Starship Asterisk*

Benoit Gagnon wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: APOD doesn't need a selection committee. Even if there are occasional faked pictures (and there are damn few), this doesn't represent all that serious of a problem. .

I Am very surprise to hear such a statement from an astronomer because it sounds more like the statement we would hear from the International Olympic Committee.

As infrequent as it is, I don't think it rises to the level of a serious systemic problem. That's all. A handful over decades, and even then, their discovery provides a degree of education, as well.

I think the editors are doing just fine (although they could certainly run questionable images across some of the regulars here- privately. Not something that would need to be done very often.)

I understand your point of view but when you say that the promotion of science is the ultimate goal, I have to say that fake data is not science, it is pseudoscience.

Benoit Gagnon wrote:I understand your point of view but when you say that the promotion of science is the ultimate goal, I have to say that fake data is not science, it is pseudoscience.

Well, no, it isn't. The image is synthesized, but it doesn't actually misrepresent reality. And as best I can recall, neither do any of the previous cases. The science isn't wrong. It's a kind of unethical fraud, misrepresenting your own work or how your image was made. That's bad, and we should all oppose it, of course. At worst it is poor science, but certainly not pseudoscience. But usually it's not science at all.

Dear all,

I am a professional Aerospace Engineer(M.S degree), so I guess I owe enough knowledge about maths and physics to be critical with the things around me.

I must say that I have shared many long nights with Jesús imaging and I have seen with my own eyes what he is capable to do with his hardware. I was in the field side by side to him along the June sessions watching with computer screen, so just to end this unfruitful discussion, this APOD it is the result of a long hard work. For sure his 12'' newton has not the glamour of other imagers C14 or C11 etc..,maybe this hurst to the community but, the figure of merit here it is the persistence to pursuit an objective and extract the best from your equipment and conditions.

I see with surprise all the comments from this self-named "Astrophographers Royal Court" who think the owe the absolute truth, deprecating others hard work. I wait for Jesús answer with all the probes that will close many mouths all around the "Court".

Regards.

Hola.

Responderé en español e intentaré ser lo más claro posible,si no es así,me lo dicen.

Soy Jesús Santos y estoy realmente sorprendido de las acusaciones y fundamentos ridículos que aquí se han expuesto.Se me está acusando de utilizar imágenes del Hubble para crear las rotaciones e incluso se han comparado detalles. Ya no es que sea falso, pues creo recordar que sólo he visualizado una imagen pasada la oposición que me mandó mi esposa, con la que comparto los trabajos y realizamos las imágenes(buena parte son de ella), si no que al leerles a ustedes he superpuesto algunas al completo (no sólo detalles pequeños) y no se parecen en nada,cosa que no sabían pues sólo disponen de la rotación en vídeo y algunas del final.

Dado el caso les mandaré (como piden) imágenes originales y pasos junto con los dos mapas y medidas con las longitudes individuales (si dos mapas) utilizados para crear las rotaciones, que tienen diferencias con el del vídeo,porque evidentemente en el que pongo al final le realizo un procesado diferente eliminando las imperfecciones para mostrarlo vistoso, y en las rotaciones tiene la simetría diferente,además de no ser necesario eliminar todas las imperfecciones. Doy por hecho que conocen winjupos(aúnque por los comentarios tengo dudas en algunos casos) y como crea el envoltorio digital con el que además puedes seleccionar más tamaño perdiendo muy poco detalle y dando la sensación de muy poco ruido,entre otros parámetros,que hace se presente más espectacular que las imágenes que componen el mapa de forma individual.

Después de su creación con winjupos,está terminado con el programa after effects (CS6), parte en la que he contado con la inestimable ayuda del encargado de conferencias y audiovisuales de la ESA en Villanueva de la cañada (Madrid).

Dado mi jornada de trabajo,en breve les mandaré los datos necesarios que considere oportuno para que los puedan ver,pues los que ya me conocen saben que comparto todos los datos de las capturas en España,e incluso cedo mis vídeos originales de las capturas en los cursos que realizo(por cierto en mi patrocinador se pueden descargar,lo mismo alguien aprende algo diferente) para su procesado.

Puede que alguno se sienta frustrado porque lleve tiémpo estancado en su trabajo,pero intento que no sea mi caso, y considero mejor opción preguntar antes que prejuzgar alegremente sin conocer nada de su trabajo.

Jesús Santos.

Jesús,
if you could post the raw or original data without any modifications to it, then it would go a long way in putting this behind us.

Mario R. wrote:Dear all,

I am a professional Aerospace Engineer(M.S degree), so I guess I owe enough knowledge about maths and physics to be critical with the things around me.

