APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22) Retracted

RedLionNJ · Post by **RedLionNJ** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:58 am

I am not sure if it could be accurately assessed just how genuine the same imager's ISS transit of Jupiter from June 9 of last year actually is.

Personally, I was one of the 'early doubters' of the Saturn image - it was literally too good to be real.

The Jupiter image by the same gentleman is of substantially lower resolution/sharpness and based on that criteria alone, stands a much greater probability of being genuine. I think anyone would find it difficult at this point to reverse-engineer the changes in the ISS' orbit back over a seven-month period to verify if it really did transit Jupiter from near Dulmen. Note the imager does not claim a specific time or location for this event. Jupiter would have been in the south-west sky in the evening, which is a perfectly reasonable direction for the ISS to approach from and appear less than its maximum size (due to distance).

The transit of Jupiter shows no hyper-sharp ISS due to the stacking of hundreds or even tens of exposures. I find this far more believable than the transit of Saturn, where the ISS was extremely sharp. The off-disk images during the transit of Jupiter are also a little over-exposed. Again, this would be a to-be-expected shortcoming (not a mistake) of somebody's initial attempts at capturing such an occasion.

So, despite the relative lack of supplementary information provided regarding the Jupiter event, I see no reason to cast it in the same mold as this January's Saturn event.

owlice · Post by **owlice** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:54 am

Stephen, everyone...

This image appeared on Friday. Please note that 1.) it's the weekend; 2.) it's very likely the editor for this image was not at work on Friday, or at least, did not work a full day, as he's in the DC area (as am I), and the US Government in DC shut down at noon because of a severe winter storm (which ended last night). Not everyone is completely tethered to their work email, and certainly the APOD editors are as entitled to have personal lives as you are. (BTW, Federal Government offices in the DC area are shut down again tomorrow; some of us are still digging out (literally) from the storm. Roads are impassable, etc. and so on.)

Please have a little patience and allow the editors to have the same time free from their jobs as you have from yours.

Thanks.

Alice

David Arditti · Post by **David Arditti** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:38 am

Here's Julian Wessel's image of the recenrt Venus-Saturn conjunction (which I actually did image) stretched in Photoshop. It's another cut-and-paste job.http://staglaneobservatory.co.uk/wessel-venus-saturn/

Thierry Legault · Post by **Thierry Legault** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:02 am

Alice, first of all I would like to congratulate all APOD editors for the good work they have done for us during all those years, presenting exciting pictures and information. They are not imaging specialists and then it's difficult for me to blame them for having been fooled.

However I would respectfully suggest to learn lessons from this affair, which IMO is serious because it can cast suspicion on imaging community, specially with regard to non-astronomical media who may now hesitate to publish exceptional pictures. All the more that this is not the first time that APOD is subject to fakes! If you keep old e-mails, you'll find out one that I sent you in September 2012, titled "Fake images in Space Weather and APOD by (xxx)", demonstrating that a picture of the sunset (or sunrise) over Paris was a photomontage (impossible to take as claimed by the author, who released several other fake images on the web before disappearing without replying to questions).
And perhaps you also remember a discussion we had about a picture of the ISS, published in 2009 and supposed to show an astronaut in EVA, while the global resolution of the picture was not consistent at all with such obviously excessive and non-demonstrated claim from the author.
Please note that for those two discussions, I would really have appreciated to get a feedback from APOD editors about their conclusions, unfortunately I didn't (...so far

).

Regards

alter-ego · Post by **alter-ego** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:06 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
Julian Wessel wrote:Nevertheless I will prove that it's possible to make this catch as perfect as shown.
I'm confused. Did I or did I not see an actual video of this (looking as I'd expect, with everything fuzzy and aberrated) on your site yesterday? I do recall looking at something like that, quite distinct from the Jupiter transit video.

I agree - having also seen it, I'm confused too.
If that fuzzy video is the original capture, I'm reasonably content with transit being a successful, albeit lucky, accomplishment; if not, I feel bad for Julian

RedLionNJ wrote:
... I think anyone would find it difficult at this point to reverse-engineer the changes in the ISS' orbit back over a seven-month period to verify if it really did transit Jupiter from near Dulmen. Note the imager does not claim a specific time or location for this event. Jupiter would have been in the south-west sky in the evening, which is a perfectly reasonable direction for the ISS to approach from and appear less than its maximum size (due to distance).

Having the time and location would allow the transit to be "reversed engineered." For my own interest, I've been looking in detail at the Saturn transit purely from the acquisition perspective and prediction probability - I'm tending to conclude one would have to be lucky to event catch an off-centered disk transit. Technically, the same analysis could be done for the Jupiter transit.

Tom Harradine · Post by **Tom Harradine** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:21 am

I have analysed Julian's Jupiter image and it is perfectly consistent with what he describes. See this link here for a comparison with Stellarium at the time and other analyses:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... tif_t=like
In my experience it would be harder to fake this one with all the right effects and imperfections than to actually go out to the site, within the predicted distance of the shadow path, and image the event! I have imaged the HST going right over Jupiter so I know what I am talking about.

Cut the guy a break - he has made a mistake but he doesn't deserve all his work to be thrown out in public without due analysis.

