Moon Stuff: Stereoscopic examination of Photos


Closed Account
I've not the time or inclination to look at the details, but there appears to be no such person as Dr Oleg Oleynik outside this Aulis page and quotes from/references to it. The qualification "Ph. D. c." usually means PhD candidate....which is not quite eth same thing as actually having a PhD.

Also the claim that Oleynik has "founded a university":

doesn't seem supported by anything from google. There seems nothing actually online from his "research....on the Web"

On another Aulis page Oleynik is listed with:

which seems kind of weird - the article is supposedly written by Mary DM Bennett, so I don't understand why the 2 Russians are mentioned at all.

Again there is no evidence for anything by the name of "Project-D-MSK" from a google search beyond Aulis, but Pokrovsky does seem to have a greater online presence than Oleynik - being mentioned in many moon hoax articles for example.
Last edited:

Mick West

Staff member
He does not really shows his math. Take the first one:

Where did that 300 figure come from? Or "several tens of centimeters"? and what are the "transformations of scaling, rotation, and distortion"

He seems to skip over the very basic math, and then build upon his earlier assumptions.

Mick West

Staff member
It's all made rather irrelevant by the fact the the images have been proven to be correct by the Japanese:

1:20 onwards described how 3D reconstructions from high resolution images exactly match those photos.

Apollo 15 Photo:

Reconstruction from satellite data:

The point being it was impossible at the time to know that the scene would look like this without actually going there.

More detail: (
Last edited:


Senior Member.

Mick West

Staff member

I believe he means the mountains should look like they are painted on a screen. Which is rather odd, as he then goes on to claim that the scene is faked because the mountains look like they were painted on a screen.

He should just make a scale model, and stick a camera in there. Problem solved.


Senior Member.
even if it was painted on a screen it would move though. heres the statu e of liberty (im lazy and could have done better). the distance isn't as far and I put the middle pic as the third pic. but things move. when you move.


Mick West

Staff member
I think he's a little confused or unclear as to what he means by "moved". Movement is relative, so "moved" relative to what? Clearly if you move a camera back and forth, then everything in the picture moves. So the key is how much they move relative to a point which is infinitely far away. In this example he uses the power station:

An ideal object would be the sun or moon, of the top of a very distant mountain. But in the lunar examples he seems to be picking arbitrary points on the horizon.

Mark Barrington

Active Member
I think it's pretty obvious that you can create stereoscopic images with two still photographs which are taken with the camera pointed in the same direction and the position changed by a small amount. That's now stereoscopic photos work. But if the camera is pointed in a different direction, even slightly, it doesn't work. He's used rotation transforms to try to modify the effects of the change of direction of the camera. and I'm not sure that's going to work well enough to restore the actual stereoscopic image. He needs to give more details about the transforms he used.

Also Mick's point is well-taken. If he just took the fixed point as the most distant feature in the shot, these stereograms wouldn't be nearly as weird looking. There's no particular reason to pick the arbitrary points that he does.


Senior Member.
ok so the smokestack was supposed to show static/zero parralex? ok couldn't figure that pic out since he obviously lined the stacks up to be the static point since the transformer behind the stacks is moving. I think I get it now. maybe.
Oleynik failed to take lens distortion into account. Any photographer experienced with lens correction could have set him straight.

I seem to be the only one to bother to re-create Oleynik's example. Using the same linear transforms as Oleynik, I did not get the same drastic shift in the background,

Here also is my PSD (Photoshop file) if anyone wants to check (47mb) -

Using the same difference blend technique for reference, I achieved a more accurate overlay of the background. Comparison to Oleynik's blend-

But his main mistake is using linear transform tools to compensate for curvilinear lens distortion. Example- of curvilinear distortion- And his Photoshop process is arbitrary.

The linear transform tools he applied in Photoshop, "scaling, rotation, distortion, perspective, shift and offset," can not correct for subtle curvilinear (barrel/pincushion) lens distortion, inherent in most lenses. Post linear transforms may only correct linear perspective, thus his process will not yield a practical comparison for determining distance.

Here is a demonstration by a photographer- converting a fish eye capture to a rectilinear image. A fish eye lens exhibits more extreme distortion, but the same process applies. And he shows how curvilinear correction is a separate process from linear perspective correction.

Each lens has its own unique distortion 'signature.' The most accurate process for correcting lens distortion is "lens mapping" (scroll down to "Mapping Lenses") a common practice for accurate 3D camera tracking and matchmoving (which I do professionally). This involves photographing a "lens distortion grid" (examples- ) with the same camera used for final captures. The grid provides a clear reference for distortion correction. Without at least some distinct horizontal and vertical lines in frame, and relatively perpendicular to camera, one may only guess at compensating for lens distortion.

