest in peace…


● ••• • • • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • • • •••• ●

Kubrick's Odyssey Part One} Kubrick and Apollo}» [780×439] [cover] (HQ)➤
Kubrick’s Odyssey Part One} Kubrick and Apollo}» [780×439] [cover] (HQ)
This provocative and insightful film is the first in a series of documentaries that will reveal the secret knowledge embedded in the work of the greatest filmmaker of all time: Stanley Kubrick. This famed movie director who made films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, placed symbols and hidden anecdotes into his films that tell a far different story than the films appeared to be saying.

In Kubrick’s Odyssey, Part I, Kubrick and Apollo, author and filmmaker, Jay Weidner presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings. He reveals that the film 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick’s novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage.

In light of this revelation, Weidner also explores Kubrick’s film, The Shining and shows that this film is, in actuality, the story of Kubrick’s personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.

Called by Wired Magazine an “erudite conspiracy hunter”, Jay Weidner is a renowned author and filmmaker. He is the producer of the documentary films, 2012 The Odyssey, its sequel Timewave 2013, and director of the feature documentary, Infinity: The Ultimate Trip. Jay has been featured in the History Channel’s documentaries, The Lost Book of Nostradamus, and Nostradamus 2012, for which he was associate producer. He was also featured in Trutv’s, Conspiracy Theory, hosted by Jesse Ventura.
– Written by Anonymous

Jay Weidner on VERITAS Radio [Take 2] Kubrick's Hidden Secrets
[!]Jay Weidner on VERITAS Radio [Take 2] Kubrick’s Hidden Secrets (89m)}

[!]Jay Weidner on VERITAS Radio [Take 2] Kubrick’s Hidden Secrets (89m)}

More than 35,692 views
Published on Jul 21, 2012

S y n o p s i s
This is “Take 2” of what was supposed to be an interview conducted weeks ago. This is what makes this interview so much more special. During the first attempt, at the end of a 2-hour interview, Jay Weidner’s voice was completely removed from our system. The entire interview was lost, with the exception of Mel’s voice. A day after this first interview was recorded Jay Weidner went to appear in the Jeff Rense radio program. Not surprising, Jeff Rense also had technical difficulties. What is so important that exotic technology is used to suppress this information? The topic of Cryptoterrestrials. To many, the word “cryptoterrestrials” may sound like science fiction, and perhaps this is how those in control prefer to keep it that way so that the mainstream population does not learn about this reality. The term “cryptoterrestrials” was used by the late researcher and author Mac Tonnies, who died in his sleep from an undiagnosed heart condition at the age of 34 on October 18, 2009, which happens to be Mel’s birthday.

Jay finds a connection between 2001: A Space Odyssey and September 11, 2001. Jay states that 9/11 could not have happened any later than it did or the people would not have believed it. There is an awakening taking place now.

In addition to exploring cryptoterrestrials we discussed the Freemasons, cyber-censorship, and revisited Kubrick’s hidden secrets. We also discussed Ridley Scott and Christopher Nolan and their movies, “Prometheus” and “The Dark Knight Rises”, respectively. Since Jay and Mel have a fascination for sound frequencies, Mel demonstrates the difference between A 440 Hz and A 432 Hz. This is an interview full of information you will certainly not find in the mainstream media. We are glad that Jay accepted to participate again…
. . . …

The Real Deal #16 [James Fetzer, Jay Weidner] Did We Land On The Moon?

The Real Deal #16 [James Fetzer, Jay Weidner] Did We Land On The Moon

[!]The Real Deal #16 [Jay Weidner] Did We Land On The Moon (111m)}
• . .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. ….. …. ….!¡‼¡.!. … .. … …. … .. … . . . …. … .. . .. … •
• . .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. ….. …. ..!¡‼¡.!… .. … …. ….. …. .. … . . . …. •
● •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •●
James Fetzer’s blogspot . . . …
. . . ….
Monday, February 9, 2015
….. …. .. … …. . . . . …. … .. . .. …

Did We Land On The Moon?

