I didn't wanna post on the other thread because it seemded like those guys loved the film and it was the wrong place to critique it, so I'll do this thread instead.

I have to say I'm completely stumped by the Orion Cosnpiracy. On the first viewing I dismissed it purely because there were absoloutly no attributions applied to the pictures. Most of them seemed to be artists renderings, things that had been proven fake before, or just high quality (some extremely high quality) fakes.
Seb Janiak, the man the film is attributed to only seems to be credited with a Janet Jackson video. Not really sure what this means, I guess it means he's used to splashing out ridiculous amounts of dollars on projects, but I dont think it works for or against him.

After re-visiting it tonight I am inclined to change my view on some of the evidence. For example if you take this photo.

This Photo purports to be an image of pyramidal structures on the moon. If this is the case that it is the most stunning evidecne I have ever seen that blows everything from every other whistleblower and the Hoagland crowd out of the water. But he doesn't accredit it to any known moon mission, so its impossible to find out where these are, what mission took them and when they were taken.
However if you enhance the brightness and look again at the pyramids you find that the shadows are infact shadows, as opposed to blocks of colour, something which is not easy to do when doctoring images. This would suggest the picture is indeed of something somewhere, we just have absoloutly no idea where


Next we have "dude taking measurement near standing stones" Same problem occurs as in the last photo, no attribution, therefore no chance to check it.

If it's faked, again its a very good job, they even put the little hassleblat crosshairs in there, but if you look closely, this guy turns up in another photo

Now although the distance from the nearby machine is different. this guy is surely just a cut and paste job mirrored to face the opposite direction. easily done if the pre-existing models are made. Even the shadow is identical. Seems to suggest this photo and the set are fake.

Then there's this one, which would not be too difficult to fake given a few original moon shots and some 3d modelling software. but it's very difficult to see where anything has been artificially added. It could be a sound stage but again, thats a lot of trouble to go to


This one looks to me like the best candidate for if they produced a load of fakes just to slip a real photo out to the public. This is either the most explosive moon photo ever or the best fake I've seen in a long time


This one appears to be of the same area shot by the mars spirit rover, img PIA10214 (which happened to contain the infamous martian statue) if so this could be a rover image, it would suggest the area had been photographed ever since and this is a later shot. However it's in amongst a section called 'lunar civilisation'. obvious problem there.

The same view as seen from the Mars Spirit Rover from a different angle?




As for the non-moon photography, A lot of that is also hit and miss

This Photo I have a very hard time debunking. the lines are incredibly crisp, the definition is high and there looks to be no evidence of cutting and pasting. I would suggest that this thing, whatever it is, is there. But again because of the lack of accreditation there is no context, this could be mining equipment from a nearby quarry, a prop from a nearby film set, or just something taken out there specifically to fake the photo. yeah its a long shot but if you're going for a full on hoax, why not?

This one screams of hoax. The spheres look unnatural in the photos and this appears to be because they are at a higher definition that the background. Not only this but the shadows also appear to not fit the pattern or contrast of the background, one would expect a much stronger shadow cast by the surrounding trees

another example of a pasted image appearing 'out of phase' with the rest of the photo can be seen here:

If you look closely you'll see the background of the photo has a very slight motion blur to it, where the photographer has been slightly moving when taking the exposure, the same motion blur is not effecting the 'coil' object. this doesn't necissarily mean its fake, but the type of camera would need to be known if one was to try to rule out this problem.

Anyway this is just my two cents, I do think that even if its a fake, there a point behind it and it may contain a few diamonds in the rough, but right now i'm on the fence about this film. He doesn't give you any background research to back up his claims or even point to where he's found some of these images. extremely suspicious in my book.

(oh also, I'm not 100% on this bit I think downloading the film direct from the site gave me a trojan spyware virus, Thank god for Rkill.)

Not really...it just needs to be above the threshold of tonal compression that a JPEG will undergo.

Really? Because that one to me is the most blatant manipulation out of these moon ones. There appears to be an effect resembling atmospheric haze on the object...which as we know, the Moon doesn't really fit that description.

This seems to suffer the opposite problem: There doesn't look like there's any real atmospheric haze there.

IIRC, that's a genuine photo. I remember seeing something like that a while back. Maybe some of the colors/contrast is altered here.

You basically said what I would have for the rest. Good post.

Yeah I have to admit to not being the greatest detective of doctoring, things can slip by me.

With the moon dome one I suppose was trying to point out that out of all of them, it looks most likely to be a nasa produced image. The problem with these images is that theres no accreditation to them so if I look at an image like that and stacked it against the other moon images I'd have to say "where did the others come from?" there's very few moon images that reflect the abilities of the cameras they had onboard the apollo missions but that one looks like a classic nasa fake horizon image that may have slipped through the cracks and made it's way to JAXA or something. I'm on the fence about that one. If its a fake Its been made to look exactly like the nasa images.

That rover picture to me really does look like the same area photographed by the Mars spirit rover with a little contrast adjustment. It makes it an interesting image itself and I'm pretty sure someone posted something similar the other night saying the debris was part of the lander of the spirit rover.
I'll look into that a bit further

Thanks for your comments, much appreciated

those pictures all look faked

they are real

they are just to real to be true as we say ^^

and there is more of them in my HD

just think about it for a while , you go searching for stuff like this all your life and one day bang you got them , no blurry pictures in B&W , no low quality vids , just the high res good stuff , how can the average mind believe a think like that .

for me after months and months and investigation i finally come to the conclusion that they are real , and yes very very easy to fond after all , but don't forget , this is a French production , France is nothing like the USA when it comes to disclosure

It would be absolutely amazing if these were real it is such a shame they are not.(apart from the Spirit Rover one).
The pic with the man in the desert walking away from the large wheel or cog, there are no footprints from him in the sand?

Peace
DJ

Very good eye! I didn't even catch that. I am not very convinced of these pictures either.

its real..... maybe some photos are computer generated, but the cases are ALL REAL.

The one with the cog and the pasted guy above him there is a column of rock at the bottom of it to the right you can cleary see Yoda or a relative his ears are bigger than the Yoda we all know.

P H O T O S H O P





Eyes can deceive you, soo dont use them.