Here also is a straightforward video demonstration on "Working with Lens Distortion: Removing Distortion"
In Oleynik's later examples, he does compensate for curvilinear distortion by using a more appropriate curvilinear warp (although arbitrarily again), but by that point he has confused the evident curved distortion with a curved cyclorama within the background, while failing to notice that even the foreground objects exhibit curvature (the vertical Rover antenna also appears slightly bent). He was too focused on the background, predetermined to support his conspiracy suspicion.

And as West mentioned, if the distant background is suppose to be a cyclorama as claimed, then the distant hills should exhibit no parallax when aligned and superimposed, since a cyc has no depth. But Oleynik's comparisons show distinct parallax between distant hills. So the apparent perspective shift cant be the result of some kind of backdrop.

I also received confirmation from the dean of Kharkov University that Oelynik's bibliography is accurate on the Aulis site, except they have never offered a major or minor in Physical Metallurgy, which Oelynik may have instead received from the Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute. Oleynik never completed his PhD at Karkhov, mostly due to a tough economic period in the country.
Last edited:


Active Member
JayUtah (Jay Windley, from Clavius) discusses this on
Citation from the above mentione web page.

Is the above suggesting an ongoing cover up via replacement pictures on NASAs behalf? It would be nice if someone had "the data so we could look at the data" but sadly one of the most historic achievements in mankinds history was over written...

This is a real shame because the Hi res footage at stable frame rate from the SSTV footage would have been very conclusive in regaurds to parallax. Are the new "restored" tapes which were recreated in 2009 acceptable candadates for a forensic type review of the parallax in the moon landing footage?
Last edited:


Staff member
This is a real shame because the Hi res footage at stable frame rate from the SSTV footage would have been very conclusive in regaurds to parallax. Are the new "restored" tapes which were recreated in 2009 acceptable candadates for a forensic type review of the parallax in the moon landing footage?
That's pretty irrelevant. For one thing, only the Apollo 11 original tapes were reused. The original data from the other five landings is, as far as I know, still extant.

For another thing, the SSTV was not exactly "hi-res" even on the original tapes. If you want to study parallax of distant features then you will do far better to study the thousands of very high-resolution Hasselblad images, which are easily available online and can be compared with the photographs published at the time of the missions, long before computerised fakery was a possibility.

It doesn't require any advanced technique to do this: a simple blink comparison will show the parallax in the backgrounds, thus ruling out any kind of static painted backdrop.

Here's a GIF I made using AS15-82-11082 and AS15-82-11057, with contrast adjusted slightly to show the background features better.

Ironically, this pair of images is often used by hoax believers who claim that the backdrop is identical, while the lunar module is "missing" from one of them. Clearly, the backdrop is far from identical, consistent with the photographs being taken from significantly different locations, hence the lack of LM in one shot!

Apollo 11 landed on a very flat part of the moon, so there are no distant mountains to compare between shots. But there are plenty of boulders etc visible in different photos that can be linked together to show that the photos were taken in a consistent 3-D environment. Somewhere I have some comparisons I did for another site a few years ago.
Last edited:


Staff member
Somewhere I have some comparisons I did for another site a few years ago.
I couldn't find the Apollo 11 ones but I did find these comparisons I made from Apollo 17 photos.

Here's AS17-137-20957, looking up the slope of the South Massif towards Earth:

Note the cluster of rocks at lower-left. They can also be seen in AS17-137-20977, taken from much further away, as highlighted in the zoomed section here. The photo above was taken from near "Boulder 2", which is the large tall rock just to the right and in front of the zoomed area:

And close examination shows that you can match up rocks way out into the distance, with parallax clearly showing that the photos were taken from a wide distance apart:

Hopefully that gives some sense of the vastness of the landscape these photos illustrate.
The point about comparing with originals is an important one. I've made it my business to purchase contemporary documents that contain those original images, whether that be popular magazines, newspapers and books, 'serious' publications such as lunar geology texts, NASA reports and even the lunar science conference proceedings that followed the missions. I have yet to find a single online example of any photograph taken by any of the Apollo missions that shows anything different to the originals other than adjustments to light levels & contrast that you would do to any image.

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.

The author of this article could have checked his facts to see whether the features in them are confirmed by other observations such as those taken by China, Japan and India - or even the US. He could have used images taken by Apollo that were actually intended for detailed stereoscopic imagery such as those taken by the Metric Mapping and Panoramic cameras. Had he done so he would have found that not one single image taken by Apollo is contradicted by modern versions from any country that has sent equipment. He chose not to.

