Starship Asterisk*

Doc Bluto wrote: Sorry Luis.. your attitude and demeanor is judgemental and that of an elitist. You're congratulating me because you think I've come down to reason? Your understanding of reason perhaps? Your are an arrogant one, aren't you? Don't level your petty little emotional judgments into my statements - you are the one I refer to when I mention those that don't tolerate it if other don't play by YOUR rules. You point your finger at me and state that I misbehave? You're an arrogant jerk.

Troll state re-flagged.

If you took the time to look up the original articles, Mr. Pryde does in fact
claim to have photographed a meteorite hitting the lamp post.

Now that Christmas is almost upon us, or for those of you past the dateling, now that Christmas IS upon you, Have a great Christmas, everyone, even you arguementative types, hehe. Or, to be all inclusive, have a Merry Winter Solstice instead.

How condescending. Merry Christmas to you too.

HawaiiArmo wrote:Now that Christmas is almost upon us, or for those of you past the dateling, now that Christmas IS upon you, Have a great Christmas, everyone, even you arguementative types, hehe. Or, to be all inclusive, have a Merry Winter Solstice instead.

We're discussing something that occurred in Australia, yet you refer to the December solstice as a winter solstice. In Australia, it is the summer solstice (which has already passed, by the way). Some distinguish the two by referring to them as northern and southern solstices, the current one being the southern solstice.

Luis has been sticking closer to common sense than most of his detractors.

It could be a hoax. Certainly. I think it is not the best theory, but it can't be dismissed. If the hoax is theorized to be via digital manipulation, well, it has been examined by experts, who have concluded it probably was not. I have chosen to presume that their confidence is justified. (For those who have attempted to duplicate a digitally altered pic: A for effort , but doesn't prove much. Who is judging it to be a "close approximation"? Experts? Or you?)

Personally, I find the insect theory fits the facts and circumstances *better* than the hoax theory. For one, the hoax theory as far as I've seen, doesn't actually *put forth* any facts or circumstances to be verified.

It is only icing on the cake that my conclusions now appear to also be the conclusions of experts.

Doc Bluto wrote:

Luis wrote: Doc Bluto. You seem to finally have come down to reason and engaged in a proper discussion, so I will attempt to talk to you and not treat you as a troll, but as far as I'm concerned this is a provisional state and your troll state may be re-flagged at the least show of misbehaviour.

Sorry Luis.. your attitude and demeanor is judgemental and that of an elitist. You're congratulating me because you think I've come down to reason?

Yeah, I guess it's not a Winter solstice for everyone after all. You can also argue about the rovers on Mars (they're experiencing the end of winter, if I'm not mistaken). They're not going through a winter solstice either, so I Take it back. Guess you can't be all inclusive this time of year.
I wasn't being condescending by the way, thus the laugh after the statement. Just trying to inject some dry humour. I'm not denying the fact that I too have participated in decently heated arguements. Maybe I'm being nice cause it's the eggnog and vodka.

Talk about a degenerating thread on my part. I have little left to say of further significance, my previous posts can speak for themselves. Have fun all.

it is an atmospheric plazma burst. as you can see by the clouds it is ripe for lightning. the trail is a shadow from the bulb which was probably over amped by the plazma and burnt out.

HawaiiArmo wrote:Yeah, I guess it's not a Winter solstice for everyone after all. You can also argue about the rovers on Mars (they're experiencing the end of winter, if I'm not mistaken). They're not going through a winter solstice either, so I Take it back. Guess you can't be all inclusive this time of year.
I wasn't being condescending by the way, thus the laugh after the statement. Just trying to inject some dry humour. I'm not denying the fact that I too have participated in decently heated arguements. Maybe I'm being nice cause it's the eggnog and vodka.

Speaking of Mars, I was listening to Coast to Coast the other night, and I heard them say that the rover gets an accumulation of dust on it during the day that begins to obscure the sun from the photocells. Overnight, the dust mysteriously disappears. Can someone confirm the story, and better yet, give an explanation for it?

It's not that dust accumulates overnight on the rovers, but more specifically the dust that has so far accumulated over the last few months seems to be abating, at least on the Opportunity rover. What the engineers think is happening, is that frost collects on the rover overnight, and as dawn progresses, the dirt gets localized on those spots as the frost sublimates (?), thus clearing dust from the surrounding panel area. Probably similar to having an extremely dirty car, with dew accumulating and leaving spots of dirt, with clear areas surrounding it. I am not sure how this accumulates, given the temperature range in the martian atmosphere, and especially why the phenomenon is more prevalent on the Opportunity rover, as opposed to Spirit. I think perhaps, the temperature difference is a lot greater where Opportunity is, with dew or more likely frost precipitating on the panels.
I'm well aware that there are a lot of holes to this theory that the engineers propose, especially in regards to the martian atmosphere, and the dissimilarty between both rovers.

