Revolution in Russia 2: The Struggle Within; Bolshevism or Menshevism? | First World War Hidden History

Years prior to the Bolshevik seizure of power, Lenin and many other young  revolutionaries who voiced their opposition to the backward Czarist regime were condemned to exile in Siberia. Among them was Leon Davidovitch Bronstein, alias Leon Trotsky, who was sentenced to four years in the frozen wilderness. Trotsky was a Marxist, like Lenin and knew him well, but he initially sided with a softer faction socialism rather than Lenin’s hard-line Bolsheviks. He later switched his allegiance to Lenin when both were financed by western bankers to seize power in October 1917. Thereafter, he became second in command of the Bolsheviks, founded the Red army, and was every bit as infamous as Lenin.

Trotsky was born in 1879 in a small rural village, Yankova, in southern Ukraine. His father, although illiterate, was a relatively wealthy farmer. Resourceful and acquisitive, Bronstein senior owned over 250 acres of land and became a substantial employer. Both of Trotsky’s parents were Jewish, but unlike his agrarian father, his mother was an educated and cultured city dweller from Odessa. Religious observance was of little importance to either, but they sent Leon to a beder, a Jewish school. [1]

In 1902 Trotsky escaped from exile in Siberia, leaving behind his wife Alexandra and their two young daughters. According to Trotsky, it was Alexandra who had insisted that he put his duty to revolution before family. [2] Trotsky blamed ‘fate’ for their separation, but his actions suggested unbridled pragmatism and ‘an urge to free himself from a burden in order to move on to higher things.’ [3] Soon after abandoning his wife and children in Siberia, he divorced Alexandra and married Natalia Sedova, daughter of a wealthy merchant.

In the early years of the century numerous other revolutionaries, who had either completed their exile or escaped from Siberia, left Russia for cities in Western Europe. Many thousands more made their way to New York where they formed a powerful revolutionary group in exile. Banned from St Petersburg, Lenin and a fellow activist, Julius Martov, settled in Munich in Germany where they promoted the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). Lenin believed the party had to be run from outside Russia. The RSDLP called its journal Iskra (The “Spark”) believing that from that spark, the flame of revolution would spring: ‘The agents would distribute it, spread party propaganda through local cells and channel information to the Central Committee. The journal would help create a cohesive party that until then had consisted of a series of independent groups.’ [4] Lenin firmly believed Karl Marx’s dictum that capitalism would inevitably disintegrate in Russia and elsewhere because it carried within it the forces of its own destruction. Thereafter, power would be grasped by the workers, the men and women who had been exploited by capital. So the theory ran.

Friends together before the 1903 split. Trotsky seated left, Lenin seated centre and Martov seated to the right.

In late 1901, harassed by the Munich police, Lenin and the Iskra editors moved to Finsbury in London where they were joined for a time by Leon Trotsky. Arguments about the best means of instigating revolution in Russia and elsewhere led to ever increasing conflict, especially between Lenin and his friend and comrade, Julius Martov. Internal wrangling exploded at the 1903 party congress which began in Brussels in July, but was suspended after pressure by the Russian embassy led to fear of police persecution and forced the delegates to complete their business in London. It was ‘the first major conference that was truly representative of party delegates from Russia and all over Europe’.[5] The congress was attended by representatives of 25 recognised social-democratic organisations who had two votes each. For some reason each representative of the Jewish workers organisation, the Bund, had three votes ‘in virtue of the special status… accorded to it by the first congress.’ [6]

The congress was dominated by the Iskra group, but Lenin realized that he could not carry the party forward in the way he desired, so he deliberately split it. Consequently, the revolutionaries divided into ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ factions. Lenin wanted clear-cut, perfectly defined relationships within the party, and behind the scenes there was a struggle for the support of every individual delegate. Lenin tried to convince Trotsky that he should join the ‘hard’ faction, but he refused. [7]

Lenin in his younger years.

The ‘hard’ faction was led by Lenin who proclaimed his followers to be the bolshinstvo, the ‘men in the majority’, and thereafter they became known as the Bolsheviks. Marxist intellectuals and those of a less intense ideology were attracted to the ‘soft’ faction while the hard Bolshevik group, although it had its share of intellectuals, was favoured more by provincial party workers and professional revolutionaries: “the bacteria of the revolution” as Lenin called them. Basically, the ‘softs’ favoured debate while the hard- line Bolsheviks were militants who considered themselves exclusively the champions of the Russian working class.

Lenin wanted a party he was able to control tightly, and did so through a team of highly disciplined secret workers employed in a semi-military fashion. It was his brainchild, his party, and above all it was his aim to make it the instrument for revolution and the overthrow of the monarchy, despite the knowledge that ‘it could not be achieved without countless victims.’….

Read More: firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/2017/09/19/revolution-in-russia-2-the-struggle-within-bolshevism-or-menshevism/

Revolution in Russia 1: Understanding Influences | First World War Hidden History

The First World War drained Russia, literally and metaphorically. By January 1917, after two-and-a-half years of mortal combat, six million young Russians had been killed, seriously wounded or lost in action for no territorial or strategic gain. The dream of winning Constantinople had become a nightmare of miserable defeat. Food shortages, hunger, anti-war agitation and civil unrest increased by the day across the Czar’s once-mighty Empire. On 22 February, 1917, 12,000 workers at the giant Putilov manufacturing plant in Petrograd [1] went on strike and were joined on the streets by thousands of demonstrators chanting ‘Down with the Czar’. Soldiers from the city garrison were sent out to arrest the ring-leaders and end the protest, but they refused to open fire on the angry crowds. The Czar abdicated almost immediately, allegedly because he believed that he had lost the support of his military. The event was bloodless apart from the death of several officers shot by their own men. Thus the first Russian Revolution, known as the ‘February Revolution’, ended 300 years of autocratic monarchical rule. A governing body was established in the Winter Palace in Petrograd by liberal deputies from the existing parliamentary body, the Duma, together with socialists and independents. Termed the ‘Provisional Government’, it kept Russia in the war against Germany and began formulating plans for democratic rule through an elected legislative assembly of the people. It was a beginning.

