APOD: Unwrapped: Five Decade Old Lunar Selfie (2021 Sep 27)

[APOD Robot]

Unwrapped: Five Decade Old Lunar Selfie

Explanation: Here is one of the most famous pictures from the Moon -- but digitally reversed. Apollo 11 landed on the moon in 1969 and soon thereafter many pictures were taken, including an iconic picture of Buzz Aldrin taken by Neil Armstrong. The original image captured not only the magnificent desolation of an unfamiliar world, but Armstrong himself reflected in Aldrin's curved visor. Enter modern digital technology. In the featured image, the spherical distortion from Aldrin's helmet has been reversed. The result is the famous picture -- but now featuring Armstrong himself from Aldrin's perspective. Even so, since Armstrong took the picture, the image is effectively a five-decade old lunar selfie. The original visor reflection is shown on the left, while Earth hangs in the lunar sky on the upper right. A foil-wrapped leg of the Eagle lander is prominently visible. Preparations to return humans to the Moon in the next few years include the Artemis program, an international collaboration led by NASA.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[De58te]

I don't mean to be a spoil sport, but if that is the American flag on the far left, the first flag planted on the Moon, I hate to say it, but I think they planted it upside down.

[JohnBohlen]

The story is told that Buzz Aldrin was upset that HE wasn't the first man to walk on the Moon's surface. Armstrong was chosen because he was a civilian -- NASA wanted to emphasize that they were not military. Therefore, Aldrin refused to photograph Armstrong on the Moon, despite many admonitions from the ground to do so.
Upon return to Earth, Aldrin was asked to retire form the Astronaut Corps.

[orin stepanek]

We are going back!

buzz_a11.gif (61.89 KiB) Viewed 5711 times

Smile Buzz!

Most beautiful world!! No aliens here!

[tomatoherd]

Artemis program, huh?
Just what the universe needs, for earth to export its PC culture, quotas, etc.
How about just sending whoever is the most qualified, and to h@ll with what gender or color they are?
What next, galactic cancel culture?
Lunar handicap access???

[Chris Peterson]

Artemis program, huh?
Just what the universe needs, for earth to export its PC culture, quotas, etc.
How about just sending whoever is the most qualified, and to h@ll with what gender or color they are?
What next, galactic cancel culture?
Lunar handicap access???

The way to deal with systemic discrimination is to deal with it. No reason to think that the people chosen won't be as qualified as necessary. The idea is not to allow the filters that have kept them from consideration in the past.

[neufer]

The story is told that Buzz Aldrin was upset that HE wasn't the first man to walk on the Moon's surface. Armstrong was chosen because he was a civilian -- NASA wanted to emphasize that they were not military. Therefore, Aldrin refused to photograph Armstrong on the Moon, despite many admonitions from the ground to do so.

Upon return to Earth, Aldrin was asked to retire form the Astronaut Corps.

• Upon return to Earth, non of the Apollo astronauts were going to be used again as anything other than PR.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Armstrong on the Moon

---

<<Deke Slayton gave Armstrong the option to replace Aldrin with Lovell, since some thought Aldrin was difficult to work with. Armstrong thought it over for a day before declining. He had no issues working with Aldrin, and thought Lovell deserved his own command. Early versions of the EVA checklist had the Lunar Module Pilot as the first to step onto the lunar surface. However, when Aldrin learned that this might be amended, he lobbied within NASA for the original procedure to be followed. Multiple factors contributed to the final decision, including the physical positioning of the astronauts within the compact lunar lander, which made it easier for Armstrong to be the first to exit the spacecraft. Furthermore, there was little support for Aldrin's views among senior astronauts who would command later Apollo missions. Collins has commented that he thought Aldrin "resents not being first on the Moon more than he appreciates being second". Aldrin's first words after he set foot on the Moon were "Beautiful view", to which Armstrong asked "Isn't that something? Magnificent sight out here." Aldrin answered, "Magnificent desolation." Aldrin and Armstrong had trouble erecting the Lunar Flag Assembly, but with some effort secured it into the surface. Aldrin saluted the flag and Armstrong took an iconic photo of the scene. Most of the iconic photographs of an astronaut on the Moon taken by the Apollo 11 astronauts are of Aldrin; Armstrong appears in just two color photographs. "As the sequence of lunar operations evolved," Aldrin explained, "Neil had the camera most of the time, and the majority of the pictures taken on the Moon that include an astronaut are of me. It wasn't until we were back on Earth and in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory looking over the pictures that we realized there were few pictures of Neil. My fault perhaps, but we had never simulated this during our training." With the Apollo program coming to an end, Aldrin, now a colonel, saw few prospects at NASA, and decided to return to the Air Force on July 1, 1971.>>

