He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for parallax at all relative scales (including the miles-long scales alleged in lunar photography). Parallax does not exhibit linear behavior as distance varies. The ratio of distances from the viewer to two objects, the d1/d2 ratio in the projection math, determines the lateral effect of parallax observed between those objects. Hence if two distant objects are used as references such that the distance ratio approaches 1, little difference will be observed.

He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for determining via parallax whether subject photographs were taken in the field or in a studio, as he alleges the Apollo photographs were. Con uously missing is any study of the method as applied to known studio photography.

He skipped the part where he studied whether any distortions in the image might be caused by the non-linear effects of the Zeiss Biogon lens, a feature for which it is justly famous. In the larger sense, the researcher here has failed to perform any sort of error analysis. He simply attributes all anomalous data to the hypothesis he wants to test: that Apollo photographs were taken indoors.

He skipped the part where he determined that photographs taken in a domed studio, as he alleges, differ from photographs taken in the field in a way that his method can discern. This is pure question-begging. He determines analytically that a certain degree and type of distortion would occur if the backdrop were attached to a concave surface, but fails in any way to validate or confirm that it would produce the effect seen.

In short is a very common story: snappy visuals that seem to illustrate an important scientific point, with absolutely no scientific rigor placed behind it. Pseudoscience. He hopes the viewer will be impressed with his ability to distort photographs seemingly at random and make animated GIFs and ume that he got all the rest of it right.

Step 3 of the proposed process mentions applying transformations in image space, such as perspective distortions, independent x- and y-axis scaling, and rotations. First, some of these would not be projection-preserving, and thus are invalid in rectification. Second, there is no mention made of how the parameters for these transformations are derived. Hence they amount to manual processing and therefore cannot be scientifically reproducible.

The proposed antiprojection, La = Lb b/a, is linear. Most lenses do not implement a linear projection model, and the Zeiss Biogon explicitly does not. Hence the mathematical framework is simplistic and incorrect.

Fig. 7 purports to show a parallax difference between two Apollo photos that include a distant background. The author believes that because a geometric change is apparent in the blink-comparator, this should be attributed to parallax. In fact the method fails.

1.No values are given for any rotations, distortions, or other transformations applied to the photograph(s). The results are therefore irreproducible and scientifically invalid.

2.A simple contrast expansion of the "difference" image shows misalignment in the ridge lines consistent with a rotation between raster images roughly coincident with the original line of sight. The author has misapplied his broken method and thus interprets the difference in rotation (and possibly subsequent distortive attempts to correct it) as parallax.

Figs. 10 and 11 are similar. The author applies uncontrolled, arbitrary image-space manipulations that are not projection-preserving, then proceeds to attribute resulting misalignment of the raster to parallax. And again, no method is shown for deterministically deriving the distortion parameters; it is purely subjective and therefore irreproducible.

The author then imagines that the effects he introduces through non projective-preserving manipulations are explicable in affine space by a sort of concave screen. This is pure fantasy: a much simpler explanation exists, that of the inep ude of the author's image-space manipulation and his fundamental misunderstanding of the actual projective geometry at work here. He has proven absolutely nothing other than his ability to produce in one instance a distortion map that corrects for the distortion he previously applied in another instance. There is absolutely nothing here that is valid or proven to be a method for determining the authenticity of photographs.