Starship Asterisk*

by **Bret Webster** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:31 am

Thanks to rst and John D for providing photoz with hopefully helpful information for him!

The Ghost Panel image is a single exposure image. It is not a composite. I just now downloaded the image from APOD and noted that the EXIF data is retained on this single image and available for anyone who cares to examine it. Too bad the poster didn’t.

He is right about the shot being taken with a wide lens…a 15 mm fisheye on a full-frame sensor giving a complete 180 degrees of coverage. In photoz experience the stars may have appeared small for a lower ISO image but at ISO 3200 and 57 seconds the stars are in fact seriously “over cooked” as they are in this image. The poster states that “even with one minute exposures at ISO 1000..” indicates that he has limited experience in imaging the Milky Way with modern DSLRs. It is helpful to be aware that the cliff in this shot is several hundred feet tall…much taller than it looks – therefore to illuminate it satisfactorily took many, many (~40) tries with a very bright 3M candlepower spotlight (w/diffuser) systematically sweeping back-n-forth across the cliff over several seconds…faster at the close locations and slower as it got further away. This provides quite a source of illumination for reflective objects nearby in the canyon.. such as snow. A quick check of the calendar will show that there was no moon on March 12, 2010.

Photoz choice of words does seem somewhat purposefully offensive and disparaging. Troll indeed! This reflects on the poster. I’m a little disappointed that my image would generate discourse like this on this wonderful forum. If he was more informed and knowledgeable it would have precluded his critique altogether. I guess ultimately his response can be taken as high praise …The image astounded that person (albeit disordered) to near apoplexy!

by **JohnD** » Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:04 am

Bret Webster wrote:
johndmura wrote:Astro Pic for May 19 description is totally bogus !
John - I thought I might learn something if I asked why you think the narrative is "bogus"?

And johndmura has already had his questions answered on page 1.
Troll?

John

by **rstevenson** » Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:48 pm

photoz wrote:This photo appears to be a faked composite. ...

First... so? Why would being a composite (if it is) make it a fake? There are many astronomical photographs which are composites, for very good reasons.

Second... you should have taken the time to read through the thread before posting. Your concerns were addressed at the top of page two of the thread. You owe the photographer and the editors of APOD an apology.

Rob

by **photoz** » Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:33 pm

This photo appears to be a faked composite. The view of the Great Gallery seems to be taken with a rather wide angle lens, and any wide angle shot of the Milky Way makes the stars very, very, very small on the 'film', nowhere near the size of the stars as seen in the photo. I have filmed the milky way in the desert before, and even with one minute exposures at ISO 1000, the Milky Way comes nowhere near what is showing in this shot. In addition there appears to be snow on the ground opposite the gallery, and that snow is illuminated! The only way the snow could be that bright would be with moonlight. And if the moon was in the sky that night, the color of the sky would have never been that black, as it is in this shot, there would have been a blueness in the sky. And as the sky scene nears the horizon, it would have been lighter(bluer) that it would have been overhead, due to atmospheric illumination from the moon.

An interesting shot for sure, but at least admit it is a composite. Otherwise your respect goes down the drain. You should be ashamed of pretending this is a real photo! No way!

by **neufer** » Sun May 23, 2010 9:27 pm

beyond wrote: Now----about this light from the milky Way - is't it true that our human eyes can only see the small part of visible light in the middle of the spectrum, so most of the light in the milky way goes unnoticed

Our eyes are fairly well attuned to the output from the sun
(especially the output which penetrates down through our atmosphere):

It would probably be useful to also see in the infrared atmospheric window
between 5 μm and 30 μm like some snakes and Predator

(Seeing in the radio window between 3 cm and 3 m might be scientifically useful.)

beyond wrote:Well then, we humans seem to be about the same as a one-eyed bat without his Echo system so we must be missing most of what goes on in our lovely Milky Way. No wonder we do not understand very much about anything. The EYES have it, but we do not have the eyes.
Alas poor Yorlick, we can hardly see ya

That's one reason why many of us prefer to use instruments and to ground astronauts.

