APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
.I would suggest you plan a trip to that location next March. Apparently only your own eyes will convince you that you're wrong.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 ;).
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.spider72 wrote:Oh really ? Can you see The Plough over the South-East horizon there ?
This picture is a fake without a doubt.
It looks like columnar basalt.gmPhil wrote:Does anyone know what that rectangular formation in the rock at lower left of the photo is?
Whatgeckzilla wrote:
FYI spider72 will no longer be able to view or respond to the posts in this thread.
No binding spider72 with the entrails of one of his kids and
That is an oddly specific punishment. I'd never force a snake to participate in something like that.neufer wrote:Whatgeckzilla wrote:
FYI spider72 will no longer be able to view or respond to the posts in this thread.
placing a serpent to drip venom from above causing him to writhe in pain
(The moderators are really getting soft.)
Beautiful photograph Boomer! Is it real? How did the aurora know it was Christmas?Boomer12k wrote:You mean you cannot see aurora at all from that position?????
You mean like THIS aurora picture taken around the same area????
:---[===] *
These auroras are far higher than 10,000 feet. More like 100 kilometers or more. We will see them reflected off water as long as the light reaches the ground... which it obviously does, or there would be no picture.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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_Borealis_%28painting%29 wrote: <<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.>>
geckzilla wrote: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.spider72 wrote:Oh really ? Can you see The Plough over the South-East horizon there ?
This picture is a fake without a doubt.
http://www.geckzilla.com/apod/AuroraIce ... _swap.html
It is easy if you already know how but could be fairly difficult without some skills built up in a few different areas first. I took the screenshot in Stellarium knowing the location and date using a perspective projection since that most closely matches the single exposure camera shot. Then, with the two images in Photoshop, I use something called a puppet warp on the screenshot and pin matching stars in place. I try to do the most obvious stars/planets that are far apart first and then match up the smaller details. The web page is just some simple css, html, and javascript.tjerome wrote: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.geckzilla wrote:http://www.geckzilla.com/apod/AuroraIce ... _swap.html
Ted
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.
Maybe, if I could fix their brain with it to fire more calming neurons and less agitating ones.Chris Peterson wrote: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.