Did We Land On The Moon?
The program begins with “Conspiracy Theory: Did we land on the moon?” (2001), which may be the most important contribution that FOX NEWS has ever made to understanding the history of our nation. To get a better grip on how we were deceived, check out the references cited below, where the second hour is a discussion with Jay Weidner about how it was filmed by Stanley Kurbick using “front screen projection”. This one is not for the faint of heart who want to believe in their government. Enjoy the show!
• . .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. ….. …. ….!¡‼¡.!. … .. … …. ….. …. .. … . . . …. … . . . .. . . . •
References: Winston Wu, “Conspiracy Trilogy Report: Apollo Moon Hoax, JFK Assassination and 9/11 Truth”, http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm Jay Weidner, “Faking Moon Landings: The Parallax Experiments”, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/faking-moon-landings-the-parallax-experiments/ Jack White, “Jack White’s Apollo Studies”, http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html
•••ⱷ ••••ⱷ •• • • • •••ⱷ • • •ⱷ ••••ⱷ • • • • •••ⱷ • • • ••••ⱷ • • • •••ⱷ •••••

Opération Lune∶ Dark side of the Moon

Opération Lune - Dark side of the Moon
Opération Lune – Dark side of the Moon: A Mockumentary on Stanley Kubrick and the Moon Landing Hoax . . . …

Stanley Kubrick: Dark side of the moon (2002)

Published on Dec 13, 2015

How could the flag flutter when there’s no wind on the moon? During an interview with Stanley Kubrick’s widow an extraordinary story came to light. She claims Kubrick and other Hollywood producers were recruited to help the U.S. win the high stakes race to the moon.

In order to finance the space program through public funds, the U.S. government needed huge popular support, and that meant they couldn’t afford any expensive public relations failures. Fearing that no live pictures could be transmitted from the first moon landing,

President Nixon enlisted the creative efforts of Kubrick, whose 2001: a Space Odyssey (1968) had provided much inspiration, to ensure promotional opportunities wouldn’t be missed.

In return, Kubrick got a special NASA lens to help him shoot Barry Lyndon (1975). A subtle blend of facts, fiction and hypothesis around the first landing on the moon, Dark Side Of The Moon illustrates how the truth can be twisted by the manipulation of images.

With use of ‘hijacked’ archival footage, false documents, real interviews taken out of context or transformed through voice-over or dubbing, staged interviews, as well as, interviews with astronauts like Buzz Aldrin and others, Dark Side Of The Moon navigates the viewer through lies and truth; fact and fiction.

This is no ordinary documentary. Its intent is to inform and entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up – make him aware that one should always view television with a critical eye…

. .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. . . . . …..
● •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •●
● ••• • • • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • • • •••• ●
Cosmic Revelations [‼..Disclosure Warning..‼]∶ A Trip Down ‘d’ Rabbit Hole. .. …
•••ⱷ ••••ⱷ •• • • • •••ⱷ • • •ⱷ ••••ⱷ • • • • •••ⱷ • • • ••••ⱷ • • • •••ⱷ •••••
.. . . . … «≺⧼{[₪[§]₪]}⧽≻»]}⧽≻»«≺⧼{[-]}⧽≻»«≺⧼₪{[₪]}⧽≻» …. .. . . .
• . .. … …. ….. …. .. … …. ….. …. ..!¡‼¡.!… .. … …. ….. …. .. … . . . …. •
•••ⱷ ••••ⱷ •• • • • •••ⱷ • • •ⱷ ••••ⱷ • • • • •••ⱷ • • • ••••ⱷ • • • •••ⱷ •••••
.. . . . . …. «⧼{[₪[§]₪]}⧽≻»]}⧽≻»«⧼{[-]}⧽≻»«⧼₪{[₪]}⧽≻» ….. .. . . . .
•••ⱷ ••••ⱷ •• • • • •••ⱷ • • •ⱷ ••••ⱷ • • • • •••ⱷ • • • ••••ⱷ • • • •••ⱷ •••••

•••ⱷ ••••ⱷ •• • • • •••ⱷ • • •ⱷ ••••ⱷ • • • • •••ⱷ • • • ••••ⱷ • • • •••ⱷ •••••

● ••• • • • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • ⱷ • • • •••• ●

Moontruth [cvr]}

● •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •ⱷ •●

Faking Moon Landings: The Parallax Experiments

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

Aulus on-line

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:

the Jay Weidner interview

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 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″.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s