[tomatoherd]

Artemis program, huh?
Just what the universe needs, for earth to export its PC culture, quotas, etc.
How about just sending whoever is the most qualified, and to h@ll with what gender or color they are?
What next, galactic cancel culture?
Lunar handicap access???

The way to deal with systemic discrimination is to deal with it. No reason to think that the people chosen won't be as qualified as necessary. The idea is not to allow the filters that have kept them from consideration in the past.

No doubt your statement is true.
But I suspect Artemis and like programs go beyond just "not allowing the filters.."
To a hammer, everything is a nail. To a communist, every problem is rooted in class. To a social justice warrior, every problem is rooted in race.
Only history will be able to tell if all these preferences accomplish good or just breed resentment.
If there is new scientific knowledge to be gained, Artemis might be worthwhile. If it is just to put minorities or genders on the moon, it is a colossal waste of resources.
When Aldrin and Armstrong walked on the moon, they represented all mankind, red, yellow, black and white, every gender, rich and poor, the healthy and the handicapped. All the world watched in awe and rejoiced. They represented US, humankind.
Sure, they found themselves strapped in those seats due to certain filters, privileges, and a nation's largesse to spend money on science alone. But they took the risk for all of us. Risking your life is not an entitlement.
The current new moderns are dividers and bean counters, nay-sayers and perpetual victims, and they slap on more filters than anyone in 1969. Where the new mentality will end is not yet known. But I'll take the old.

[neufer]

Artemis program, huh?

Just what the universe needs, for earth to export its PC culture, quotas, etc.
How about just sending whoever is the most qualified, and to h@ll with what gender or color they are?
What next, galactic cancel culture?
Lunar handicap access???

The way to deal with systemic discrimination is to deal with it. No reason to think that the people chosen won't be as qualified as necessary. The idea is not to allow the filters that have kept them from consideration in the past.

<<Herostratus (Ἡρόστρατος) was a 4th-century BC Greek, accused of seeking notoriety as an arsonist by destroying the second Temple of Artemis in Ephesus. The conclusion prompted the creation of a damnatio memoriae law forbidding anyone to mention his name, orally or in writing. The law was ultimately ineffective, as evidenced by mentions of his existence in modern works and parlance. Thus, Herostratus has become an eponym for someone who commits a criminal act in order to become famous.

A modern 1:25 scale model of the Temple of Artemis, at Miniatürk, Istanbul, Turkey

---

Archeological evidence indicates the site of the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus had been of sacred use since the Bronze Age, and the original building was destroyed during a flood in the 7th century BC. A second temple was commissioned by King Croesus of Lydia around 560 BC and built by Cretan architects including Chersiphron, constructed largely of marble, and measuring 337 feet long and 180 feet wide with its pillars standing 40 feet tall. The sculpted bases of the pillars contained life-sized carvings and the roof opened to the sky around a statue of Artemis. The second temple was included on an early list of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World by Herodotus in the 5th century BC, and was well known in ancient times.

According to tradition, the fire that destroyed the second temple was set on the day Alexander the Great was born, 21 July 356 BC. To dissuade those of similar intentions, the Ephesian authorities not only executed Herostratus, but attempted to condemn him to a legacy of obscurity by forbidding mention of his name under penalty of death. However, the ancient historian Theopompus, who was not Ephesian but rather Chian, mentions the name of Herostratus in his Philippica, and it appears again later in the works of Strabo. It is said that in fact his name has outlived the names of his judges, and in his 1658 work Hydriotaphia Sir Thomas Browne states:

• But the iniquity of oblivion blindly scattereth her poppy, and deals with the memory of men without distinction to merit of perpetuity. [...] Herostratus lives that burnt the Temple of Diana, he is almost lost that built it [...] Who knows whether the best of men be known? or whether there be not more remarkable persons forgot, than any that stand remembred in the known account of time?