The seizure of power by Bolshevik revolutionaries on 25 October, 1917,  [2] brought communism to Russia and major strife to the entire world for the greater part of the twentieth century. For readers not versed in modern Russian history it is important to note that the Bolshevik Revolution was very distinct from the revolution that had taken place eight months earlier.

Painting of the attack on the Winter Palace in October / November 1917.

During the night of October 24/25, a group of armed communists seized key areas of Petrograd, entered the Winter Palace and assumed control of the country. The coup was led by Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, two extreme Marxist revolutionaries who had returned to Russia earlier that year from enforced exile. This was the ‘Bolshevik Revolution’, also known as the ‘October Revolution’. Lenin and Trotsky smothered the fledgling attempt at democratic governance, took Russia out of the war with Germany and installed a ruthless communist system that suppressed Russia for the next seventy-four years.

According to received history, the February Revolution was an entirely spontaneous uprising of the people. It was not. The Putilov strike, and the city garrison’s refusal to act against the strikers, was orchestrated from abroad by well-financed agents who had been stirring unrest among the workers and soldiers with propaganda and bribery. The October Revolution was also directly influenced by the same international bankers, with vast financial and logistical support which enabled Lenin and Trotsky to seize power. What is particularly relevant to the Secret Elite narrative is the evidence of their complicity from both sides of the Atlantic. Without external intervention, the Russian Revolutions would never have taken the ruinous direction which destroyed a nation’s hope for justice and democracy….

Read More: firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/2017/09/12/revolution-in-russia-1-understanding-influences/

Balfour Declaration 2: The Fateful Letter. | First World War Hidden History

LETTER FROM ARTHUR BALFOUR TO LORD WALTER ROTHSCHILD

Foreign Office
November 2 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty’s Government the following Declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which have been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use its best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

I should be grateful if you would bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

(signed) ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR’ [1]

The above letter was released by the Foreign Office and printed in The Times on 9 November, 1917.

Why at this critical juncture did the British War Cabinet decide publicly to favour Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people? Our instinct is to redefine that question to ask: where did this fit into the Secret Elite’s strategy to crush Germany and advance its globalist ambition? How were these linked? How had it come about that a homeland for one specific religious group appeared on the post-war agenda as if it was a solution to an unspoken problem? Even if anyone believed the lie that the Allies were fighting for the rights of smaller nations, why had religious identity suddenly become an issue of nationhood? Had anyone considered giving Catholics such rights in Ireland or Muslims or Hindus such status in India? Was the world to be divided into exclusive religious territories? Of course not. To complicate matters further, one nation (Britain) solemnly promised a national home to what would become in time a second nation (the Jewish State of Israel) on the land which belonged to another people (Palestinian Arabs) while it was still an integral part of a fourth (the Ottoman /Turkish Empire). [2] In pandering to a relatively small group of Zionists, the Balfour Declaration was bizarre, deceitful and a deliberate betrayal of the loyal Arabs fighting in the desert war against the Turks. Perfidious Albion had rarely plumbed such duplicitous depths. What power did these Zionists hold over the British government to ensure their unquestioned co-operation in the first steps towards a Zionist state at the expense of the rightful owners of Palestine?

The absolute destruction of Germany and her Ottoman allies promised to pave the way for a re-drawing of maps and spheres of influence which would advance the Secret Elite’s overall strategy; namely the control of the English speaking elect over the world. The strategic sands of Arabia and the oil-rich lands of Persia, Syria and Mesopotamia had long been prime targets. These were the first in a number of prerequisites which would shape the Middle-East after 1919 to the advantage of Britain in particular. Critically, as a neutral, America had to be very careful about open intervention even after she had entered the war and to an extent Britain acted as her proxy in putting markers down for a new world order. It is important to remember that when early discussions about the future of a Jewish homeland in Palestine were in progress, little mention was made of American involvement. The truth is otherwise. America was deeply involved in secret intrigues both directly and indirectly.

So too were a small but influential groups of politicians and businessmen, English, American, French, Russian, men and women of the Jewish faith spread literally across the world, who supported a growing movement to establish a permanent homeland in Palestine. They were called Zionists. Take care with this term. Initially it included a range of Jewish groups which held different views and aspirations. Some saw Zionism as a purely religious manifestation of ‘Jewishness’; a small but intensely vocal group fostered political ambitions. This latter form of Zionism included those determined to ‘reconstitute’ a national home for their co-religionists.

 

In the words of the former Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon ‘a national home for the Jewish race or people’ implied a place where the Jews could be reassembled as a nation, and where ‘they [would] enjoy the privileges of an independent national existence’. [3] How do you reconstitute a nation? In truth, if the Ashkenaiz Jews were to be ‘reassembled’ it should have been along the Volga River in the true Khazarian ‘homeland’, not along the Jordan river in Palestine.

There were a small number of suggested sites for the proposed new homeland, including one in Uganda, but in the first years of the twentieth century a more determined Zionist element began to focus their attention on the former land of Judea in the Middle East. They spoke of the creation in Palestine of an autonomous Jewish State, a political entity composed of Jews, governed by Jews and administered mainly in their interests. In other words, the recreation of a mythical Jewish State as was claimed before the days of the so called ‘diaspora’.[4] Few voices were raised to ask what that meant, on what evidence it was predicated or how it might be justified? It was an assumed biblical truth. Not every Jew was a Zionist; far from it, and that is an important factor to which we will in due course return.

Frequently historians write versions of history which imply that an event ‘just happened’. In other words they begin at a point which creates the impression that there was no essential preamble, no other influence which underwrote the central action. One example is the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914. For generations, school pupils have been taught that this murder caused the First World War. Such nonsense helped deflect attention away from the true culprits. …..

