Aulis.com - Stanley Kubrick and Apollo by Mary Bennett and David S. Percy: Part One - DEBUNKED

cybe

Member
Being a Kubrick fan I looked at this article on Aulis.com and it might seem well thought out and professional but on closer scrutiny
most of it can quite easily be debunked. There are a few claims/images that I have not yet debunked.

I would say that interspersing the article with analysis of Kubrick films is a kind of "mind-control" technique.

You could as well theme the article: Ridley Scott and and Apollo and "ascertain if there are any demonstrable links between the works of Ridley Scott and the Apollo lunar surface imagery, and further to examine the possibility of indications of common authorship. "

The article starts of with Kubrick.

Then comes this image which they've neglected to name:

"Yellow line indicates the edge of the active studio foreground – beyond the line is the mountain and black backdrop"
image
image700×468 133 KB


It is in fact: AS14-64-9118

Here's some info on it:


So close and yet so far. A frame from Alan Shepard's Station C-Prime panorama
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14pan1332340.jpg
...unknowingly ~75 meters SE of their objective, which they never reached - Cone Crater. They were forced to turn around at this point.
An exceptionally sharp, bright, beautiful photograph of the lunar surface, despite there being no dramatic feature(s). Just something about it that pops...to me. Btw, the confounded swirly streaking is not the photograph...apparently, I don't know how to clean the scanner bed properly.
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9122HR.jpg 1
Excellent additional information/images:
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14-usgs.jpg
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14-usgs-B3-Cp.jpg
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14pp-plate5.PDF
At the 133:23:40 mission elapsed time mark:
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/images14.html
Specifically, Shepard's/Mitchell's recollections:
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14.tocone.html#1332340

There are even some 3 dimensional Red-Blue Anaglyph images there which look spectacular and give insight on the contours of the ground.

Looking at images from around the crater it's clear that it's not a fake backdrop.

The article continues with Kubrick stuff, which I say again, is unrelated.


Then comes 1. Flag waving which is carefully analyzed and debunked here. It's a long read with references, proofs,


Here's the gist of it:-

"The video shows the flag waving on Apollo 14 8 times, which coincides with the depressurization of the hatch. During this depressurization, they had an issue with Shepard's suit. This caused them to have to open and close the valve 3 times before opening the hatch for the full depress. The waves appear to come from both the rush of gas from the valve pushing it onto screen, and then the flag returning to its previous position off the screen. The last flag waves appears to be from the opening of the hatch. The time on the video matches up with the time on the transcripts on the ALSJ."

Then come's this one:

image
image702×566 103 KB



But if we open up both images in high-res and carefully investigate we see that the above text is not true.


Imgur
Imgur
"from almost the same spot" almost. One of the spots has footprints, the other doesn't.

Let's look closer at some details. Here I've made a short video showing that we can clearly see that the two photographs were taken from different angels. See the rover angles for instance..Very different.




And we haven't even looked into how much time and activity passed between the two images.

Then comes this image:

"And in the next mission, Apollo 16, there is a good example of a 90-degree turn (note also the dividing line between the set and the background). Interestingly, this is the famous “C” rock photo – the "C" originally having been spotted by researcher/engineer Ralph René."



image
image700×717 94.6 KB


It's not a 90 degree turn, the arrows (90 degrees) are deceptive and it looks like quite a normal turn. He hasn't looked into and written how sharp turns the vehicle can do

Let's look at it closer: AS16-107-17446

The famous "C" rock has already been widely debunked. Proposterous to think it is papier maché with a C written on it, the crease on it is obviously a shadow. Look closely and at other adjacent photos and it's clear they are real rocks.

As for the backdrop claim. More clearer it is not in the high resolution picture, and look at other images from the same timeframe and it's clearly not a backdrop. And again we have Kubrick material interspersed in the text to lull the reader into a trance and find a pattern...


Imgur
Imgur
Imgur
Imgur
Imgur


Next comes:-

"Apollo 11, AS11-40-5874, an isolated, single (extra long) footprint set at 90-degrees to the others "

Taking a closer look at the high resolution image:


Imgur


We see there's all kinds of footprints, old and new, some in the same direction as the strange on in the middle. The reason why the footprint appears extra long is probably be cause its two.


93x49938023_103c7f7e05_o
93x49938023_103c7f7e05_o1920×2029 388 KB


It then continues with more details from Kubrick's movies and even includes analysis from Rob Ager interspersed in the text. He btw doesn't believe the Apollo missions were faked.

The next Apollo 16 panorama I've not analyzed yet.

Why is Aulis using this potato quality image?


image



"Apparent carpet layer forming a 'ledge' between the far and near foreground areas"
What??

Here's the high res version


Imgur


So where does the backdrop start?