Work on a third temple at the site began in 323 BC, resulting in a larger and more ornate temple that would be included by Antipater of Sidon as one of Seven Wonders of the Ancient World:

• I have set eyes on the wall of lofty Babylon on which is a road for chariots, and the statue of Zeus by the Alpheus, and the hanging gardens, and the colossus of the Sun, and the huge labour of the high pyramids, and the vast tomb of Mausolus; but when I saw the house of Artemis that mounted to the clouds, those other marvels lost their brilliancy, and I said, "Lo, apart from Olympus, the Sun never looked on aught so grand.">>

[Eclectic Man]

The story is told that Buzz Aldrin was upset that HE wasn't the first man to walk on the Moon's surface. Armstrong was chosen because he was a civilian -- NASA wanted to emphasize that they were not military. Therefore, Aldrin refused to photograph Armstrong on the Moon, despite many admonitions from the ground to do so.
Upon return to Earth, Aldrin was asked to retire form the Astronaut Corps.

I heard that when Aldrin was asked why he did not photograph Armstrong on the lunar surface, he replied that Armstrong simply had not allowed him to use the camera. Maybe (and this is pure speculation on my part) Armstrong knew that as he was the first man to set foot on the lunar surface, he would get 99% of the fame and publicity, and to make sure that Aldrin got some recognition, he ensured that all the photographs from Apollo 11 on the lunar surface would only show Aldrin (although this one uniquely shows Armstrong in reflection too). (When they submitted Everest, Hillary ensured that the photograph was of Tenzing at the summit, not him.)

Artemis program, huh?
Just what the universe needs, for earth to export its PC culture, quotas, etc.
How about just sending whoever is the most qualified, and to h@ll with what gender or color they are?
What next, galactic cancel culture?
Lunar handicap access???

The way to deal with systemic discrimination is to deal with it. No reason to think that the people chosen won't be as qualified as necessary. The idea is not to allow the filters that have kept them from consideration in the past.

No doubt your statement is true.
But I suspect Artemis and like programs go beyond just "not allowing the filters.."
To a hammer, everything is a nail. To a communist, every problem is rooted in class. To a social justice warrior, every problem is rooted in race.
Only history will be able to tell if all these preferences accomplish good or just breed resentment.
If there is new scientific knowledge to be gained, Artemis might be worthwhile. If it is just to put minorities or genders on the moon, it is a colossal waste of resources.
When Aldrin and Armstrong walked on the moon, they represented all mankind, red, yellow, black and white, every gender, rich and poor, the healthy and the handicapped. All the world watched in awe and rejoiced. They represented US, humankind.
Sure, they found themselves strapped in those seats due to certain filters, privileges, and a nation's largesse to spend money on science alone. But they took the risk for all of us. Risking your life is not an entitlement.
The current new moderns are dividers and bean counters, nay-sayers and perpetual victims, and they slap on more filters than anyone in 1969. Where the new mentality will end is not yet known. But I'll take the old.

This may come as a shock, but not everyone rejoiced at the lunar landings, and not everyone felt represented by two white, American males. The philosophy of how to deal with the results of centuries of persecution, oppression and prejudice based on skin colour is too large and complicated to deal with here, but see, for example:

Films: 'Hidden Figures', 'Selma', 'In the Heat of the Night'

Books: 'Me and White Supremacy' by Layla F Saad ISBN 978-1-52940-510-1,
'Natives', by Akala (978-1-473-6612-9)

Or just listen to 'Whitey on the Moon' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4

Chris Peterson is correct, in my opinion, "The way to deal with systemic discrimination is to deal with it. No reason to think that the people chosen won't be as qualified as necessary. The idea is not to allow the filters that have kept them from consideration in the past."

[Chris Peterson]

Artemis program, huh?
Just what the universe needs, for earth to export its PC culture, quotas, etc.
How about just sending whoever is the most qualified, and to h@ll with what gender or color they are?
What next, galactic cancel culture?
Lunar handicap access???