Read More: firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/balfour-declaration-2-the-fateful-letter/

Balfour Declaration 1. Beware Mythistory | First World War Hidden History

Possibly the most contentious centenary within the First World War was the Balfour Declaration of November 1917. It left in its wake so many controversies and is held to be the root of so much antagonism since that time, that we have made every effort to focus on its importance solely within the context of our narrative. In other words we have tried to limit our investigation to the events and personnel which shaped the Declaration, analyse its impact and consider the roles played by those directly and indirectly associated with the Secret Elite up to but not beyond 1919. For certain, the Balfour Declaration was not what it appeared to be when first announced in 1917. Its roots spread wide and deep; its impact in prolonging the war has been overwhelmed by later events. Historians have often ignored its real origins, its trans-Atlantic gestation and the frantic urgency which attended its delivery.

But first an explanation. Like many historical confusions which have been deliberately muddied by assumptions and lies, the concept of a jewish homeland in Palestine appeared, in the early twentieth century, to have unquestioned biblical certainty. People believed it as fact. Other views now challenge this ‘certainty’.

 

The distinguished Israeli historian, Shlomo Sand [1] risked more than his reputation, when in 2008, he published his re-examination of Jewish history, to expose ‘the conventional lies about the past’ [2] which, like all historical misrepresentations, served to justify the traditional narrative which the Elites have constructed to protect their primacy. He challenged the orthodox views from ‘the authorised agents of memory’ who had steadfastly denied any deviation from the received version of Jewish history. What a wonderful phrase – the authorised agents of memory- the voices of those, and only those, whose research and writings are accepted as truth. Professor Sand has since been shunned by establishment Zionist historians and castigated because he refused to use terms like ‘The Jewish people,’ ‘ancestral land’ ‘exile,’ ‘diaspora,’ ‘Eretz Israel,’ or ‘land of redemption’, which were key terms in the mythology of Israel’s national history. His refusal to employ them was held to be heretical. Shlomo Sand was not alone in such protests….

Read More: firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/balfour-declaration-1-beware-mythistory/

WuWu Wednesday: University settles lawsuit with scientist fired after he found soft tissue in dinosaur bones

This author has his own religious conclusions, but the case is interesting.
Science is always considered set in stone at the time, but is really always changing. A hundred and seventy-five years ago no one believed in dinosaurs, maybe a hundred and seventy-five years from now they won’t believe in them again.

Jurassic Fake
Jurassic Fake

By Chad Dou —
August 11, 2017

CSUN scientist Mark Armitage found soft tissue in a dinosaur bone, a discovery that throws significant doubt on evolution. Then, two weeks after publishing his findings, he was fired.

Now California State University at Northridge has paid Armitage a six-figure sum to settle his wrongful termination suit based on religious discrimination. While the university admits no wrongdoing, Armitage’s attorney said they feared losing a protracted lawsuit because of a “smoking gun” email that backed the plaintiff’s case.

The case of Armitage is the latest to show the mounting hostility Christians face in academics and other public arenas.

“Soft tissue in dinosaur bones destroys ‘deep time.’ Dinosaur bones cannot be old if they’re full of soft tissue,” Armitage said in a YouTube video. “Deep time is the linchpin of evolution. If you don’t have deep time, you don’t have evolution. The whole discussion of evolution ends if you show that the earth is young. You can just erase evolution off the whiteboard because of soft tissue in dinosaur bones.”

Armitage was hired as a microscopist to manage CSUN’s electron and confocal microscope suite in 2010. He had published some 30 articles in scientific journals about his specialty.

A graduate of Liberty University, Armitage adheres to the “young earth” view,  against the majority of scientists who say our planet is 5 billion years old. He engaged students in his lab with Socratic dialogue over the issue of the earth’s age based on his and others’ research, he said.

In May 2012, Armitage went on a dinosaur dig at the famous fossil site of Hell Creek in Montana, where he unearthed the largest triceratops horn ever found there. Back at CSUN, he put the fossil under his microscope and made the startling discovery: unfossilized, undecayed tissue was present.

If the dinosaur were 65 million years old, the soft tissue could not have possibly remained, he says. His findings seconded groundbreaking discoveries by noted molecular paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, who triggered an earthquake in the world of paleontology when she published about soft tissue in dinosaur bones in 2005. (Schweitzer subsequently postulated that iron is responsible for preserving the soft tissue.)

Armitage’s February 2013 study was published in the peer-reviewed Acta Histochemica, a journal of cell and tissue research. Two week later, he found himself without a job.

Read More: blog.godreports.com/2017/08/university-settles-lawsuit-with-scientist-fired-after-he-found-soft-tissue-in-dinosaur-bones/

Project Cloverleaf – Timeline, 1994 to 2001

Water-Vapor or aluminum oxide barium stearate?

This information is devoted to a short summary of the history, technology, and health effects of Project Cloverleaf, particularly in how it interfaces with multiplying the effects of HAARP technology.

Project Cloverleaf is a joint US-Canadian Military Operation involving distributing chemicals into the atmosphere above Canada and the United States.

Both US military refueling tankers and thousands of planes in private corporate aviation are used.

Military & civilian aspects of Project Cloverleaf are covert operations
The purpose is to seed into the atmosphere multiple weather/climate modification chemicals for purposes of proactive environmental warfare, originally motivated by a climate change concern and to introduce highly humanly toxic metallic salts and aerosol fibers that facilitate atmospheric operations of HAARP technology (which is involved in climate manipulation).

Piggybacking on this, the covert distribution framework of the toxic metals & chemicals has been used in other covert military/civilian operations like massive biological experiments on whole cities and countryside of people/ecologies – tests which are unauthorized & without consent or even public knowledge.