I think the more important recent development on Mars, isn't whether the solar panel's getting washed/cleaned of dirt, but the fact that they've discovered geologically recent volcanic activity. This could explain the methane that the European Space Satellite detected in the martian atmosphere. As usual, important news like that was buried weeks ago, but I figure they didn't want people speculating on the possibility of life. It was a rather distant possibility that the methane was produced by methanogenic organisms, but I'm glad they've found the more likely source.

Sorry ... a bit lazy to read all about this strnge pryde ... but if this is not yet proposed, I think it could some kind of reflection from the waves ... you see, big ships make sometimes pretty straight waves and these could reflect sunlight back in the air ... well, this one here looks exceptionally straight and strong.

Mart Vabar, Europe, Estonia

Using his favourite software package, MrMoon has produced a very beautiful fake image that resembles the original image in question in a number of seemingly important ways. And all credit to him, I say, in all sincerity and with no trace of intended sarcasm.

A number of people are seemingly convinced that by doing this he has "proved" that the original image is a fake. I'm having a great deal of trouble following that chain of argument. I mean Hollywood uses vast numbers of special effects to produces fakes of known spectacular scenes; some from fantasy, some from "outer space", some from history. That so many people go to see these movies just for the sake of enjoying these special effects suggests that these scenes, even though we "know" they are fake, are quite convincing.

Do we think, then, that this proves that all of the original scenes that Hollywood mimics are fake, a la "Capricorn One"? Surely this has never been proposed. In the same way, surely the existence of MrM's fake image doesn't "prove", or even support, that the original image was a fake???

I'm a little concerned that a couple of people have set up websites where we can vote on what we think this is. Even if a consensus was reached by this method, what would it prove? Is not the task that APoD editors given us more along the scientific method, of weighing evidence, performing experiments, searching for similar phenomena? We're not trying to elect a US President, a Miss Universe, or Australian Idol here.

Equally, is not a posting that says "Well I think it's a [insert opinion here]" and nothing else, especially if other have already proposed the same thing, a little misplaced in this forum? Am I being condescending / elitist by saying that ?[/i]

target practice

wombat wrote:I'm a little concerned that a couple of people have set up websites where we can vote on what we think this is. Even if a consensus was reached by this method, what would it prove? Is not the task that APoD editors given us more along the scientific method, of weighing evidence, performing experiments, searching for similar phenomena? We're not trying to elect a US President, a Miss Universe, or Australian Idol here.

I agree, it proves nothing. I set up one poll for fun, in response to several posts suggesting someone should do so. I say it's worth the fun and not much more. For scientific truth, we need to apply the scientific method. That is also fun, at least to some of us.

wombat wrote:Using his favourite software package, MrMoon has produced a very beautiful fake image that resembles the original image in question in a number of seemingly important ways. And all credit to him, I say, in all sincerity and with no trace of intended sarcasm.

A number of people are seemingly convinced that by doing this he has "proved" that the original image is a fake.

Unfortunately, it appears as though someone faked those posts. You're right, one faked image does not prove anything at all, especially since the fake was easily detected. I believe most of the regular posters did not respond to these fake posts to avoid "feeding the troll".

Boldra

Your all kidding yourselfs, its obviously aliens attacking earth with their super advanced weaponry and shooting out all our light since its alot more scary when its dark

I just want to make something clear.

I don't consider myself as an "anti-bug" person, in fact I do think that it could be a bug and I respect they way that it was simulated except for one or two doubts that I'll write just ahead.

I've made that fake image for two reasons:

Most people were not considering it and I do not agree with that because it's so easy doing it.

When I try to compare the probabilities of someone doing a fake image or someone caughting a bug in that way I just can't help to think that it's a fake.

Now the doubts:



In this image, which I consider the best one until now:
Was the focus set to infinity? seems not but can't tell for sure, it depends on the lens used.
Also you can see the flash in the giraffe so it wasn't far from the camera.

In general. Everyone is talking about 1/20 shutter speed. The standart speed for pictures with flash is 1/60 (that's why the old manual SLR's usually have that number in red) and that's because anything faster than that will not catch the flash and anything slower would be burned.
Also when I look at Pryde's picture I see something like f5.8 - 1/120 or something like that. To use 1/20 you'd have to be somewhere between f11 and f16 but that's not a normal setup. Not to mention that to take a picture at 1/20 he had to use a tripod. Did he used a tripod?

I've taken many pictures and some in places with many bugs and I never catched a single one that wasn't on purpose.

My name is Pedro, and I'm from Portugal.

P.S- It was never my intention to prove that the image is a fake, I just wanted everyone to think about it.
As one faked image does not prove anything at all the fact that it was easily detected has nothing to do with it because it wasn't done to be undetectable.

Anonymous wrote:Luis has been sticking closer to common sense than most of his detractors.

Well, I am not sure you can say something like that. I've finally read thru a lot of these posts (some are very funny) and I'm thinking that 1) you really cannot say that Luis is sticking closer to common sense. That is an opinion (yours) only. 2) Luis seemed quite set in setting out 'prove' his theory while disregarding other possibly valid ones.