The way to deal with systemic discrimination is to deal with it. No reason to think that the people chosen won't be as qualified as necessary. The idea is not to allow the filters that have kept them from consideration in the past.

No doubt your statement is true.
But I suspect Artemis and like programs go beyond just "not allowing the filters.."
To a hammer, everything is a nail. To a communist, every problem is rooted in class. To a social justice warrior, every problem is rooted in race.
Only history will be able to tell if all these preferences accomplish good or just breed resentment.
If there is new scientific knowledge to be gained, Artemis might be worthwhile. If it is just to put minorities or genders on the moon, it is a colossal waste of resources.
When Aldrin and Armstrong walked on the moon, they represented all mankind, red, yellow, black and white, every gender, rich and poor, the healthy and the handicapped. All the world watched in awe and rejoiced. They represented US, humankind.
Sure, they found themselves strapped in those seats due to certain filters, privileges, and a nation's largesse to spend money on science alone. But they took the risk for all of us. Risking your life is not an entitlement.
The current new moderns are dividers and bean counters, nay-sayers and perpetual victims, and they slap on more filters than anyone in 1969. Where the new mentality will end is not yet known. But I'll take the old.

You seem fond of generalizing with labels. A flawed way of thinking, IMO.

[Betelgeuse54]

I don't mean to be a spoil sport, but if that is the American flag on the far left, the first flag planted on the Moon, I hate to say it, but I think they planted it upside down.

I believe it's the reflection of the flag on Aldrin's shoulder, not upside down.

[tomatoherd]

The way to deal with systemic discrimination is to deal with it. No reason to think that the people chosen won't be as qualified as necessary. The idea is not to allow the filters that have kept them from consideration in the past.

No doubt your statement is true.
But I suspect Artemis and like programs go beyond just "not allowing the filters.."
To a hammer, everything is a nail. To a communist, every problem is rooted in class. To a social justice warrior, every problem is rooted in race.
Only history will be able to tell if all these preferences accomplish good or just breed resentment.
If there is new scientific knowledge to be gained, Artemis might be worthwhile. If it is just to put minorities or genders on the moon, it is a colossal waste of resources.
When Aldrin and Armstrong walked on the moon, they represented all mankind, red, yellow, black and white, every gender, rich and poor, the healthy and the handicapped. All the world watched in awe and rejoiced. They represented US, humankind.
Sure, they found themselves strapped in those seats due to certain filters, privileges, and a nation's largesse to spend money on science alone. But they took the risk for all of us. Risking your life is not an entitlement.
The current new moderns are dividers and bean counters, nay-sayers and perpetual victims, and they slap on more filters than anyone in 1969. Where the new mentality will end is not yet known. But I'll take the old.

You seem fond of generalizing with labels. A flawed way of thinking, IMO.

You and Eclectic man have valid points of course. And thanks for the links/references. But I never deny the crimes and failures of all men - the rich and powerful can just do more harm.
But as far as labels, i just don't see how it's going to help our future by making everyone hyper-aware and acutely sensitive of labels - color, gender, whatever. And neither do you. History is complicated, and the future more so.

[neufer]

History is complicated, and the future more so.

• "History is written by the victors" (i.e., mostly christian white men as of late).
  (And it will also be so in the future.)

<<The question of neutrality concerns itself foremost with analysis of historiography and the biases of historical sources. One prominent manifestation of this analysis is the idea that "history is written by the victors". This phrase appears to have been coined by George Graham Vest to explain the Lost Cause of the losing side of the American Civil War.

In his Society Must Be Defended, Michel Foucault posits that the victors of a social struggle use their political dominance to suppress a defeated adversary's version of historical events in favor of their own propaganda, which may go so far as historical negationism. Wolfgang Schivelbusch's Culture of Defeat takes an opposing approach that defeat is a major driver for the defeated to reinvent himself, while the victor, confirmed in his attitudes and methods, dissatisfied by the high losses and paltry gains made, may be less creative and fall back.