Let's look at the next one in the series? is the Lunar Module part of it? Ridiculous.


Imgur


And if we go through a few handfulls of Apollo 15 images or these panoramas on Flickr it's clear that there isn't a backdrop. Look at the disturbed soil in the other pictures and the panoramas from around the same area.

Next comes "Changes to foregrounds, not backgrounds"


image
image699×1173 158 KB


Comparing images AS17-136-20699 and 20700, Xavier Pascal noticed the foreground object (circled green) changed but not the LM or the red areas circled in the background – other parts of the image also move, including the small dark area circled in blue

Is that so, let's analyze:
Here I've put the two images on top of each other, align according to the module in the background and modified the light levels a bit and am switching between them:-





The only thing that has changed is that the photographer has moved to the side (actually x and z -axis) between taking the images. Look at the wires, footprints and features in the foreground? Is this really the quality of work Aulis does, on purpose?


Next. another dishonest analysis:

image
image1174×1247 127 KB



It says:

And in a parallel here, in the Apollo images, different backgrounds are often found with the same foregrounds. Apollo mountain sets were reused time and time again:

When AS15-88-11864 is superimposed over AS15-88-11866, adapting its size and orientation to obtain the best superposition of the flags, only the mountain backdrop has changed, the perspective is very different. This is despite the fact that the picture was taken from virtually the same spot – noted originally by us in the 1990s and later independently by Xavier Pascal.

When trying to compare the two superimposed images mountain outlines it's not that easy. So I have aligned the two images AS15-88-11864 and AS15-88-11866 by the mountain instead of the flag and it lines up almost perfectly. (see below)


Why don't the astronaut, flag, and footprints? Because the photograph was taken from another spot. Is Aulis this incompetent or is this kind of fraudulent material produced on purpose?


image
image1019×1016 83.4 KB




...This is despite the fact that the picture was taken from virtually the same spot...

Virtually (nearly; almost.) the same spot?

In the video below I've marked some footprints to more easily see that the images were not taken virtually in the same spot.



The simple explanation to this next one is that they are two different events. AS15-92-12451 and as15-88-11863 The author does not investigate in detail when they were taken so the tracks in the soil are a moot point. I can do that if anyone wishes. Also, the word almost doesn't count.


image
image607×729 94.3 KB


My analysis:




In the color photo, Scott has a camera attached to his chestplate; in the b/w version, HE HAS NO CAMERA on hit chest! But he did not move!

Unfortunately I was not able to line up the images perfectly in my analysis but it is quite clear that he did move (Dangling straps, something on arm, fingers differently, different reflection etc). How hard is it to (in a rather rigid spacesuit) make the same pose twice?


Next:

1690997284773.png


It's a good idea to look at a higher resolution (4175x4175 pixels) copy of that image compared to the one on aulis.com (You will need to open up the image and see that it's opened up at 100% on your monitor... on a computer: cllick to open up the link on flickr, then click twice on it to zoom in fully)


Imgur


In that we actually see track left by the wheel in the lower left and we see boot "rib-marks" too.


More tracks in this one (AS17-140-21358) lower left. Why doesn't Aulis discuss this one?


Imgur


Here's another lower angle where we can see how three dimensional the disturbance around the vehicle really is. We even see an astronaut standing between the wheels ("under?") of the rover.


Imgur


Imgur


Imgur


image
image1131×974 84.7 KB




Comparing this moon soil dirt to the woman in the bathroom in shining is really something idiotic.


Here's a high resolution version:-


Imgur


The following one is quite difficult to understand:


AS14-65-9211 revealing an impossible double shadow of the Apollo 14 lunar module (image from the Project Apollo archive) – such a double shadow would require powerful studio lighting from two sources



image
image700×514 89.8 KB




It seems to be reflections inside the double layers of glass in the window.


I have not seen any other Apollo images with double shadows which would show up if multiple lightsources were used.


Here's some interesting analysis on these double shadows:

space.stackexchange.com Bruffy

Why are there double shadows in this Apollo 14 magazine?


apollo-program, photography

asked by Bruffy on 03:31AM - 07 Jul 19 UTC





And:


These 3 Apollo 14 ones are the most dramatic:
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-65-9211HR.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-65-9212HR.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-65-9213HR.jpg
If you flick between 9212 and 9213 you can see they are shot from the same window with the camera tilt changing. The interesting bit is that the lighter area also changes, even though the shot was taken at the same time.
So, it isn't an external effect and is either a camera anomaly or a window anomaly. I'll leave that one to the experts to decide upon. (source)



image
image1123×902 154 KB




This is AS12-48-7071


Analysis by others show that this is a scratch in the visor.




image
image1115×428 78.1 KB




Other photos which also show the scratch: 1, 2, 3, 4


Here's an image from another mission (Apollo 17) that demonstrate what scratches/smudges in the visor can look like


Imgur


Are we beginning to se a pattern in this article?
Parts 2 and 3 are even worse...
 
