Starship Asterisk*

Confused wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: Yes, different motivations. But they are all operating with the same epistemological defect, a refusal to accept convincing photographic evidence if it conflicts with their existing biases.

Something like "climate-change doubters"? And the fact that water definitely exists on Mars? Science is evolving and it is no longer necessary to have clear and convincing evidence of the truth.

It was never necessary to have "clear and convincing evidence". But it is silly to not have a high degree of confidence in anything which actually is supported by such evidence. Just as it is silly to have a high degree of confidence in anything that isn't.

What we "believe" should be weighed by the amount and quality of supporting evidence.

Chris Peterson wrote: Yes, different motivations. But they are all operating with the same epistemological defect, a refusal to accept convincing photographic evidence if it conflicts with their existing biases.

Something like "climate-change doubters"? And the fact that water definitely exists on Mars? Science is evolving and it is no longer necessary to have clear and convincing evidence of the truth.

bobFranke wrote:That's a beautiful shot. But good grief, man!

With all the involved planning, why not take the extra five or 10 minutes to touch up the dust bunnies that are sooo distracting.

Well, I guess the "dust bunnies" should stay. :-}

Chris Peterson wrote:... Yes, different motivations. But they are all operating with the same epistemological defect, a refusal to accept convincing photographic evidence if it conflicts with their existing biases.

Apropos of which...
Rob

geckzilla wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

geckzilla wrote: I'm not sure that would prove anything to the doubters. I don't doubt it, myself. Some people I think know a little too much to accept photos at face value, but not quite enough to tell the difference when it's actually a well-executed, rarely, or never-before seen photo.

We have pictures of humans walking on the Moon, and there are still people who don't believe it!

To be fair, most of those people probably have different motivations, and that is an important distinction.

Yes, different motivations. But they are all operating with the same epistemological defect, a refusal to accept convincing photographic evidence if it conflicts with their existing biases.

Chris Peterson wrote:

geckzilla wrote:

Elias Chasiotis wrote:For those who still doubt that the photo is a single shot: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YLiqrwjIPIQ

I'm not sure that would prove anything to the doubters. I don't doubt it, myself. Some people I think know a little too much to accept photos at face value, but not quite enough to tell the difference when it's actually a well-executed, rarely, or never-before seen photo.

We have pictures of humans walking on the Moon, and there are still people who don't believe it!

To be fair, most of those people probably have different motivations, and that is an important distinction.

geckzilla wrote:

Elias Chasiotis wrote:For those who still doubt that the photo is a single shot: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YLiqrwjIPIQ

I'm not sure that would prove anything to the doubters. I don't doubt it, myself. Some people I think know a little too much to accept photos at face value, but not quite enough to tell the difference when it's actually a well-executed, rarely, or never-before seen photo.

We have pictures of humans walking on the Moon, and there are still people who don't believe it!

Elias Chasiotis wrote:For those who still doubt that the photo is a single shot: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YLiqrwjIPIQ

I'm not sure that would prove anything to the doubters. I don't doubt it, myself. Some people I think know a little too much to accept photos at face value, but not quite enough to tell the difference when it's actually a well-executed, rarely, or never-before seen photo.

For those who still doubt that the photo is a single shot: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YLiqrwjIPIQ

barneywolff wrote:I understand that Smith Rock is toward the south border of the totality zone, but still, how did that make the "diamond ring" appear where it does in the photo?

Oh good angle on this question, haha pun intended. Simply by moving laterally one could "put" the diamond ring at any position on the clock.

Just imagine the eclipse paused for a moment, that the circular umbra, the area of totality, were stopped on the ground. Then simply by walking around that circle, the edge of totality, one would see the diamond ring likewise walk 360 degrees around the sun.

Or imagine the umbra was 1 foot in diameter. Then one could easily move their head in a circle and make the diamond ring appear to move in a circle around the sun.

Conclusion: The orientation of the diamond ring is - by itself - no clue as to where along the track you are.