The purpose is nothing less than the actual physical transformation of the earth’s atmosphere in order to provide a platform for the latest chemical & electromagnetic technologies of warfare, communication, weather control, low-yield biological warfare, and control of populations through “non-lethal” chemical/electromagnetic means.

Project Cloverleaf – Timeline, 1994 to 2001

Read More: www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_chemtrails28.htm

Katherine Horton on the Criminal Global Economic System

Dr. Katherine Horton returns to Our Interesting Times to discuss the transnational criminal network that comprises the global economic system. We talk about the weaponization of finance and how wars, revolutions and economic crises have been used by the globalists elite to asset strip entire nations and consolidate wealth and power.  Dr. Horton is a physicist, particle scientist, former research fellow at Oxford in the UK. Her website is  Stop 007.org.

 

Woowoo Wednesdays: Baron Trump and the Tropical Ice World

Baron Trump's Excellent Adventure

However to really swallow the red pill, we must consider the idea stated at the beginning of this blog, that when there are too many coincidences, then they are no longer coincidences.

The Cabal’s Agenda Moves Steadily Forward

that wonderful sub-culture of weird Internet news has been seething with a “sudden” discovery of a book, or rather, a set of books, that has been in existence for 124 years and easily found via a Google search in one minute or less. Nevertheless that elusive “somebody” of the Puppet Master class apparently feels that now is the right time to draw that book out into the public’s stream of consciousness. The book is entitled “Baron Trump’s Marvellous Underground Journey,” authored by a New York lawyer named Ingersoll Lockwood and published in the year 1893. The book can be downloaded or read online via this link at Archive.org.

If you have been following my work on the elite interest in Antarctica during the last 130 years, then this book’s publication date of 1893 should sound like a klaxon in your brain. This juvenile sci-fi tale of a boy named “Baron Trump” was published only 12 years after another wildly popular book was published about the “Vril” and a fantastical land of wonder that existed under the ice. For reference, here is my Episode #6 of that series where I published a timeline of Antarctica interest [linked here].

In this book about the fictional character “Baron Trump,” a young boy travels with his dog Bulger to Russia. The illustration on the book cover is found within the chapter that begins on page 213, entitled “The Tropics of the Underworld”. Now stop there for a moment. By mentioning “Russia,” the book is setting its tale, supposedly, in the lands of the frozen north, the Arctic rather than the Antarctic. However, in all the research that I have seen related to the ancient esoteric interest in Antarctica, the South Pole has always been associated with the dark “Underworld” of mythology whereas the North Pole was seen as the lit up “Upper World,” the land from whence the superior Aryan race originated.

Remember that the original publication of this book fits neatly alongside the publication of so many other authors and spiritualists of the time. Ideas were being spread of an ancient race of Super Men, Aryans, human-hybrids who held the keys to lost technology. Even in this Baron Trump book, within the first chapter, the boy is given access to a 15th century manuscript that shows the way to the secret tropical, yet icy, underworld. As readers of my Antarctica series should recall, that places this particular plot contrivance smack in the time period when the Piri Reis map of Antarctica and the New World was being circulated along with other Hermetic literature.

Read More: www.roguemoney.net/blog/2017/8/6/baron-trump-and-the-tropical-ice-world

Woo Woo Wednesday: A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images

Photographs taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo missions are regarded as the most compelling pieces of evidence that mankind went to the Moon.

The photographic validation methodpresented here is based on the detection of two-dimensional objects among three-dimensional objects, and determining the mutual arrangement of these objects in space and the distance to them by applying a technique known asstereoscopic parallax.

The word parallax derives from the Greek parallaxis meaning “alteration” where parallax is the difference in the apparent position of objects caused by shifting camera position. To achieve such a result, images are overlapped and are deducted/subtracted from each other using the function “difference” in an image processing application such as Photoshop®. Optical transformations are used when images are subtracted. During image convergence simple operations are applied: x and y axis scaling, rotation and distortion plus two additional processes: perspective and shift.

Such processes are referred to below as “optical transformations”.  Objects further than two kilometres distant, with a minor camera shift, have zero parallax.
Using Photoshop® the sequence of steps deployed is as follows:

    1. Two overlapping images are placed on different layers – thereby creating a PSD file.
    2. Application of function “difference” to the upper layer (subtraction of images from each other).
    3. Optical transformations are applied: axes x and y scaling, rotation, distortion, perspective and in addition a shift to the requirement specified above. As a result maximum density black for the background is obtained.
    4. The layer is returned to the normal view: function “normal”.
    5. The PSD file is pruned to remove non-overlapping parts.
    6. Sequentially, the converted layers are carried over into the application’s GIF animator.
    7. A stereoscopic GIF image is obtained that permits the creation of a 3D effect, even on a flat screen.

Stereo Wiggle
Fig. 1.  A stereoscopic image or ‘wiggle’ stereoscopy. GIF-animation allows the creation of a crude sense of dimensionality, even with monocular vision. Stereoscopic imagery can also determine the relative position of objects in space and enable judgment of their remoteness. Image Wikipedia

If any given image was taken inside a pavilion or dome with a panoramic background, i.e. when there are no distant objects with null parallax, then such a 2-dimensional object can be detected among any 3D bodies. In the case of such a finding, reaching the conclusion that there was deception could be stated with confidence.

Example 1.  The method of creating a stereoscopic image is examined in the following example of images of the Zmievskaya power plant, Kharkov region, Ukraine. The camera shift is 1.5 m.


Fig. 2. The Zmievskaya power plant Kharkov region Ukraine. HiRes image1HiRes image2.

The distance to the power plant is about 4 kms and to the tree planting (left horizon) is about 2 kms.

The image convergence shown below (the main criteria is the most complete background subtraction, and since the distance is more than 3 kms, the parallax is zero).


Fig. 3. Image subtraction.

Images are processed in a GIF-animator to obtain a stereoscopic image:


Fig. 4. Stereoscopic image of the Zmievskaya power plant.