Furthermore no photographs existed prior to Apollo that showed the details on the surface to the same degree as those taken on the ground. Armstrong having to 'land long' thanks to there being an unexpected boulder field is indicative of that, and that boulder field can be found on the LRO images of the approach to Tranquility Base.


Senior Member.
Yeesh! All one need do is look at a distant object. Now alternately close each eye and open the other. The distant object 'moves' and those two 'cameras' are only a few centimeters apart.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
DavidB66 Explained: Student in Teignmouth, Devon sees UFO [Moon Obscured by Clouds] UFOs and Aliens 35
P Slow, Splitting UFO - Wilminton, CA - Moon Through Clouds? UFOs and Aliens 6
Mick West Solved: "Double Moon", Dubai, UAE. [Projection] Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 32
J Strange lights on picture of the moon during "Blood Moon" [Stuck Pixels] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 10
I Moon moving "faster" than clouds Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 9
R Claim: Apollo 15-17 Live TV Feed - Antenna signal would be interrupted from all the violent shaking when Astronauts touch the buggy General Discussion 26
Getoffthisplanet [Fake] UFO's Casting Shadows On The Moon - "OVNI sur la Lune , 2020-03-26" Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 23
Nandude Light Fall Off in Apollo Missions - American Moon Documentary Conspiracy Theories 16
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Recording ISS Transits of the Sun and Moon Flat Earth 4
mudr0 Claim: Australia was not visible from the moon for Apollo 11 Broadcasts Conspiracy Theories 7
Z.W. Wolf Claim: Moon Passing The Meridian Disproves Globe Earth Flat Earth 0
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 33
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 76
Astro Identifying Sun and Moon Transits Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Mick West Multiple UFOs Fly Across Moon- Birds? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 17
Mick West Explained: Mysterious Red Planet Like Object Filmed Next To The Moon. Atglen [Reflection] UFOs and Aliens 0
Leifer "Mars will be as big as the Moon" no, it won't. Science and Pseudoscience 11
F WHAT IS THIS LINE? (on my Super Blue Blood Moon Photo) - Smarter Every Day 188 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
Mick West Plane Flies in Front of Super Blue Blood Moon Eclipse Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 1
Rory Dublin Moon and sun in same sky disproves Spherical Earth Flat Earth 16
txt29 Apollo 17: alleged inconsistency of shadows Conspiracy Theories 34
Jared Some proof The Moon is not it's Own Light Source Flat Earth 2
nickrulercreator [Debunked] Apollo 14 Flag Waving Before Ascent? Science and Pseudoscience 21
HoaxEye 6 Giant Towers discovered on the Moon [Digital Artifacts/Glitches] UFOs and Aliens 33
Mick West Explained: Moon Terminator/Shadow UFOs UFOs and Aliens 1
Trailblazer Measuring the distance to the moon with laser reflections and the speed of light Flat Earth 5
Abishua The Moon Tilt & Terminator Illusions Flat Earth 54
drhex Explained: Apollo 17 Photo of Earth from Moon Seems too High Conspiracy Theories 16
C Interesting observation of moon light phenomena i can't find the answer to ???? General Discussion 4
Whitebeard Contrail on Moon Disc? Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Mick West Explained: Why Clouds Appear Behind the Sun and Moon Flat Earth 59
G Needs debunking: Video of a solar eclipse is fake because we cannot see the moon covering the sun Flat Earth 5
Tony_Sigel Debunked: Chang'e-2 photos of Alien Base on Moon [Hoax] UFOs and Aliens 14
TWCobra Madisonstar Moon posts 59 year old photo of B47's contrailing. Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Josh Heuer Debunked: UFO in NASA live feed [The Moon] UFOs and Aliens 14
John X Moon anomalies UFOs and Aliens 37
Graham2001 Aulis article uses NASA documents to cast doubt on the reality of Apollo Conspiracy Theories 26
TWCobra Very good question asked by Madison Star Moon Contrails and Chemtrails 27
derrick06 Bunk: SyFy: Aliens on the Moon UFOs and Aliens 29 A pyramid on the Moon Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 12
Mick West Solved: "Alien" with "shadow" on the Moon [Debris in Camera] UFOs and Aliens 59
James Adams Rectangular building type objects on the surface of the moon [Like the Triangle] General Discussion 3
derrick06 Another Google Moon Anomaly General Discussion 1
C What is this on Google Moon? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
ki_cz "Boomerang" Moon UFO video [Bird] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 45
Mick West Debunked: Alien Base on the Moon, Triangle of Dots [photo artifact] UFOs and Aliens 56
Mick West Debunked: China's Moon Rover exhibit showing a nuclear mushroom cloud over Europe. General Discussion 10
Related Articles

Related Articles