________ Scientific American JUNE 1960

"Putting a man in space is a stunt: the man can do no more
than an instrument, in fact can do less." So said Vannevar Bush,
chairman of the Board of Governors of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, in a statement to the House Committee on Science and
Astronautics. "There are far more serious things to do than to indulge
in stunts. As yet the American people do not understand the
distinctions, and we in this country are prone to rush, for a time, at
any new thing. I do not discard completely the value of demonstrating
to the world our skills. Nor do I undervalue the effect on morale of
the spectacular. But the present hullabaloo on the propaganda aspects
of the program leaves me entirely cool."

by **Beyond** » Sun May 23, 2010 7:35 pm

HHHMMMMmmmm........Gumby

Chinese Characters

..........I think you're ALL a bunch of Characters

Now----about this light from the milky Way - is't it true that our human eyes can only see the small part of visible light in the middle of the spectrum, so most of the light in the milky way goes unnoticed

Well then, we humans seem to be about the same as a one-eyed bat without his Echo system

so we must be missing most of what goes on in our lovely Milky Way. No wonder we do not understand very much about anything. The EYES have it, but we do not have the eyes.
Alas poor Yorlick, we can hardly see ya

by **Bret Webster** » Sun May 23, 2010 6:30 pm

neufer wrote:[quote="bystander"]沙漠

沙漠寶

I think we pretty much know now who has been out in Utah making petroglyphs.[/quote]

Ancient Ghost Gumby

by **neufer** » Sun May 23, 2010 6:24 pm

[quote="bystander"]沙漠

沙漠寶

[/quote]
I think we pretty much know now who has been out in Utah making petroglyphs.

by **Bret Webster** » Sun May 23, 2010 6:20 pm

bystander wrote:沙漠

沙漠寶

Got it! Very cool - Thanks!

by **bystander** » Sun May 23, 2010 5:40 pm

沙漠

沙漠寶

by **Bret Webster** » Sun May 23, 2010 5:28 pm

neufer you amaze me. Any insights for the Chinese character for "desert"...so to make "jewel of the desert"?

by **neufer** » Sun May 23, 2010 5:10 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haibao

<<Haibao (海寶), meaning "jewel of the sea", is the mascot of Expo 2010, in Shanghai, China.
"Hai (海)" means the sea in Chinese, and "Bao (宝,寶)" means the treasure.
Its figure is in the shape of the Chinese character "人" (meaning human)

>>

by **wonderboy** » Sun May 23, 2010 3:26 pm

Now that you pointed it out, you were clearly being sarcastic, i was looking at the google results thinking, "what is this guy on about, its clearly the right place in the caption" anyway, good luck tonight or tommorow evening (wherever you are) if your our trying to photograph more amazing sites.

Paul.

by **bystander** » Sun May 23, 2010 3:21 pm

Bret

I, for one, understood your answer and appreciated the humor in it. I'm somewhat surprised it wasn't recognized for what it was, although I probably shouldn't be. I was preparing an explanation, but I see you beat me to it. I wouldn't worry about johndmura. It amazes me how many people think they know more about a picture than the person who took it, even with supporting documentation.

by **Bret Webster** » Sun May 23, 2010 3:03 pm

wonderboy wrote:
Bret Webster wrote:
Mosbycuz3tr wrote:Not that I believe in them, but don't alien buffs cite the next to last figure as a prehistoric astronaut visitor? What are some more sane and sober archaeological musings?
I wanted to respond this central question! This question just begs at you constantly when you're at the site..."Why?"...particularly hanging there waiting for the sun to go down with the panel to keep you company.