Congratulations! It sounds that applies to me also then, because I'm also an Aerospace Engineer, and next to that I have also a second M.S. degree in physics, if we start throwing around with titles

Lately there have been a few forgeries in the APOD domain, and it's a reasonable question from the 'Court' as you call it to show how things are done when they are just to good to be true (or at least seem to be). These images show a resolution that is simply not realistic for the location and height of Mars above the horizon. I love to give everybody the benefit of the doubt, but there are situations where the doubt becomes to big. And this one is in my personal opinion at or beyond the limit of what I could believe to be true.

It will be very simple to counter this by sharing some raw data and all discussion will come to an end. If that's the case I would be the first to apologize, but until then I keep my critical attitude as a good engineer

The term 'court' that you use is I think way out of proportion. Because of the number of false claims in the last year (not only on APOD, but even outside) the community has become wary. We work hard to do our imaging and gather and process the data to make nice imagery. We are not waiting for people to spread imagery that is not true and as such creating the idea with the general public that it's possible to make images that can never be made. It raises wrong expectations and can even result in people being very disappointed after buying there equipment when the can't even get close because it's just not possible.

I think I made my point here. Jésus, it's quite simple. Upload a 5s abstract from one of your videos that you used to create these images and all discussion can end very soon. That's just a few minutes work and worth the effort I think. It's up to you now...

WinJUPOS is not the issue, the image has been enhanced with high quality data that was not taken by him. That is the issue. I'm pretty sure much of the imagery is actually real (and then rendered using WinJUPOS to simulate the phases at different stages, which is all fine - if made clear of course), but certain parts of the images simply are not realistically possible with a setup like that or some extremely creative Photoshopping, and this is beyond the stage of processing too much, or noise that just by chance happens to look like Hubble data.

Show the raw data used at 25 seconds in the video, and at 47 seconds. It shows the same side of Mars. The clouds are not like any of the Mars images made by others, but appear to move slightly at some points (but right left of Syrtis Major). The April image appears to be a blurred version, with some additional cloud blobs/clouds drawn over the May version (which shows Hubble features), but it is not a very good job as some of the clouds are exactly the same, while others have changed a bit.


>I am a professional Aerospace Engineer(M.S degree), so I guess I owe enough knowledge about maths and physics to be critical with the things around me.

I'm sure Jesús can be a really good astrophotographer, which makes this all the more sad; it's just not needed to mess with and 'upgrade' data like this.

avdhoeven wrote:

Mario R. wrote:Dear all,

I am a professional Aerospace Engineer(M.S degree), so I guess I owe enough knowledge about maths and physics to be critical with the things around me.

Congratulations! It sounds that applies to me also then, because I'm also an Aerospace Engineer, and next to that I have also a second M.S. degree in physics, if we start throwing around with titles

Lately there have been a few forgeries in the APOD domain, and it's a reasonable question from the 'Court' as you call it to show how things are done when they are just to good to be true (or at least seem to be). These images show a resolution that is simply not realistic for the location and height of Mars above the horizon. I love to give everybody the benefit of the doubt, but there are situations where the doubt becomes to big. And this one is in my personal opinion at or beyond the limit of what I could believe to be true.

It will be very simple to counter this by sharing some raw data and all discussion will come to an end. If that's the case I would be the first to apologize, but until then I keep my critical attitude as a good engineer

The term 'court' that you use is I think way out of proportion. Because of the number of false claims in the last year (not only on APOD, but even outside) the community has become wary. We work hard to do our imaging and gather and process the data to make nice imagery. We are not waiting for people to spread imagery that is not true and as such creating the idea with the general public that it's possible to make images that can never be made. It raises wrong expectations and can even result in people being very disappointed after buying there equipment when the can't even get close because it's just not possible.

I think I made my point here. Jésus, it's quite simple. Upload a 5s abstract from one of your videos that you used to create these images and all discussion can end very soon. That's just a few minutes work and worth the effort I think. It's up to you now...

My second MS is in Mechanical Engineering .
You haven´t read my comments, I repeat then...I was there when Jesús took the videos. So I beg him to upload asap the raw data to end this discussion guys it is becoming even sad.

Let's not start a fight, because it's not necessary at all. I do believe you were there, and I do believe he took the videos. I just think there has been a manipulation between the raw data and the final result. Somehow it looks like details have been enhanced with professional imagery. You can impossibly judge that from what you have seen during the imaging. In the raw imagery you will say way, way less detail then in the final processed results.

As said, I will be the first to apologize if I'm wrong, and I'll keep that promise. So if you know him, just ask him to share a raw video and let it be processed by for example Emil Kraaikamp (who is also in the discussion line). He has written some of the finest processing software, and I bet that he can make the judgement very well.