Julian, if you are reading this, don't be disheartened, learn from your mistake, and move on upward. Your Jupiter transit shot is excellent, and that is from one of the few people who have been able to capture a transit of the planet.

Dan Llewellyn · Post by **Dan Llewellyn** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:30 am

Tom, why in the world would you sympathize with a fraudster? Oh, excuse me I cheated on my final exam, but I did the coursework, shouldn't I still pass? Fraud and deceit cannot be trivialized, otherwise it will happen again. And YES, ALL of his work should be suspect now, that is the PRICE YOU PAY FOR DECEIT....G, what is wrong with people?

owlice · Post by **owlice** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:48 am

Thierry Legault wrote:Alice, first of all I would like to congratulate all APOD editors for the good work they have done for us during all those years, presenting exciting pictures and information. They are not imaging specialists and then it's difficult for me to blame them for having been fooled.

However I would respectifully suggest to learn lessons from this affair, which IMO is serious because it can cast suspicion on imaging community, specially with regard to non-astronomical media who may now hesitate to publish exceptional pictures. All the more that this is not the first time that APOD is subject to fakes! If you keep old e-mails, you'll find out one that I sent you in September 2012, titled "Fake images in Space Weather and APOD by (xxx)", demonstrating that a picture of the sunset (or sunrise) over Paris was a photomontage (impossible to take as claimed by the author, who released several other fake images on the web before disappearing without replying to questions).
And perhaps you also remember a discussion we had about a picture of the ISS, published in 2009 and supposed to show an astronaut in EVA, while the global resolution of the picture was not consistent at all with such obviously excessive and non-demonstrated claim from the author.
Please note that for those two discussions, I would really have appreciated to get a feedback from APOD editors, unfortunately I didn't (...so far ).

Regards

Thierry,

Of course they learn lessons when such things happen, chief among them that if an image on APOD is not real, the community will certainly let them know about it. (Ho boy, do they ever!!

) It is not terribly surprising that in more than 20 years of daily images, some of them wouldn't be what they initially seemed (or as represented to the editors). The number is remarkably small, however.

Yes, I well remember our exchanges re: previous images. Silence from the editors doesn't mean they don't pay attention or don't take concerns seriously -- they do. But they are really busy, have full-time jobs they have to do, and get a lot of email; answering every email would leave less time to write new APODs, so I think it's better that sometimes, they don't hit the reply button!

Alice

geckzilla · Post by **geckzilla** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:52 am

I've got a long running joke between myself and Alice that Jerry is actually some kind of ghost. Checking my history, I have gotten about one email per year from him in the last 5 years. I'm finally leaning toward him being real at this point.

owlice · Post by **owlice** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:59 am

He is real, I swear!! I've met him!! Or at least, I've met someone who said he was Jerry.... hmmmmm...... maybe I should have asked for ID.

Tom Harradine · Post by **Tom Harradine** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:07 am

I'm sorry, I don't know your name. Please tell me if I got something wrong in my analysis and I will correct it and also stand corrected. The point of my post was twofold: 1. to demonstrate the Jupiter image is consistent with it being a legitimate image of the event and 2. for people here to not be so harsh on the guy - he's a young bloke with lots to learn and, by the looks of it, lots to offer. Should he suffer the rest of his life? No. Should his work be subject to due scrutiny? Yes. The claim that his Jupiter image is fake is founded in mistrust, but not supported in fact. Saying it was fake without any supporting evidence is just as unscientific and as him submitting - and APOD posting - an unreal image. I am taking no "sides". Calling it into question is fine. I did that, and have found the Jupiter image to be OK in my experience. The Saturn image? No.

BTW here is my video of the HST in front of Jupiter https://www.flickr.com/photos/vontom/6095801209

Cheers,

Tom

Dan Llewellyn · Post by **Dan Llewellyn** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:48 am

The issue is not the Jupiter ISS video......your statement that it is teal is a red herring....the issue is why are you so quick to defend this guy? If the police find stolen goods in a persons house, it is NOT a defense that the individual produces receipts for other goods in the house, but look, I did pay for these!......they are not related....your reasoning is flawed....

geckzilla · Post by **geckzilla** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:49 am

Guest wrote:The issue is not the Jupiter ISS video......your statement that it is teal is a red herring....the issue is why are you so quick to defend this guy? If the police find stolen goods in a persons house, it is NOT a defense that the individual produces receipts for other goods in the house, but look, I did pay for these!......they are not related....your reasoning is flawed....

Put your name in your future posts or don't post at all. This is not the place to anonymously castigate anyone. If you're so comfortable with your opinion then we deserve to know who you are.

gadieid · Post by **gadieid** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:52 am

So we actually got "What can be done if you are at the right place at the right time and have have a camera than can freeze the ISS ans still get Saturn sharp with so many details". In other words this is a simulation. Only that one word was missing o give a whole new perspective and would not cause all this fuss and inconvenience.

I take a lesson for myself. If something looks too good to be true, check a bit further. We use the term "Sharp thinking" for that. I photoed a video of the ISS transit the moon in 30fps (That what the camera has) and it is smudged, so in 42FPS it can't be much different. But as being "naive" and not thinking that someone will try to present a composition as "real" without mentioning it, no alarms bells were ringing. Thanks all of you for the explanations and it is a great lesson in how to check things more thoroughly.