Anonymous wrote: It could be a hoax. Certainly. I think it is not the best theory, but it can't be dismissed. If the hoax is theorized to be via digital manipulation, well, it has been examined by experts

What experts? I am an expert myself (by education and profession) and do plenty of digital graphics work for several publications. I could whip up some images that would blow your socks off and you'd never have a clue they were fake. And it would take me but a few moments to do. There are powerful and inexpensive software tools available to us all. As much as I think Doc B lost his patience here - he is right, in my opinion, in that you cannot ignore the possibility that this image is 'art work'. BTW, the photographer did admit to being a 'computer person'. That is of some interest to me.

Anonymous wrote:For one, the hoax theory as far as I've seen, doesn't actually *put forth* any facts or circumstances to be verified.

Well, as bearer of bad news here, none of the theories really put forth ANY facts at all, and there are no circumstances to be verified. So, I am not sure what you are really saying? All any one of us has to work from is a digital image posted in the internet. That said, I would again say that I could whip up an delightful image for you that would be awe inspiring. I do that regularly. And there is no way you could tell it was real or fake. It would not be a hoax, it would be art work. All a frame of mind

Jimbo wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Luis has been sticking closer to common sense than most of his detractors.

Well, I am not sure you can say something like that. I've finally read thru a lot of these posts (some are very funny) and I'm thinking that 1) you really cannot say that Luis is sticking closer to common sense. That is an opinion (yours) only. 2) Luis seemed quite set in setting out 'prove' his theory while disregarding other possibly valid ones.

Everybody is entitled to his/her opinions. As a scientist (good or bad one, I leave it to everybody's judgment) I do not have 'my theory' I only try to prove wrong the theories available. So far I have not tried to prove the bug theory right, I have done all I could to prove it wrong, failing miserably (You can call this attitude common sense or arrogance, that is beyond the scope of the discussion, and also your personal opinion, which I fully respect). All other theories have been proven very unlikely or wrong, at least to me, again this is my opinion and it is fully questionable.

My training is in Physics and Optics, and I have spent many years designing and building optical instruments. I can with a good degree of confidence make the maths and numerical simulations to convince myself that the bug theory is very likely and plausible.

With my Physics and Optics, I am unable to do the maths and image processing required to prove the hoax theory wrong.

There are two plausible theories still standing ground, the hoax and the bug. We are unable to prove the bug theory wrong. Despite many efforts to do it, by many people. The hoax theory, experts like yourself have proven it is possible to make a similar picture with photoshop. This is equivalent to the picture of the bee in the bicycle wheel. It does not prove it right, but together with all the other work, trying to disprove it, it makes it very plausible.

With the hoax theory, the production of a hoax, shows it is possible. GOOD!. Now what tests can we apply to the image to show that it is not a hoax. Assume it is one, and try to prove it is not. How do you do that?

Despite all of the personal attacks, and emotional chit-chat, still not a single post has addressed the question. How can we seriously analyse if the image is or not a hoax. I do not know and there is a question asking for a possible action plan. All I got out of it is trolling (some of it well deserved of course )

Any way, who is going to tell how to go on with testing the hoax theory. It is proven it can be a hoax. Good, that is not enough to prove it is a hoax.

I saw a similar image this summer playing golf in Colorado. I pointed it out to my playing partners, and we concluded that it looked like a shadow or negative of a contrail, for it was tapered and appeared to span a limited lenghth. It crossed in front of cloudy and clear skies maintaining its color and shape as if the "shadow" had materialized in the atmospehere rather than on the grass, houses, or trees surrounding us. Minutes later, all evidence had faded, and we all made holes in one on the next hole in the wake of the phenomenon (just kidding).

Initial data from the before, moment and after pictures:

strangebefore_pryde_big.jpg
...Canon Canon PowerShot G3 ´ ´ ACD Systems Digital Imaging 2004:11:25 15:23:11...
...2004:11:22 18:53:07...

strange_pryde_big.jpg
...Canon Canon PowerShot G3 ´ ´ ACD Systems Digital Imaging 2004:12:21 23:18:37...
...2004:11:22 18:52:52...

strangeafter_pryde_big.jpg
...Canon Canon PowerShot G3 ´ ´ ACD Systems Digital Imaging 2004:11:25 15:22:47...
...2004:11:22 18:52:37...

this is from the image available in the APOD site:

strange_pryde_big.jpg
...Canon Canon PowerShot G3 ´ ´ ACD Systems Digital Imaging 2004:11:25 15:20:49...
...2004:11:22 18:52:52...

The date and time right after "ACD Systems Digital Imaging" is the last time the image was re-saved in a photo program. The other date and time is from the first time the image was created.

So, all 3 images were taken at about 18.52 but were re-saved (altered or not) 3 days later at 15.20.

the "strange_pryde_big.jpg" available from the APOD site can be grouped with the before and after pictures in cloudbait.com but the "strange_pryde_big.jpg" in cloudbait was last changed 2004:12:21...

What do you think ?
How did the "experts" came to the conclusion that the images were not touched?

Anyone can check the dates by opening the images with notepad