(For more detailed information on creating stereoscopic images and obtaining intermediate images see this article – in Russian).

It is now possible to measure the parallax and the distance to all remote objects. The distance La to any
object A, is calculated as follows:

Knowing the distance to the front edge: 5 m, and the front edge offset: 85 mm (can be measured by a ruler, the two white grasses), plus the offset of the nearest electric pylon, about 1.2 mm. From the proportions ratio the distance to the nearer pylon is acquired, namely 350 metres; to the second pylon with the parallax of 0.6 mm is 700 metres. Distance to the trees (offset is about 0.2 mm) is close to 2 kms – at the boundary of parallax occurrence.

Conclusion: These simple image transformation operations preserve perspective proportions.

Similarly, as in the case of examining the parallax of the Apollo lunar surface images – where, according to NASA maps of the landing sites, the distance to the mountain background should be more than 5 kms – evidence of stereoscopic imagery is expected. If such evidence is absent, the image cannot have been taken in the stated environment, such a image must have been created elsewhere in a studio.

Having looked at stereoscopic parallax in images of terrestrial objects, some Apollo images are studied from the photographic record.

The Apollo 15 LM touched down at 22:16:29 UTC on July 30 1971 at Hadley (26°7’55.99″N  3°38’1.90″E), near Hadley Rille (also referred to as Rima Hadley), Montes Apenninus and Mons Hadley. The first lunar rover was used for extensive reconnaissance. Within 67 hours the crew carried out three EVAs, spending 18.5 hours in total away from the LM. A new 500mm lens, camera and accessories were used, which have provided photographic opportunities not available to previous missions. Lift off from the lunar surface was on August 2, 1971 and the astronauts returned to Earth on August 7.

The Apollo 15 crew comprised:

  • Commander David R. Scott (Dave)
  • Command Module Pilot Alfred M. Worden
  • Lunar Module Pilot James B. Irwin (Jim)


Fig. 5. Topographic map of the Apollo 15 landing site.

A series of Apollo 15 photographs will be considered and stereoscopic parallax or apparent change in the relative positions of objects will be analysed.

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


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.


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.

The second series. Jim is doing some panoramic photography (Fig. 8). The distance from his camera to the LM is approximately 40 m. Jim’s ALSEP Pan at the end of EVA-2.


Fig. 8. On the left Dave collects samples; Mount Hadley; LM in the centre; behind the LM the sun is shining into the camera and the Apennines are in the distance – over 35 kms; the Apennines and the crater St. George are on the right at a distance of 5-8 kms.

The two images with a view of Mount Hadley were selected from the Panorama (distance is about 30 kms, the height more than 2.5 kms) AS15-87-11849 and AS15-87-11850.


Fig. 9. Note the numerous boot prints left by Dave and Jim.

Rectangles highlight the selected areas selected for parallax examination.


Fig. 10. The subtraction of two images after scaling, rotation, and distortion is shown on the left. The stereoscopic image after merging two images is on the right.

Despite a slight offset of the camera, the mountains are moving, which contradicts the condition of distant mountains. If the image subtraction criteria are changed, the most darkened background condition is replaced with the most darkened front area.


Fig. 11. The subtraction of the front parts of the two images is on the left. The parallax resulting from the two merged images is on the right. This image was obtained by the subtraction of two photos taken with a camera shift of not more than 20 cms. Transformations of scale, rotation, reverse distortion, perspective, shift and the convergence of the two images into a stereoscopic image were applied.

An error estimate is now performed. Assuming that this is a real lunarscape, then the distance from the astronauts to the lunar horizon should be 1.5 kms and the distance to the objects in the background, such as the foot and summit of Mount Hadley, is 20-35 kms.

The offset of 100 sampled pixels below the horizon is calculated – the AB line, obtaining an average shift ± a pixels (depending on the image resolution). The shift magnitude obeys Gaussian distribution, meaning this is noise.

A sample of 50 points is selected above the line (AB), i.e. objects located at a distance of 20-35 kms. Giving an offset value of (10-50)a pixels. The shift direction has a vector and is not subject to Gaussian distribution. Moreover, the higher a dot the greater value of the shift – at the foot it is 10a, at the top 50a pixels.

It is logical to assume that if any lunar objects at the interval [0.01; 1.5] kms are static, the noise amounts to ± a, the parallax is zero, then for more distant objects at the interval [20; 35] kms, the parallax is likewise zero with the same value of noise, i.e. the shift is ± a pixels and the shift value obeys a Gaussian distribution.

However, the results indicate otherwise. Objects above the (AB) line are moving synchronously with increase in shift depending on the height above the horizon.

Conclusion: Mount Hadley moves and ‘bows’. The wrong initial assumption was probably made that this is a real lunarscape. As this research demonstrates, this setting must be a totally artificial panorama, several tens of metres in depth with a mock ‘Hadley’ in the background, moving horizontally and vertically to create an illusion of remoteness and of perspective.

A series of Apollo 15 images are now examined near Rima Hadley for the presence of stereoscopic parallax. Rima Hadley measures in length at least 135 kms, with an average width ~1.2 and average depth ~370 m (from Greeley 1971 – quoted in F. Leverington, 2008).

The third series. Dave and Jim make a few trips in the rover to Rima Hadley (Fig. 12) to collect samples. One of the panoramas comprises photos from AS15-82-11165 to AS15-84-11284.


Fig. 12. Jim is holding the camera. Rima Hadley is in the foreground. Dave is collecting samples near the rover. Mount Hadley is in the background. The sun is shining into the camera in the centre. The Apennines are over 35 kms away. Apennines Front and the crater St. George are on the left. 
(Panorama assembled by the author)

In two panorama frames is the bottom of Rima Hadley, which extends to Apennines Front and the crater St. George. The distance from the camera to Rima edge is about 5 m, to the Apennines and the crater is 4-8 kms. The frames are taken with a shift of no more than a few tens of centimetres. AS15-82-11178 and AS15-82-11179.