So I don't say he didn't take any imagery, and I believe you were there! Let's make that very clear. I just think something was done in the processing step that's totally non-transparent, and that's important to know and also to compare data. That's a part of science, and we as engineers should know that.

avdhoeven wrote:Let's not start a fight, because it's not necessary at all. I do believe you were there, and I do believe he took the videos. I just think there has been a manipulation between the raw data and the final result. Somehow it looks like details have been enhanced with professional imagery. You can impossibly judge that from what you have seen during the imaging. In the raw imagery you will say way, way less detail then in the final processed results.

As said, I will be the first to apologize if I'm wrong, and I'll keep that promise. So if you know him, just ask him to share a raw video and let it be processed by for example Emil Kraaikamp (who is also in the discussion line). He has written some of the finest processing software, and I bet that he can make the judgement very well.

So I don't say he didn't take any imagery, and I believe you were there! Let's make that very clear. I just think something was done in the processing step that's totally non-transparent, and that's important to know and also to compare data. That's a part of science, and we as engineers should know that.

Totally agree with your comments. I know Emil requested Jesús some data. I am pretty sure this discussion will end soon.
Best Regards.

as always when a fake is pointed out, the people that constantly seek APODs or have gotten a few in the past defend these indefensible frauds with statements like this.

Chris Peterson ,with all due respect to your prestigious and well earned academic position, you have "won" APODs in the past and are of course completely satisfied with the system as is.

Please accept this as a critique and not an attack but you posted in a previous alleged fake APOD related article (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/04/ ... e-blunder/) the following on how to identify a pseudoscience site vs a real science site:

"It’s usually not hard to tell. First and foremost, if you see a site promoting a view that is contrary to mainstream science, it’s probably a poor source: unreliable at best, pseudoscience at worst. So things that have no scientific consensus, and stand against strong consensuses are very suspect: sites that argue against global warming, against the Big Bang, against General Relativity."

another quote from your own words in the above article:

"Of course, if a reference to a flaky site slips through, you can be sure there are enough scientists participating here that it will be quickly pointed out. You can usually tell a flaky poster easily enough: they’ll be the one that keeps defending a crank site even after it has been identified out as such"

Here is an astroimager posting an alleged video that has no consensus and goes against the mainstream science of his peers, why are you defending it and continuing to defend the site that published it even after it, and several other images posted by this same site, have been identified by the community of astroimagers (peers and experts like Damian Peach, Christopher Go) as fraudulent? It seems to go against your own advice on identifying pseudo science web sites?


"APOD is not a forum for astroimagers. Never was, and never should be. It's a forum for astronomy, presented through images."

are you serious? that is nonsensical It's not a forum for astroimagers, it's a forum for astronomy through images?

"the last thing we should do is look on social media"

Exactly the attitude that has almost destroyed the hobby in the US and the UK. Social Media is the only thing keeping astronomy afloat among the average citizen and is, by far, the largest and most efficient way to get more people in to astronomy. P.S. APOD is also a social media site...

"this doesn't represent all that serious of a problem"

There is a problem. Ignoring it and applying the standard establishment indifference to it will only see it get worse.

Look man, it's a great site and I have appreciated it many times although I have never bothered to submit anything because the payback in this hobby is not found in gloating over getting a picture published, it's found in sharing discovery with other people to better their lives and get our society back into space.

P.S. Im not an astroimager either. I run the world's highest volume solar astronomy STEM outreach program, active in 22 countries. I teach introductory astronomy to about 350,000 people per year trying to revive the 60s era fascination with space travel. I couldn't care less than what is posted on APOD as it's basically the same group of 30 or so imagers submitting their daily work to these two poor saps to select from and they can never please everyone. I just hate to see such fakery passed off as real science when there is so much more factual beauty that can be shared.

bystander wrote:

Elias Chasiotis wrote:Reading Stephen W. Ramsden Facebook page is pure joy. In the comments Chris Go gave proof that the images are from Hubble.

Jan wrote:Could someone (with Stephen's consent) post this here, for those not on Facebook?
Thanks,
Jan

Here is a link to the post: https://www.facebook.com/stephenramsden ... 1172290088

This is nothing new. Fraud has very infrequently affected the astroimaging community as long as I remember. It is no more frequent now than it was two decades ago. A word about Stephan Ramsden. He despises the astroimaging community. His mission is outreach, which is of course a very worthy cause, however he doesn't hide his contempt for amateur astrophotographers. Each time a fake is discovered he goes on a frenzy of attacking not only the individual involved but also the entire astroimaging community. His attacks are disproportionate, unrelenting and vicious. Please do not give him any positive feedback or encouragement.

From Stephan Ramsden........"Chris Peterson,with all due respect to your prestigious and well earned academic position, you have "won" APODs in the past and are of course completely satisfied with the system as is."