My main observations about this question are:

a. The Great Gallery is meant to be seen from distance around the canyon floor. The pictographs are large.

b. They have an intimidating aspect to them as if to say "Beware! There are great powers here and danger for you!" Note the dark apparitions to the side of the Holy Ghost - they reminded me of "Dementors"! If you view the entire Great Gallery (see reference sites in narrative) the images seem cautionary and often chilling - note this image http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000VLBUC444Gow/s which seems to say "This will be YOU if you go any further!".

c. The pictographs have an incredible amount of artistic skill applied...much more than the typical (and much younger) Anasazi and Fremont images around the Colorado Plateau. Someone spent a LOT of time on this creation and cared a lot about how it looked.

My rather watery conclusions are then:

1. Homage to Deity - Honor their God(s) - Supplicate the Great Powers - Get help for the future

2. Intimidate Intruders - "You are entering an area of great power and danger - think twice before acting up around here!"

3. Decoration - "Honey I love what you've done with the front room"

4. All the above

I've settled on a best guess that is all the above: 1-3 above. But I realize and enjoy the fact that this speculation could be laughably wrong!

Bret

Hey Bret, I for one like the photo, who cares if there was a slight mistake.

Anyway what you should do is visit RJN's APOD inspired short story post and let loose some of your stories, i think its good to hear about people out in the field and their experiences, sitting in caves in Horseshoe canyons or san juan rivers or wherever the hell they are.

Paul.

Thanks Paul!

I appreciate your discussion and support and great recommendation!

Regarding the location of the Ghost Panel and comments asserting it is elsewhere (San Juan River) ...hmmm well I was trying to not be cruel to the commentor who asserted that the panel was actually on the San Juan river...I was trying to be a bit whimsical by facetiously apologizing for myself, various museums, universities, archaeologists, etc that have studied the panel for decades and decades (as if they/we had been going to the wrong place all this time...) and I'm not sure I did it very well...! The point is that this panel is extremely well known....Canyonlands National Park literally has made a "detached unit"...a section of the park not attached to the rest of the park precisely in order to preserve this panel and the few others nearby... There is a fairly famous mural painting(s) of the Great Gallery by "Fawcett" (sp?) made during the Great Depression that will be a centerpiece of the entry to the new building being constructed for the Utah Museum of Natural History. Moab artist Eric Trenbeath of the Framed Image Fine Art Gallery in Moab (http://www.framedimagemoab.com/) paints it extensively and his painting of the Ghost Panel is used as the signature piece/logo for the Moab Arts home page (http://www.moabarts.com/index.html)...someone needs to tell him he's been going to the wrong place!

so when comments come in (with a rather hostile tone btw) that assert "this is a hoax! this isn't even in Canyonlands!" that assertion is so laughable.... it is best not to be too cruel to the commentor. It feels kinda like the "The moon landing was a hoax!" assertion. So I guess what i'm saying is I wasn't actually admitting to being wrong...I meant to be facetious and I did it poorly.

for Ghost Panel location skeptics - here is a link of image collections from the official Canyonlands NP site - see "Great Gallery"

http://www.nps.gov/cany/photosmultimedi ... allery.htm

My hunch is thought that even in the face of official documentation and hundreds if not thousands of similar nighttime images now possible due to advances in camera technology that some will want to ignore/dismiss that evidence and continue to launch provocative and hostile messages across the internet. (any bets?) That's ok - it's a forum for free discussion and I suppose that's part of the action. Those particular comments only embarrassed the originator.