Fig. 13. The view of Rima Hadley, Apennines Front and the crater St. George.
Rectangles mark the sections used for parallax examination.


Fig. 14. The foreground subtraction of the two images after scaling, rotation, distortion, shift and perspective is on the left. On the right is the resulting parallax obtained after merging the two frames.

It is possible to see the movement of the surface areas relative to each other along the edge of the trench between points A and B. This situation cannot occur in real world photography. 

Conclusion: These images were probably taken on Earth in a dome-shaped studio location where movable panorama backgrounds were installed, and even treated afterwards by further adjustment in a photographic lab.


Fig. 15. Landscape and Traverse map of Apollo 15 landing site by NASA artist (showing stations 1-14).

Images AS15-85-11423 and AS15-85-11424 were selected, taken at station 2 with Rima Hadley observation.


Fig. 16. Images AS15-85-11423 and AS15-85-11424 station 2 with a view of Rima Hadley. Photo camera stereobase is not more than 0.5m.


Fig. 17. Lunar Topophotomap of Rima Hadley, Apollo 15. Green dot marks the photo sessions site.

The topophotomap (Fig. 17) shows that the opposite slope is over 1 km away, the depth is 300 metres, and it is 7 kms to the turn on Rima Hadley brow (green arrow, added July 2017). It is impossible to excavate an artificial canyon of similar size. Therefore, if fakery was involved, the opposite slope would have to be ‘painted’ or have a length of several tens of metres, simulating a lunar landscape. On the other hand, if the photographs are genuine, the parallax analysis will show that the distances correspond to the actual lunar surroundings, confirming the NASA record.

Horizontal stereoscopic effect

For this parallax we apply the next set of transformations: optical zoom, rotation, distortion, perspective, shift in x and y directions to the image as a whole. The requirement of maximum deduction of remote landscapes is imposed to extract horizontal stereoscopic effect.

As a result, we obtain the following stereoscopic pair of images:


Fig. 18. A stereoscopic pair of images AS15-85-11423 and AS15-85-1142 with horizontal stereoscopic effect after applying image transformations.

Stereoscopic parallax is clearly visible in Fig 18, and we can make a preliminary estimation of the distance to the opposite slope of Rima Hadley. The distance is 50 metres (recall that it should be at least 1 km according to the map). The distant background is shifting slightly, although the parallax must be zero, since according to the map it is about 20 kms to the mountains.

In general, given that in the true lunar background remote objects should be located many kms away, it is impossible to achieve a zero stereoscopic parallax using only previously-mentioned image transformations – confirmed by converging dozens of pairs of Apollo lunar surface images (as well as numerous efforts by other researchers). This strongly suggests that the distance to remote objects in the Apollo photographs which should be many miles/kms is indeed not so.

These images are a simulation of being on the Moon.

How were these fake Apollo lunar surface images taken? Due to incomplete convergence of remote background imagery a parallax error at the foreground of stereoscopic images is revealed. The relative error is a ratio of the foreground object’s shift in relation to the background object’s shift.

Distortion grid of background lunarscape

The remote terrain in a stereoscopic pair of images can be converged precisely with each other. To do so it is necessary to go beyond the optical transformations applied to the image as a whole and introduce digital distortion to the sections of the image.

This method can determine the nature of simulation of any background ‘land’scape i.e. build a distortion grid and inspect it. Obviously, if the distortion grid has a curved surface, then it corresponds to projection at the rear onto a circular panorama screen, creating a simulation of a remote background scape on the projection screen. Instead of taking pictures in a remote lunarscape the ‘astronauts’ take pictures of a foreground with the background projected onto a screen.

The radius of the circular panorama can be roughly estimated by a distortion grid.

Fig. 19 below shows the distortion grid. A million pixels were involved in the transformation of these two images. In mathematical terms this is a system of a million equations solved with sub pixel accuracy.


Fig. 19. Digital distortion grid of background objects in AS15-85-11423 after optical transformations converging with AS15-85-11424.

A precise, curved concave transformation applied to the megabit pixels image confirms the fact that a ‘lunar’ scape was projected onto a forward-tilted, slightly convex panorama background screen. Any other technique fails to replicate the nature of the remote ‘land’scape simultaneously for a million pixels of the image.


Fig. 20. Illustrates the logic and simplicity of a simulated Apollo lunar surface panorama.
The grid represents the projection screen which surrounded the Apollo simulation studio.

Below is the final result of the transformation (optical transformations and the circular panorama are already taken into account).


Fig. 21. Rima Hadley view. Apollo 15 stereoscopic photographs AS15-85-11423 and AS15-85-11424 after image transformation and digital non-linear distortion of the distant landscape.
Distances to the image elements are specified in metres with an accuracy of 1%, 2%, 15%, 30%
and 45% of distances 3, 11, 20, 40 and 60 metres respectively. According to the map
the distance to the opposite slope of Rima Hadley should be about 1,000-1,200 metres.

The parallax of the distant background is zero. In Fig. 21 we can see that the distance to the opposite slope of Rima Hadley is only 40 metres, while according to NASA’s map it should be nearer to 1,000-1,200 metres. The difference is more than one of magnitude! This finding is seriously at odds with the official Apollo 15 record.

Scale stereoscopic effect

A scale stereoscopic effect was considered for AS15-85-11423 and AS15-85-11424 along the z axis. For example a photographer takes a photograph in one position, then moves closer to, or further from the subject and takes another photograph.


Fig. 22. A stereoscopic pair of images AS15-85-11423 and AS15-85-11424 with scale stereoscopic effect after transformations: 1) applying transformations: scaling, rotation, distortion, perspective, shift, and offset in x and y to the image as a whole; 2) digital distortion of the distant background terrain; 3) maximum subtraction of a distant background terrain, and 4) acquisition of scale stereoscopic effect. Distances to the image features in metres are specified with 60% accuracy.