Being a Kubrick fan I looked at this article on Aulis.com
"Aulis", from its list of articles, appears to be a site almost entirely devoted to the "moon landing was a hoax" thing. The first picture alone was enough to convince me that they have an agenda to prove, not an honest investigation to conduct.
I've added a red line at the first break in slope, very obvious on the left. Their yellow line is the second break in slope, and they divide it neatly into foreground, middle ground, and background.
IMG_0234.jpeg
 
Aulis claim: "No indication of how the rover was driven into position – the tracks are unlikely to have been completely obliterated due to 'wipeout by footprint'"

Video of astronauts shuffling around the Lunar Roving Vehicle


Source: https://youtu.be/7_l5ltlbEwI
 
Last edited:
Aulis claim: "No indication of how the rover was driven into position – the tracks are unlikely to have been completely obliterated due to 'wipeout by footprint'"
And yet, we have pictures showing this is exactly what happened.

21061571774_40d9830fca_b.jpg

... where we can see the tracks headed towards where the rover is parked, and we can see an area full of footprints where the tracks are obliterated. For obvious reasons there are a lot of footprints where the astronauts were loading, unloading, boarding, disembarking and working with the rover, and between the rover and the LM, since gear and samples would be carried between the vehicles.. In areas where there was no reason for a lot of foot traffic, we see un-obliterated rover tracks.
 
Isn't Apollo denialism getting awfully passé?

I asked Google Bard what the schedule is for return to the Moon...

  • Artemis 2: Crewed test flight of the SLS and Orion spacecraft, which will orbit the moon but not land. Planned for 2024.
  • Artemis 3: Crewed landing on the moon, near the lunar south pole. Planned for 2025 or 2026.
NASA is also planning a series of follow-up Artemis missions, which will include longer stays on the moon, the establishment of a lunar base, and the exploration of the lunar south pole. These missions are scheduled to take place in the 2020s and 2030s.

Will Apollo deniers become Artemis deniers?
A hybrid? Well, Artemis, yeah okay... But Apollo? Nah.

Reaction to one or more Apollo sites videoed from orbit by Artemis 2 crewmembers: Well yeah, Artemis is real but they're still maintaining the Apollo fiction.

So Artemis is really in orbit but the videos of the Apollo site(s) are faked?
(Hesitatingly) Yeah... I guess they kind of have to. It would be awfully embarrassing to admit the hoax now.

Sometime around 2030. Lunar Base crewmembers visit the Apollo 11 landing sight and take selfies with the Lunar Module Descent Stage.
Still fake.

I'm wondering if there were Columbus Voyage deniers in the 15th century...
 
Last edited:
And yet, we have pictures showing this is exactly what happened.

View attachment 60938
... where we can see the tracks headed towards where the rover is parked, and we can see an area full of footprints where the tracks are obliterated. For obvious reasons there are a lot of footprints where the astronauts were loading, unloading, boarding, disembarking and working with the rover, and between the rover and the LM, since gear and samples would be carried between the vehicles.. In areas where there was no reason for a lot of foot traffic, we see un-obliterated rover tracks.
Agreed, and what also helps is the "step-wise" way of moving around on the moon. It is like hopping while staying upright. This causes a lot more footprints "per area" as compared to Earth. Also, the kicked up dust on the moon falls directly down, does not spread out and be carried by winds. I can imagine it does not take much to create the "messy" ground surface.
 
Will Apollo deniers become Artemis deniers?

My Dad was actually working at Jodrell Bank when they tracked the Apollo 11 craft all the way to the Moon. As a kid I lived right next to the huge Lovell Telescope. I inherited both the original Moon map that was on the wall at Jodrell Bank at the time, a very rare collectors piece, and also a photo signed by all 3 astronauts...originally sent to Sir Bernard Lovell but he got a new one because the original ( as you can see ) got folded and ruined in the post.... that I now have up on my wall. It's also a very rare piece of Apollo memorabilia....a thank you from the astronauts for the help in tracking the craft.

To be honest I feel quite insulted by all the Apollo deniers....who'd imply that my Dad was part of some grand conspiracy.





P1000242.JPG
 
Here's a well formulated quote about Aulis:-

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/moon-stuff-stereoscopic-examination-of-photos.2987/post-194327

"Aulis' starting point is that the missions were faked, and all their articles are constructed to explain it from that starting point regardless of the facts available that show this is a false premise. This is usually done by focusing on a small abstract detail taken out of context and obscured by a smokescreen of some kind of claimed authority that doesn't stand up to too much scrutiny."
 
Back
Top