Starship Asterisk*

Chris Peterson wrote:

geckzilla wrote:I probably would have done it anyway... nothing pushes my buttons more than new users who pop in here just to try to bring someone down.

Makes you wish you could use the puppet warp tool on them, does it?

geckzilla wrote:I probably would have done it anyway... nothing pushes my buttons more than new users who pop in here just to try to bring someone down.

tjerome wrote:

geckzilla wrote:http://www.geckzilla.com/apod/AuroraIce ... _swap.html

Wow--that's an impressive demonstration. I gather you used some sort of plate solve to superimpose the star names over the photo, but how did you make the second slide match up perfectly and package it into a clickable demo? I'd love to know how to make a comparison like that.
Ted

geckzilla wrote:

spider72 wrote:Oh really ? Can you see The Plough over the South-East horizon there ?

This picture is a fake without a doubt.

It matches up perfectly. Keep in mind that the photographer used a wide angle lens, which is most apparent given the distortion of Jupiter in the upper right corner. Ursa Major is toward the southwest, but it is nearly over head. Were you standing there, you would have to look almost straight up. Here's an overlay of a Stellarium screenshot and the APOD. Click the image to swap back and forth. There is no evidence the photo is not real or that the photographer set out to deceive. Please apologize.
http://www.geckzilla.com/apod/AuroraIce ... _swap.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_Borealis_%28painting%29 wrote:

[b][color=#0000FF]Aurora Borealis (Frederic Edwin Church, 1865)[/color][/b]

---

<<Aurora Borealis is an 1865 painting by Frederic Edwin Church of the aurora borealis and the Arctic expedition of Dr. Isaac Hayes. The painting measures 56 × 84 1/2 in. and is now owned by the Smithsonian American Art Museum. The iconography of the painting suggested personal and nationalistic references. The peak in the painting had been named Mount Church during Hayes's expedition. Aurora Borealis incorporated details of Hayes' ship, drawn from a sketch he brought back upon returning from his expedition. Contrasting with his earlier works The North and The Icebergs (1861), the intact ship highlights Hayes' achievements in navigating this space, as well as the state of the nation in navigating this contentious historical moment. Presenting the ship's safe passage through the eerie experience, Church suggested optimism for the future with a tiny light shining out from the ship's window.>>

locobonobo wrote:Gosh, that's all very clever guys. But in questioning the photos' veracity shouldn't you also consider that the aurora appears to be directly illuminating the surface of the sea. Is this possible from 10000 feet?

Boomer12k wrote:You mean you cannot see aurora at all from that position?????

You mean like THIS aurora picture taken around the same area????

:---[===] *

neufer wrote:

geckzilla wrote:
FYI spider72 will no longer be able to view or respond to the posts in this thread.

What No binding spider72 with the entrails of one of his kids and
placing a serpent to drip venom from above causing him to writhe in pain
(The moderators are really getting soft.)

geckzilla wrote:
FYI spider72 will no longer be able to view or respond to the posts in this thread.

gmPhil wrote:Does anyone know what that rectangular formation in the rock at lower left of the photo is?

spider72 wrote:Oh really ? Can you see The Plough over the South-East horizon there ?

This picture is a fake without a doubt.

spider72 wrote:Yes I know Chris. I was only making a point proving that there is discrepancy between landscape and sky and that it's not a real picture. Picture like this can never be seen from that location unless we will be hit with large asteroid which will tilt the Earth axis. But I guess there would be nobody to watch it after that event ;).

spider72 wrote:If you will extrapolate position of the Polaris in the picture, it will be roughly over the left edge of the frame. So to take shot like this, with sea stacks (rocks) more or less in the center of the frame would require lens with field of view over 180 degrees (refer to the shot plan above). Only fisheye lenses can achieve that and this was not shot with fisheye lens because there is no fisheye distortions in the picture, which would be severe taking into account how low the horizon is in the shot. Extreme wide angle lens (say 14mm) on full frame camera has FOV just over 100 degree.