Scale stereoscopic parallax is clearly visible in Fig. 22, which is used to estimate the distance to the opposite slope of Rima Hadley. The distance is about 40 metres. The scale stereoscopic effect also points to fakery of the genuine Rima Hadley on the Moon.

Verifying the universal nature of a distortion grid
for a distant background scape

To verify the possible presence of a circular panorama background screen, another pair of Apollo 15 lunar surface images AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449 with a view of the Rima Hadley taken at station 2 are examined.


Fig. 23. AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449 with a view of Rima Hadley taken at station 2.

Below is a digital distortion grid on the distant background landscape present in images AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449. A million pixels of the two images are converged with sub pixel accuracy.


Fig. 24. Distortion grid of the distant background ‘land’scape in AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449.

This confirms the previous finding that the ‘lunar’ mountain backscape was projected onto a forward-tilted, slightly convex, circular panorama background screen.

Horizontal stereoscopic effect

By the following procedures of:

  1. applying optical transformations such as scaling, rotation, distortion, perspective, shift and
    offset in x and y to the image as a whole;
  2. taking into account presence of a circular panorama;
  3. satisfying the requirement of maximum subtraction of a distant landscape;
  4. extraction of horizontal stereoscopic effect, we obtain the following stereoscopic pair:


Fig. 25. A stereoscopic pair of AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449; view of Rima Hadley after transformations and digital distortion of the distant background backscape. Distances to the features of the picture are specified in metres with errors of 15%, 45% and 95% for distances 20, 45 and 140 m respectively. According to the map the distance to the opposite slope of Rima Hadley is approximately 1,000-1,200 metres; to Rima Hadley bow is about 7 kms.

From previous calculations the distance is known to the foreground rocks at the bottom of Rima Hadley. Based on parallax it is possible to estimate the distances to the other objects as indicated in Fig. 25. Obviously errors are accumulative, the sum of any distance errors to the foreground rocks at the bottom of Rima Hadley as well as any errors in determining the shift of other features of the image – in this case 15%.

Scale stereoscopic effect

A scale stereoscopic effect was also obtained for AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449 along the axis when the camera was moved nearer to the object.


Fig. 26. A stereopair of images AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449 with scale stereoscopic effect after transformations of: 1) scaling, rotation, distortion, perspective shift and offset in x and y to the image as a whole; 2) maximum subtraction of the remote landscape; 3) obtaining a scale stereoscopic effect. Specified distance to the elements of image in metres with an error not more than 85%. 

The scale stereoscopic parallax is clearly visible in Fig. 26. Using distances determined from the scale parallax, the distance can be estimated to the opposite slope and to Rima Hadley bow. The distance to the opposite slope of Rima Hadley is no more than 40 metres, and the distance to the Rima Hadley bow does not exceed 140 metres.

According to the topographic map, distances to these locations are more than 1 km to the slope and to Rima Hadley bow it is about 7 kms. Here again, there are serious anomalies in this Apollo record. From a scale stereoscopic effect it is possible to estimate the distance to Rima Hadley bow and to the background projection screen.


Fig. 27.  A stereopair of images AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449 with a scale stereoscopic effect after transformations and application of the distortion grid
for a
 distant landscape. The relative error in distances is no more than 60%.

Based on the stereoscopic result, the calculated distance to the mountains on the horizon is 140 metres (accuracy 60%). According to the map it should be more than 20 kms. The difference in distance is more than 100 times! These serious errors in the Apollo 15 photographic record indicate that these images were undoubtedly faked.

The study of stereoscopic effect in photographs AS15-85-11423, AS15-85-11424 and AS15-85-11449 shows that these images do not contain distant objects farther than a few hundred metres away. The distance to the opposite slope of “Rima Hadley” is about 40 metres (should be 1,000-1,200 metres), to Rima Hadley bow is about 90 metres (based on the topographic map is about 7 kms) and to the mountains it is 100-140 metres (should be nearer to 20 kms based on the lunar geography). The error in calculation of these distances is 15-60%.

Contradictions in the photographic record of the Apollo program point to the simulated nature of the lunarscape: creation of an artificial canyon, 40 metres wide and 90 metres long, simulating Rima Hadley with help of a rear background screen, depicting a distant lunarscape.

Was there a way to simulate the remote lunar surface on a projection screen for any other Apollo 15 lunar surface photographs?  More Apollo 15 images are considered from the NASA record with distant lunarscapes.

In Fig. 7 after optical transformations, all the foreground objects: the LM, the rover, and astronaut Jim move relative to each other. Any distant object such as the Apennines and the crater St. George also move as a whole. Shadows on the mountains and on the crater change as well. The separation line between the mountain and the foreground area is clearly visible. A rough estimate of the stereoscopic effect gives the distance to the background (mountains) as less than 300 metres. Instead of the 5 kms according to the Apollo record.

To converge a remote lunarscape a distortion grid was superimposed onto the optically-transformed images AS15-86-11601 and AS15-86-11602.


Fig. 28. A distortion grid of the distant backscape for the converged images
AS15- 86-11601 and AS15- 86-11602 in the stereopair.

Fig. 28 shows the distortion grid for converging AS15-86-11601 and AS15-86-11602 to obtain zero stereoscopic parallax. Recall that introducing a distortion grid is the method of going beyond the standard optical transformation – the system of creating equations for a one-million pixel image. Going beyond the laws of optics in converging two pictures into a stereopair questions the veracity of the image and results in a postulation that the lunarscape was faked.

The regular curved repetitive distortion grid for other pairs of images indicates projection of the distant background mountains onto a rear screen positioned about 100 metres away with the ‘astronauts’ in the foreground.

