Moon Stuff: Stereoscopic examination of Photos

MikeC

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":


From 1999 to 2012 – Oleg Oleynik organized non-state research on humanism on the Web, founded a School, a College, and a University with academic degrees.
Content from External Source
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:

Stanislav Pokrovsky, Ph.D Candidate of Technical Sciences, Russia
General Director of scientific-manufacturing enterprise Project-D-MSK
Content from External Source
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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

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: http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/20080520_kaguya_e.html (http://archive.is/6mtwN)
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.

Therefore, with such a small alteration to the camera position in Dave's hands (several tens of centimetres), the mountains should not move, they should remain static (zero parallax).
Content from External Source
huh?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Therefore, with such a small alteration to the camera position in Dave's hands (several tens of centimetres), the mountains should not move, they should remain static (zero parallax).
Content from External Source
huh?

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.
 

deirdre

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.

statue-of-liberty-new-yorkex2.jpg
 

Mick West

Administrator
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.
 

deirdre

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) - https://app.box.com/shared/static/xdu7kr9fnfzi011m3yd5dd693x20wgdq.psd

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- http://physics-animations.com/Physics/English/len_txt.htm 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- http://photo.net/learn/fisheye/ 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" http://www.leova.com/vfx_library/Heckman_Set_Documentation_Dec_2006.html#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- http://log.ericalba.org/post/6110986710/lens-distortion-grids-pdf-for-download-vfx ) 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:

Greylandra

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


"Afterword

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

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

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

Any attempts to change or correct the information in Wikipedia, and to point out the serious errors in the Wikipedia article did not succeed, the moderator continued to erase the link."
Content from External Source
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...
"The researchers discovered that the tapes containing the raw unprocessed Apollo 11 SSTV signal were erased and reused by NASA in the early 1980s. It is claimed this was according to NASA's procedures because they were facing a major data tape shortage at that time."
Content from External Source
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes


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:

Trailblazer

Moderator
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:

Trailblazer

Moderator
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.
 

jaydeehess

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.
 
Top