New Russian Moon Photos Proves Apollo a Fake?

I cant help but notice how large and real the earth looks in the Russian pictures compared to the apollo photos.

Is it an illusion?

I thought mabey it's where you stand on the moon but you can only reach out so far on a ball.

Then i thought must be the way the cropped it... couldnt replicate it.

What's yer takes?

reply to post by IvanZana


Id say its just zoomed in.

I'll stick this in both of your threads about this.....

By what reasoning does this mean that the US taken photos are a fake?
Surely, there is as much chance of the Russian photo's being fake.

Before you start criticizing photographs, at least learn about how photographs are taken.

Here is a random image from a google search of lens size comparison on cameras. Notice how things seem smaller and further away if the lens is shorter.

Both are fakes or composites for the simple reason there are no stars in either. I think that both earths are fakes also. The moon on the right may be fake also.

Nice find IvanZana.

I would have thought that the photos would be pretty washed out if they were trying to resolve both the small, faint background objects and the large bright foreground objects?

Even if these two pictures are a composite (don't know, don't care) your "no stars" in the photo argument is just plain wrong I think. I mean, you ever try to take a picture of the night sky out in the dessert with your Colman lantern shining in the foreground? Hows that shot come out for you?

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts

I mean, you ever try to take a picture of the night sky out in the dessert with your Colman lantern shining in the foreground? Hows that shot come out for you?

Assuming that there is no Coleman lantern on the moon they are not shooting through the atmosphere as I would be on Earth. The stars should be dazzlingly bright.

Hey, wait a minute here. Maybe your right. Because there is an atmosphere on the moon.

Originally posted by johnlear
Assuming that there is no Coleman lantern on the moon they are not shooting through the atmosphere as I would be on Earth. The stars should be dazzlingly bright.

The atmosphere has a very minimal affect on the brightness of the stars. Exposure times will remain relatively the same. And star light just isn't that bright to begin with. It would be impossible to have both, stars and the Earth equally exposed in one photo regardless of an atmosphere or not.

As for the Earth looking larger in the Russian photo. As Irma explained, it has to do with the type of lens used. The more 'zoom' the lens has, the closer it will pull in objects.

For example, these two planes in this photo look like they're flying dangerously close together and about to land on the same runway, but they're obviously not and it's just an effect from using a telephoto lens.

Part of the reason you're able to see the earth is due to the light reflecting back from it, towards the moon, this is much brighter than the stars behind it, and since the camera in one picture is focused on the earth, it overcompensates. As for the moon, the moon is also much lighter than the background, so it compensates. The stars are basically bled from the picture. I can do this on Earth with nearly any camera with similer circumstances.

Originally posted by Irma
Before you start criticizing photographs, at least learn about how photographs are taken.

Nice, seems a bit harsh considering Ivan just had a legitimate question.
Good toknow we have photo experts with only a slight attitude we can call on when we have a question.

I wonder how many other ATS members are reluctant to start a thread or even ask a question in fear of being reprimanded as you did Ivan?

reply to post by johnlear
I'm not too concerned with the stars missing but I am wondering why the moon's surface is reddish brown???

reply to post by johnlear


Hi John hope you are well, I know its a bit off the Thread but can you explain to me how you know there is atmosphere on the moon?
Have you been there?
How was this Atmosphere created?

cheers,

Sandals

[edit on 8-1-2008 by Sandals24]

At the time of my posting, the thread had no question mark in the title and the other edits to the opening post hadn't been made.

I am no expert in many things, but this just seemed a bit too obvious a thing to have overlooked.

Apologies to Ivan if I seemed a little blunt.

Anyway, I still stand by what I posted up there... The difference in the photographs appearance and the percieved distance to the Earth is due to the lenses used.

Also cameras, like everything else, have advanced significantly since the Apollo days, hence the better definition. Does anyone know if these Russian photographs were taken digitally or with film?

Cheers.

Originally posted by johnlear
Both are fakes or composites for the simple reason there are no stars in either.

You know full well that the real explanation for no stars in the pic lies in the fact that the relative brightness of stars vs the lunar surface is miniscule, hence at the exposure needed to optimally photograph the lunar surface the stars are just too faint a source. And you know this.

hmm...ever looked into the sky and saw the moon larger than normal? maybe the same effect is going on here except the other way around.

Originally posted by Irma
Also cameras, like everything else, have advanced significantly since the Apollo days, hence the better definition. Does anyone know if these Russian photographs were taken digitally or with film?

The Russian photo is from 1969. They aren't new like the thread title says. And the photos were taken with film.

Originally posted by RandomThought
hmm...ever looked into the sky and saw the moon larger than normal? maybe the same effect is going on here except the other way around.

You'd need an atmosphere to get that kind of effect. No, I'd have to say it's simply due to a difference in optics. 60mm lens on Apollo versus 300mm lens on Zond-7

Originally posted by jra
The Russian photo is from 1969. They aren't new like the thread title says. And the photos were taken with film.

Thanks for that. I assumed they must have been recent, even though I'd heard nothing about them being up there.

Originally posted by jra
You'd need an atmosphere to get that kind of effect.

Oh, did you have to? That'll be John's cue to get back in here.

i wonder if that is fake on the right if anyone can find an earth pic with that same cloud pattern formation, thus making it a copy paste, photoshop job


it could also be the corrolation of the moon and where in orbit to the earth it is

or is the moon always the same distance away from earth continuously?

Originally posted by Irma
Oh, did you have to? That'll be John's cue to get back in here.

That throught crossed my mind, but since both photos were taken in lunar orbit, we should be safe from any "effects of the Lunar atmosphere", claims.

Originally posted by MurderCityDevil
it could also be the corrolation of the moon and where in orbit to the earth it is

or is the moon always the same distance away from earth continuously?

The Earth and Moon aren't always at the same distance, but its perigee (364,397 km) and apogee (406,731 km) aren't enough to make a huge difference in size.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by jra]

It should be fairly simple to annotate the time and date, and the orbit of each spacecraft that took the two photos, and then judge where the Sun was in relation. For instance, the picture on the left shows the umbra...or perhaps better term is, well, the terminator clearly on the Earth, while the Soviet pic on the right has a fuller view of the daylight side of Earth...only conclusion is different angle of illumination by the Sun.

BTW, since the Earth is not fully 'dayside' in the pic on left, the Sun is therefore 'higher' in the 'sky' relative to the camera as the pic was taken, hence the Moon's surface is more bright.

This is only ONE explanation for the difference in tone and color of the Moon in the foreground...I mean, in terrestrial terms, consider how a beach will look different when photographed at different times of day...assuming same camera, same film, same angle...
Of course, this is not the case in these two pictures...

I am sorry, but sometimes I find it beneath the dignity of ATS to use 'photographic evidence' from outside sources to make one's claim...that is the purview of other sites, IMO.

(editing to add...yes, of course, certain photos are valuable to state one's case, but not two different ones from two sources, when the variables between them are not fully understood nor explained. THAT is when it becomes disingenuous to point to them and claim one, or both, are 'obviously' fake. It's the apple vs. orange argument.)

[edit on 8-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by IvanZana


It is called foreshortening.