Without claiming that the pic is faked, I am confused by the location of the diamond ring effect. Can somebody who is better informed about the precise geometry explain it. I understand that Smith Rock is toward the south border of the totality zone, but still, how did that make the "diamond ring" appear where it does in the photo?

Knight of Clear Skies wrote:Mystery solved. There is a short video here which shows lots of insects flying through the shot, and a fine selection of images before and after totality.

And yet... the none of the shots are THIS shot... he is too far left... they would have had to change camera placement to do it... which they may well have done, but some show him before, during, and after the "diamond ring" effect...

It still makes you wonder....

:---[===] *

Chris Peterson wrote:the difference is that the second from last character needs to be a capital "G", not the lower case "g" you have in the caption link.

Thanks (again). That fixed it.

Having been to Smith Rock a number of times, I immediately recognised these as bugs.

Smith Rock is an extraordinary place under ordinary circumstances, it must have been amazing during the eclipse!

Who said there is no i9ntelligent life here ? and very artistic ) Maybe in Wash DC but here ? Vast amounts populate thisplace. I watche NASA tv yedsterday and it was a tribute to the Voyager space program and there was a lady on the end of the panel, whose name was " Anna " . Very passionate. Who is she ? And the others not only passionate, also PHD's in science. Very happy to see the other side of cable tv. My father always told me not to watch just one channel Macular degeneration makes it a bit more challenging.

In the NASA APOD's text, I have now added the astrophotographers name to the front of the list of people leading this great photographic effort.
- RJN

DonTaylor wrote:I call BS on this one.

I call BS on you. Maybe you should read the other comments before adding your own. Maybe you should follow the links and read about how this image was made, how many people were there when it was made, and watch the related video.

I call BS on this one. I plugged in his location at Monkey Face Rock, north of Redmond. He would have had to be standing north of the the rock tower facing south east. The diamond ring would have appeared at roughly 2 and 7 o’clock, not 5 o’clock like in the picture. The little trapezoid pattern of stars to the right don’t show up in any of my planetarium apps. I’ve yet to see a diamond ring image with the much corona visible, except this one. I guess the "stars" on the disk of the moon are either "the ones the astronauts had to navigate around when the went to the moon" or the moon really is "made of swiss cheese" and that's sunlight shining through. And of course, the eclipse is out of focus, which hides a lot of photoshop flaws, while the rock and climber are in focus. Who shots an eclipse and focuses on the foreground? A BS shot all the way around. Reasonably good photoshop work, but it does an injustice to those of us who do real astro imaging.

RJN wrote:

BobStein-VisiBone wrote:One letter is wrong in the video link, it should be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgAksIb1NGo

Thanks for pointing this out. Which letter is wrong? I just tried to fix this by cursor-copying the YouTube string -- but the same error results. Any ideas why?

Not sure what's going wrong with your copy/paste, but the difference is that the second from last character needs to be a capital "G", not the lower case "g" you have in the caption link.

So... it's the bugs doing the photo-bombing.

BobStein-VisiBone wrote:One letter is wrong in the video link, it should be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgAksIb1NGo

Thanks for pointing this out. Which letter is wrong? I just tried to fix this by cursor-copying the YouTube string -- but the same error results. Any ideas why?

Greg Parker wrote:He could have left the bug bright spots in deliberately in an attempt to short-circuit "fake" or "Photoshopped" comments which seem to abound when someone produces a beautiful image well beyond the average person's capabilties. Superb image!!!

I like the spots. I immediately recognized them as bugs or floating seeds, as I saw the same thing visually from Wyoming and caught some in my photos, as well. I think they add another layer of depth.

He could have left the bug bright spots in deliberately in an attempt to short-circuit "fake" or "Photoshopped" comments which seem to abound when someone produces a beautiful image well beyond the average person's capabilties. Superb image!!!

Wow, what a way to experience the eclipse! Excellent image!

Mystery solved. There is a short video here which shows lots of insects flying through the shot, and a fine selection of images before and after totality.