Paul Thanks again for your input and recommendation! ...and the link to the short story area! I will do that! I do wish to share what the feelings are like as the sun sets and dusk settles in and those charged moments while you're waiting to see just exactly where the Milky Way is coming out and how well does it frame into the shot (my planisphere vs compass reading has proven to not always be the most skilled during daylight). At that elevation and low level of light pollution (and no Moon) and when I'm hiking back to the vehicle and if I let my eyes adjust well to the darkness I have seen my shadow on the ground from the Milky Way. It is like this most amazing and meaningful of all movies or shows is playing for free every clear dark night...it makes your heart beat and I'm always a little amazed that there aren't thousands of people out witnessing it and gazing upwards! But there are those who live at sea level in large cities who do not know how visible it can be at night or that it is even a feature of the night sky to the naked eye. ...uhh whoops i'm getting carried away..i'll save it for input to the link you showed me!

by **wonderboy** » Sun May 23, 2010 1:02 pm

Bret Webster wrote:
Mosbycuz3tr wrote:Not that I believe in them, but don't alien buffs cite the next to last figure as a prehistoric astronaut visitor? What are some more sane and sober archaeological musings?
I wanted to respond this central question! This question just begs at you constantly when you're at the site..."Why?"...particularly hanging there waiting for the sun to go down with the panel to keep you company.

My main observations about this question are:

a. The Great Gallery is meant to be seen from distance around the canyon floor. The pictographs are large.

b. They have an intimidating aspect to them as if to say "Beware! There are great powers here and danger for you!" Note the dark apparitions to the side of the Holy Ghost - they reminded me of "Dementors"! If you view the entire Great Gallery (see reference sites in narrative) the images seem cautionary and often chilling - note this image http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000VLBUC444Gow/s which seems to say "This will be YOU if you go any further!".

c. The pictographs have an incredible amount of artistic skill applied...much more than the typical (and much younger) Anasazi and Fremont images around the Colorado Plateau. Someone spent a LOT of time on this creation and cared a lot about how it looked.

My rather watery conclusions are then:

1. Homage to Deity - Honor their God(s) - Supplicate the Great Powers - Get help for the future

2. Intimidate Intruders - "You are entering an area of great power and danger - think twice before acting up around here!"

3. Decoration - "Honey I love what you've done with the front room"

4. All the above

I've settled on a best guess that is all the above: 1-3 above. But I realize and enjoy the fact that this speculation could be laughably wrong!

Bret

Hey Bret, I for one like the photo, who cares if there was a slight mistake.

Anyway what you should do is visit RJN's APOD inspired short story post and let loose some of your stories, i think its good to hear about people out in the field and their experiences, sitting in caves in Horseshoe canyons or san juan rivers or wherever the hell they are.

Paul.

by **wonderboy** » Sun May 23, 2010 12:44 pm

johndmura wrote:This picture and its caption are a hoax

By repeating yourself over and over again, what do you hope to achieve? I have googled the ghost panel (and I understand that google is in no way the be all and end all of searching) and all of the posts regarding the "Ghost Panel" have it located in Horseshoe Canyon.

The San Juan river rock art pictures bear a resembelance, but that is about all. http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q= ... a=N&tab=wi

Now if Bret hadn't admitted that his locationing was wrong I would have stuck up for him here, but instead he has.

So all I can say is that it seems to me to be an easy mistake to make, so get over it, and provide constructive criticism not exclamations about how you have had your leg pulled in a hoax like fashion.

Paul

by **johndmura** » Thu May 20, 2010 11:43 pm

This picture and its caption are a hoax

by **Chris Peterson** » Thu May 20, 2010 9:49 pm

neufer wrote:What about most of the light from the Milky Way?

Wouldn't it come mostly from very young bright stars?

Good question. I'd say no. I think the vast majority of stars in the Milky Way are main sequence, approximately solar mass objects. That makes them at least a few billion years old. Certainly the brightest stars are generally very young, but they are such a small fraction of the total stellar population that I don't think their light output comes close to competing with the older, dimmer stars.

by **neufer** » Thu May 20, 2010 7:29 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
Eclectic Man wrote:Um, how old is the sandstone? It could also be billions of years old.
Canyonlands sandstone was deposited in several episodes,
from about 300 million years ago to about 65 million years ago.

Most of the stars are much older than that.

What about most of the light from the Milky Way?