For G. W. F. Hegel, the history of the world is also the Last Judgement. Hegel adopts the expression "Die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht" ("World history is a tribunal that judges the World"; a quote from Friedrich Schiller's poem Resignation published in 1786) and asserts that history is what judges men, their actions and their opinions. Since the twentieth century, Western historians have disavowed the aspiration to provide a judgement of history. The goals of historical judgements or interpretations are separate to those of legal judgements, that need to be formulated quickly after the events and be final.

Related to the issues of historical judgement are those of the pretension to neutrality and objectivity. Analytic and critical philosophers of history have debated whether historians should express judgements on historical figures, or if this would infringe on their supposed role. In general, positivists and neopositivists oppose any value-judgement as unscientific.>>

[Astronymus]

You can clearly see the studio wall...

[johnnydeep]

I don't mean to be a spoil sport, but if that is the American flag on the far left, the first flag planted on the Moon, I hate to say it, but I think they planted it upside down.

I believe it's the reflection of the flag on Aldrin's shoulder, not upside down.

You are correct.

[johnnydeep]

Artemis program, huh?
Just what the universe needs, for earth to export its PC culture, quotas, etc.
How about just sending whoever is the most qualified, and to h@ll with what gender or color they are?
What next, galactic cancel culture?
Lunar handicap access???

Not sure what the trouble is. We needed a name for the new program that will send people to the moon. Rather than it be Apollo Redux, what could be more perfect than to name it after the twin sister of Apollo! From Wikipedia:

Artemis is the Greek goddess of the hunt, the wilderness, wild animals, the Moon, and chastity. The goddess Diana is her Roman equivalent. Artemis is the daughter of Zeus and Leto, and the twin sister of Apollo. She was the patron and protector of young girls, and was believed to bring disease upon women and relieve them of it.

Oh, and she's also THE GODDESS OF THE MOON fer cripes' sake! The name is frankly even more appropriate than Apollo - god of the Sun - was.

And don't worry, it probably won't have an all female crew, at least not for the first landing. Though even if it does, so what?

[neufer]

You can clearly see the studio wall...

• The Arnolfini Wedding : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolfini_Portrait
  ...............................................................................................
  Margaret van Eyck : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_ ... t_van_Eyck
  Jan van Eyck : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_ ... rtrait%3F)

Detail of the convex mirror

---

<<The Arnolfini Portrait (or The Arnolfini Wedding) is a 1434 oil painting on oak panel by the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck. It forms a full-length double portrait, believed to depict the Italian merchant Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and his wife, presumably in their residence at the Flemish city of Bruges. It is considered one of the most original and complex paintings in Western art, because of its beauty, complex iconography, geometric orthogonal perspective, and expansion of the picture space with the use of a mirror.

The small medallions set into the frame of the convex mirror at the back of the room show tiny scenes from the Passion of Christ: all the scenes on the wife's side are of Christ's death and resurrection. Those on the husband's side concern Christ's life. The mirror itself may represent the eye of God observing the vows of the wedding. A spotless mirror was also an established symbol of Mary, referring to the Holy Virgin's immaculate conception and purity. The mirror reflects two figures in the doorway, one of whom may be the painter van Eyck himself. In Panofsky's controversial view, the figures are shown to prove that the two witnesses required to make a wedding legal were present, and Van Eyck's signature on the wall (i.e., "Jan van Eyck was here") acts as some form of actual documentation of an event at which he was himself present.

According to one author "The painting is often referenced for its immaculate depiction of non-Euclidean geometry", referring to the image on the convex mirror. Assuming a spherical mirror, the distortion has been correctly portrayed, except for the leftmost part of the window frame, the near edge of the table and the hem of the dress.>>

[Astronymus]

You know that was a joke, do you?

And I've seen the original. The painting, not the moonscape.

[neufer]

• The Arnolfini Wedding : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolfini_Portrait
  ...............................................................................................
  Margaret van Eyck : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_ ... t_van_Eyck
  Jan van Eyck : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_ ... rtrait%3F)

Detail of the convex mirror

---

<<The Arnolfini Portrait (or The Arnolfini Wedding) is a 1434 oil painting on oak panel by the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck. It forms a full-length double portrait, believed to depict the Italian merchant Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and his wife, presumably in their residence at the Flemish city of Bruges. It is considered one of the most original and complex paintings in Western art, because of its beauty, complex iconography, geometric orthogonal perspective, and expansion of the picture space with the use of a mirror.