After applying the distortion grid we obtain the following stereopair:


Fig. 29. Stereo image after combining two pictures AS15-86-11601 and AS15-86-11 602 for parallax study. Line AB is a horizon mark at the foot of the mountain, above which is a projection on the screen to simulate a lunar mountainscape. The contrast was increased and the brightness was reduced.

The familiar distortion grid was superimposed on to the “distant” ‘land’scape in photographs AS15-87-11849 and AS15-87-11 850, and after optical transformation:


Fig. 30. A distortion grid of the distant ‘land’scape for converging two photographs
AS15-87-11849 and AS15-87-11850 into a stereopair.

Fig. 30 shows the distortion grid of the distant background in images AS15-87-11849 and AS15-87-11850. Taking this distortion grid into account, a stereopair is obtained:


Fig. 31. A stereopair of two images AS15-87-11849 and AS15-87-11850 to study the dynamics of the scene after application of optical transformations and imposing the distortion grid.

Fig. 31 shows a stereopair of images AS15-87-11849 and AS15-87-11850 to study the dynamics of the lunarscape after application of optical transformations and imposing the distortion grid. Obviously the distortion grid is a method of going beyond optical alterations and is an indicator of simulation of the lunarscape and the lack of really distant objects that should be several kilometres away. The nature of simulation for a given pair of images is similar to the previous pairs of images.


Fig. 32. A stereopair based on AS15-82-11178 and AS15- 82-11179, after scaling,
rotation, distortion, shift and perspective.

Fig. 32 shows a stereopair of images AS15-82-11178 and AS15-82-11179, which is obtained based solely on optical transformations. A distortion grid is superimposed on the remote lunarscape of one of the stereo photos AS15-82-11178 and AS15-82-11179, and obtain:


Fig. 33.  A distortion grid of the remote ‘land’scape for converging photographs
AS15-82-11178 and AS15-82-11179. 

Another pair of photographs taken at the station 9-11, AS15-82-11121 and AS15-82-11122 points up the fact that the image of the mountain and central part of the Rima Hadley was projected onto a background screen. Below is the final stereopair after optical transformations were applied and imposing the same distortion grid on the remote lunarscape as previously.


Fig. 34. A stereopair AS15-82-11121 and AS15-82-11122 after optical transformations and overlaying a distortion grid on the remote landscape. Official distance to the slope of Rima is indicated as being not less than 1,500 metres and the value based on parallax –
50 metres (error not more than 60%).

The distance to the opposite slope of the Rima Hadley is 50 metres. The foot of the mountain and the Apennines can be clearly seen. Undoubtedly, this is a projected image on to a screentaken by ‘astronauts’ (AS15-82-11121 and AS15-82-11122). The actual length of the Rima Hadley on the Moon is actually 135 kms, the width is about 1.2 kms, and the depth ~370 metres.

Study Conclusion

Professor of University of California G. Schiller has noted: “To be successful, manipulation should remain invisible. The success of the manipulation is guaranteed when the manipulated believe that everything happens naturally and inevitably. In short, manipulation requires a false reality in which its presence will not be felt”. Very often this false reality is amplified by the media.

In the convergence of these Apollo 15 pictures, more than a million equations (the number of pixels in the images) were calculated obeying the laws of optics. In order to obtain a zero stereoscopic effect for a remote landscape, typical distortion grids were generated around the photographic session sites.

Numerous Apollo 15 photo examples indicate an identical distortion grid – a projection screen at the distance of 100-120 metres from the front of the studio stage. A serious falsification of the true lunarscape, in particular, an artificial trench 30-60 metres in width given for the lunar Rima Hadley which is actually 1,200 metres in width; the image of this remote lunarscape being projected onto the curved background screen; and ‘astronaut’ photographers taking pictures in front of it in a studio set.

The Apollo 15 photographic record contradicts the stereoscopic parallax verification method. The apparent change in the relative positions of objects by moving the camera when the camera angles are separated by several tens of cms show that:

  • the distance to distant objects such as mountains is not tens of kilometres but is no more
    than a few hundred metres;
  • the landscape is not continuous, but with clear lines of separation;
  • there is movement between nearby sections of the panorama relative to other sections. 

Thus, based on the above examples, this study concludes that the Apollo 15 photographic record does NOT depict real lunarscapes with distant backgrounds located more than a kilometre away from the camera.

These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set – up to 300 metres in size. A complex panorama mimicking the lunarscape shows degrees of movement, such as horizontal and vertical changes to give an impression of imaginary distance to the objects and perspective.

Dr Oleg Oleynik

Read More: www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

Newly Unearthed CIA Memo: Media Are The “Principal Villains”

A new declassifed CIA report unearthed by the FOIA investigive cooperative MuckRock contains some shocking commentary on how the intelligence community views and interacts with the media. The 1984 series of internal memos, part of the CIA’s recent CREST release (CIA Records Search Tool) of over 900,000 newly declassified documents, were drafted in response to a study on unathorized leaks and disclosures written by legendary CIA officer Eloise Page.

The CIA Inspector General [IG] was tasked by CIA Director Bill Casey to investigate and review CIA vulnerabilities to media scrutiny. One of Eloise Page’s suggestions involved CIA and agency friendly individuals gaining influence at universities and journalism schools in order to change and shape curriculum.

 

“Remember that the organization has official contacts with inluenctial people outside… We have periodic sessions with college and university presidents, some of them undoubtedly with schools of journalism.” This is the section Director Casey got excited about, which he called attention to as the brief was circulated among departments. The idea of direct campus influence is aimed at shaping the end media product, and to have some influence very early on in young journalists’ careers, resulting in a “challenge to the practice of publishing indiscriminately” – that is, ensuring CIA consultation prior to news being published. Perhaps the most sinister line in the below passages is “given some curriculum changes, the next generation of reporters might show some elevation of ethics.”

Read More: www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-02/newly-unearthed-cia-memo-media-are-principal-villains