Wouldn't it come mostly from very young bright stars?

by **Eclectic Man** » Thu May 20, 2010 7:18 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
Eclectic Man wrote:Um, how old is the sandstone? It could also be billions of years old.
Canyonlands sandstone was deposited in several episodes, from about 300 million years ago to about 65 million years ago. Most of the stars are much older than that.

Thanks for informing me of the age of the rocks, Bret and Chris, in any case, I expect that the cliff has not been exposed for billions of years. And it is a superb photo.

by **wonderboy** » Thu May 20, 2010 2:38 pm

Mousetrail wrote:The ancient signs on this earth that can only be read from the air are unmistakeable. Some thing, or sombody, flew over this earth thousands of years ago. There is a resemblance in the Ghost Panel figures and the rock drawings in the Coso Mountain Range at China Lake Navel Station, California. Since the animal drawings there are so correct, it is hard for me to believe that the aborigines suddenly switched from painting what they saw to painting human shaped objects from their imagination. I believe they were "visited" by what was alien to them at the time and they painted what they saw.

This guy would be interested in my "Earth is a Zoo" post. Its like we were part of some kind of catch and release programme. Saved from our imminent extinction, rehabilitated with the help of aliens who helped to create our first civilisations, once this was done they decided to leave us be. Its a bit like catching a lion who has been injured by his pack, rehabilitating him then putting him back into the wild somewhere else. If we can do it to other species on THIS planet, why couldnt much more advanced aliens (at the time) do it to a race of "humans?" I say "humans" because they wouldnt call us humans lol.

It kind of justifies itself in a way.

Paul

by **Bret Webster** » Thu May 20, 2010 2:30 pm

owlice wrote:
bystander wrote:Nice shot, Bret. Congratulations on your APOD. And welcome to the Asterisk*. Hope we see more of your work.
Yes, welcome, Bret! (Hiya!)

Another of Bret's images can be seen on this thread.

Thanks Owlice and Bystander! Glad to meet! and enjoy the forum very much! I know it takes a lot of work to keep it going and there are a lot of folks who are grateful!

Bret

by **Bret Webster** » Thu May 20, 2010 2:00 pm

Mosbycuz3tr wrote:Not that I believe in them, but don't alien buffs cite the next to last figure as a prehistoric astronaut visitor? What are some more sane and sober archaeological musings?

I wanted to respond this central question! This question just begs at you constantly when you're at the site..."Why?"...particularly hanging there waiting for the sun to go down with the panel to keep you company.

My main observations about this question are:

a. The Great Gallery is meant to be seen from distance around the canyon floor. The pictographs are large.

b. They have an intimidating aspect to them as if to say "Beware! There are great powers here and danger for you!" Note the dark apparitions to the side of the Holy Ghost - they reminded me of "Dementors"! If you view the entire Great Gallery (see reference sites in narrative) the images seem cautionary and often chilling - note this image http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000VLBUC444Gow/s which seems to say "This will be YOU if you go any further!".

c. The pictographs have an incredible amount of artistic skill applied...much more than the typical (and much younger) Anasazi and Fremont images around the Colorado Plateau. Someone spent a LOT of time on this creation and cared a lot about how it looked.

My rather watery conclusions are then:

1. Homage to Deity - Honor their God(s) - Supplicate the Great Powers - Get help for the future

2. Intimidate Intruders - "You are entering an area of great power and danger - think twice before acting up around here!"

3. Decoration - "Honey I love what you've done with the front room"

4. All the above

I've settled on a best guess that is all the above: 1-3 above. But I realize and enjoy the fact that this speculation could be laughably wrong!

Bret

by **owlice** » Thu May 20, 2010 12:33 pm

bystander wrote:Nice shot, Bret. Congratulations on your APOD. And welcome to the Asterisk*. Hope we see more of your work.

Yes, welcome, Bret! (Hiya!)

Another of Bret's images can be seen on this thread.

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)

Re: APOD: Milky Way Over Ancient Ghost Panel (2010 May 19)