Here it is anyway , I hope I will have some other chances but from last year it didn't happen again near my area.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

geckzilla · Post by **geckzilla** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:53 am

Tom Harradine wrote:BTW here is my video of the HST in front of Jupiter https://www.flickr.com/photos/vontom/6095801209

Hah, I love it, Tom. The metallic covering makes it brighter than I thought it would.

Dan Llewellyn · Post by **Dan Llewellyn** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:17 am

Excuse me! Sorry I show up as a guest, my name is Dan Llewellyn and Stephen Ramsden and I were the ones that originally spotted the fake Saturn...I assumed this forum would show my name via Facebook , but I guess not.

Dan Llewellyn · Post by **Dan Llewellyn** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:19 am

And my original point still applies.

geckzilla · Post by **geckzilla** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:20 am

Guest wrote:Excuse me! Sorry I show up as a guest, my name is Dan Llewellyn and Stephen Ramsden and I were the ones that originally spotted the fake Saturn...I assumed this forum would show my name via Facebook , but I guess not.

Thanks. There's a line just above the posting area, around where you have to prove you aren't a robot. You can change it from Guest to Dan.

Tom Harradine · Post by **Tom Harradine** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:20 am

Thanks Geck

check out the difference between the HST and Saturn :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/vontom/60 ... otostream/

Tom Harradine · Post by **Tom Harradine** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:50 am

Hi Dan - no worries, I understand about the guest thing. The Jupiter image is what it purports to be, the Saturn one isn't. Saying the Jupiter image is fake, without evidence, is wrong. That's not defending anyone personally, only stating facts. I saw unsubstantiated claims that had started to spread and wanted to correct it. The other thing I am saying, which is personally about Julian, is: "Cut the guy a break - he has made a mistake but he doesn't deserve all his work to be thrown out in public without due analysis." (Note due analysis). His Jupiter image is impressive and there's nothing wrong with stating that. I don't defend his actions but I defend him as a human being who has made a mistake. He is young and I hope there is scope for him to recover from it.

Cheers,

Tom

Ian Ridpath · Post by **Ian Ridpath** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:09 am

Did everyone miss David Arditti's posting further up the page about JW's image of of the recent Venus–Saturn conjunction? David concludes: "It's another cut-and-paste job". Two "mistakes" by the same imager are indeed unfortunate.

geckzilla · Post by **geckzilla** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:42 am

Ian Ridpath wrote:Did everyone miss David Arditti's posting further up the page about JW's image of of the recent Venus–Saturn conjunction? David concludes: "It's another cut-and-paste job". Two "mistakes" by the same imager are indeed unfortunate.

I did. To me, it's not clear whether the hard lines were caused by some attempt to remove background noise and make it flat black or if it is indeed another paste job. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen hard lines hiding in the darks. Lots of people make that mistake. Good practice to brighten the image up at the end and check. I've got a brighter monitor than most people so I see a lot of stuff others miss.

Ted Molczan · Post by **Ted Molczan** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:45 am

I co-administer the SeeSat-L mailing list for visual satellite observers. For nearly five years, we have had a policy that states the minimum required supporting information for reports of high resolution ground-based imagery of Earth satellites, which appears on the list's home page, under Rules and Guidelines:

http://satobs.org/seesat/seesatindex.html

We debated this policy on-list before acting. The consultation began in August 2010, with the following post that described the issues and proposed possible solutions:

http://satobs.org/seesat/Aug-2010/0134.html

Most controversial, was the requirement that a link to raw frames, or a notice of their availability upon request, be placed in close proximity to the finished product. The need for this arose due to disputes regarding reports of high-resolution results, and the unwillingness of some to adequately support their claims. It is bad enough when there are disagreements regarding what is visible in imagery of well-known objects like ISS, but when someone claims to be able to describe a secret spy satellite, like KH-11 or Lacrosse, based on ground-based imagery, we need to be able to evaluate the reasonableness of the claim.

Ted Molczan

geckzilla · Post by **geckzilla** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:50 am

Ted Molczan wrote:I co-administer the SeeSat-L mailing list for visual satellite observers.

Oh boy, I bet you've seen some silly stuff.

Thierry Legault · Post by **Thierry Legault** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 12:23 pm

Tom Harradine wrote: BTW here is my video of the HST in front of Jupiter https://www.flickr.com/photos/vontom/6095801209

nice catch Tom!

Being not native English, I checked my dictionary and here is the definition of "mistake": an action or decision that is wrong or produces a result that is not correct or not intended. It can be for example someone who recorded a bird passing in front of the Moon or the Sun and thinking it's a satellite (quite common situation). In our case aren't we more in the definition of "fake": an object that is made to look real or valuable in order to deceive people ?
Anyway, I agree that it's probably not necessary to blame him further, we can hope that he (and others who could be tempted to copy) has understood the seriousness of his actions.

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22) Retracted

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)

Re: APOD: ISS Transits Saturn (2016 Jan 22)