The small medallions set into the frame of the convex mirror at the back of the room show tiny scenes from the Passion of Christ: all the scenes on the wife's side are of Christ's death and resurrection. Those on the husband's side concern Christ's life. The mirror itself may represent the eye of God observing the vows of the wedding. A spotless mirror was also an established symbol of Mary, referring to the Holy Virgin's immaculate conception and purity. The mirror reflects two figures in the doorway, one of whom may be the painter van Eyck himself. In Panofsky's controversial view, the figures are shown to prove that the two witnesses required to make a wedding legal were present, and Van Eyck's signature on the wall (i.e., "Jan van Eyck was here") acts as some form of actual documentation of an event at which he was himself present.

According to one author "The painting is often referenced for its immaculate depiction of non-Euclidean geometry", referring to the image on the convex mirror. Assuming a spherical mirror, the distortion has been correctly portrayed, except for the leftmost part of the window frame, the near edge of the table and the hem of the dress.>>

You know that was a joke, do you?

And I've seen the original. The painting, not the moonscape.

"Mrs. Arnolfini" is clearly a young Margaret van Eyck
. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_ ... t_van_Eyck

<<There is a carved figure as a finial on ["Mrs. Arnolfini's"] bedpost, of Saint Margaret devoured by a dragon.>>

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_the_Virgin

<<The Lucca Madonna is an oil painting by the Early Netherlandish master Jan van Eyck, painted in approximately 1437. The Virgin has been identified as a portrait of the painters's wife, Margaretha. The two fruits on the windowsill are either apples or oranges, both of which would be allusions to paradise.>>

----------------------------------------------------
And "Mr. Arnolfini" is clearly Jan van Eyck, himself,

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_ ... %D7%A7.jpg

who often liked to paint himself ("chaperoned with a friend?") into the far background:

• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ail%29.jpg

<<The man [Jan van Eyck] is not, as it is commonly thought, wearing a turban, but a chaperon with the ends that normally hang down tied up over the top, which would be a sensible precaution if it was worn whilst painting. A similar chaperon is worn by a figure in the background of van Eyck's Rolin Madonna, and it has been suggested that this is also a self-portrait.>>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Geerhart JANssen's 1623 bust of Shakespeare

---

.
READ IF THOV CANST,
WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH HATH PLAST
WITH IN THIS MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE[/size]

Mark Twain: <<The bust, too--there in the Stratford Church.
The precious bust, the priceless bust, the calm bust,
the serene bust, the emotionless bust, with the DANDY MUSTACHE,
and the putty face, unseamed of care--that face which has looked
passionlessly down upon the awed pilgrim for a hundred and fifty years
and will still look down upon the awed pilgrim three hundred more, with
the deep, deep, deep, subtle, subtle, subtle expression of a BLADDER.>>

JAN Van Eyck's 1435 _The Madonna of Chancellor Rolin_

---

--------------------------------------------------------
1435 JAN Van Eyck vs. 1623 Geerhart JANssen
....................................................
1) The two tone Red & Blue/Green tasselled lap cushion
. (reversed for Shakespere) for holding "the word".

2) The Black Corinthian columns supporting an arch.

3) Shakespere's nose, mouth, eyes, curly hair,
. thick neck & sour apple expression as an
. amalgam of that of Rolin & the christ child
. (and possibly the madonna as well).

4) The breast shaped disks over Shakespere's head representing
the breast shaped disks in the windows that frame the painting.

5) Shakspere's right middle & forefinger extended in writing
as Jesus's right middle & forefinger extended in blessing.

6) And the two guys [Jan van Eyck & friend] peeing off a bridge.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[TheZuke!]

nuefer quoted:
"the Ephesian authorities not only executed Herostratus, but attempted to condemn him to a legacy of obscurity by forbidding mention of his name under penalty of death. However, the ancient historian Theopompus, who was not Ephesian but rather Chian, mentions the name of Herostratus in his Philippica, and it appears again later in the works of Strabo. It is said that in fact his name has outlived the names of his judges, "

Later known as the Streisand Effect

B^)