Deep down this is really what bothers Stephan Ramsden. He despises the idea of someone else receiving some attention for their hard work. He's not above flooding social media with his own nonsense......endless selfies and other ridiculous self serving statements and posts bringing him the attention he craves. Perhaps if he "earned" an APOD he would be perfectly happy with the system . Perhaps he needs to take himself less seriously rather than be the self-appointed policeman of amateur astroimaging.

From Stephan Ramsden........"Chris Peterson,with all due respect to your prestigious and well earned academic position, you have "won" APODs in the past and are of course completely satisfied with the system as is."

You don't win APODs. You are featured APOD which substantially is a pretty different story

stephenramsden wrote:as always when a fake is pointed out, the people that constantly seek APODs or have gotten a few in the past defend these indefensible frauds with statements like this.

Chris Peterson ,with all due respect to your prestigious and well earned academic position, you have "won" APODs in the past and are of course completely satisfied with the system as is.

I do not seek APODs. I believe I have had one image posted on APOD, many years ago, before there was a submission process at all.

In fact, I am not completely satisfied with the system as it is, although it generally works and I respect the editors' choices regarding how it is run.

Here is an astroimager posting an alleged video that has no consensus and goes against the mainstream science of his peers, why are you defending it and continuing to defend the site that published it even after it, and several other images posted by this same site, have been identified by the community of astroimagers (peers and experts like Damian Peach, Christopher Go) as fraudulent? It seems to go against your own advice on identifying pseudo science web sites?

I am not defending the image. But I do know what pseudoscience is (and so, I assure you, do the site editors, and if there was any pseudoscience involved they would have been quite aware of it), and there is nothing pseudoscientific about this image. It accurately reflects what it purports to show. Its only fault lies in the (alleged) misrepresentation of the data sources and the (alleged) misrepresentation of the processing details. Ethical failures, not scientific ones.

"APOD is not a forum for astroimagers. Never was, and never should be. It's a forum for astronomy, presented through images."

are you serious? that is nonsensical It's not a forum for astroimagers, it's a forum for astronomy through images?

Absolutely serious. Indeed, it is regrettable that it has come to be seen as a competition, because that attitude is why we've seen a few cases of fraud in recent years. I don't know what the fix is. Something editorial perhaps- not looking for the prettiest pictures, but for those which clearly emphasize a featured scientific point? Geck's suggestion of a slightly longer pipeline, allowing some of us who regularly frequent Asterisk to have more time to note questionable images?

"this doesn't represent all that serious of a problem"

There is a problem. Ignoring it and applying the standard establishment indifference to it will only see it get worse.

I did not suggest there is no problem, or that it should be ignored. What I said- because I think it's true- is that there is no serious problem. The tiniest fraction of a percent of all the APOD images have been faked, and in every case, the resulting fake was an ethical error only and we did not see science misrepresented. And APOD is about the science, not about the quality of the image.

[...]

In the mean time, I look forward to seeing the original data imaged this year from around Madrid, with either a 12" ( or why not, a 14") telescope that unambiguously shows that the animation was made without any faking of the data. I can open up an SFTP server (VPS) if you need a place to upload the data to. I strongly suggest to show the data (including of course meta data like recording time and location) of the session that to me is perhaps most suspicious, the sharpest area in the animation showing the Hubble-like features below Syrtis Major as indicated in this animation extracted from the youtube video:



I very much doubt I can be seen as impartial in this matter, considering my rather strong position in this, but for what it is worth I promise I'll look at the data critically, as I believe I still can. (p.s. I do also have a Masters degree, but I'm not so sure if that helps ). I could share this data with others who might be more unbiased though.

it should be extremely easy to show that the data used is real (in principle much easier than writing several paragraphs of text).

Damian Peach, a well known observer of Mars, has contacted me about this video. Allowing me to quote him, he says

The bright band of cloud shown in March and indeed April is completely false in the video. Such extensive clouds don't form until much later in the Martian season nearer Ls 160 and later as the polar hood begins to form (see my own recent images for where this is starting.)

This brings up an interesting point beyond image quality. Are there features in the video that were not really there at the time indicated? This seems to me to be a scientifically answerable inquiry and should be a focus of the analysis. If Jesus can prove with his raw images, for example, that these features were really there at the indicated times, that would go a long way to answering his critics.

- RJN

RJN wrote:Damian Peach, a well known observer of Mars, has contacted me about this video. Allowing me to quote him, he says

The bright band of cloud shown in March and indeed April is completely false in the video. Such extensive clouds don't form until much later in the Martian season nearer Ls 160 and later as the polar hood begins to form (see my own recent images for where this is starting.)

This brings up an interesting point beyond image quality. Are there features in the video that were not really there at the time indicated? This seems to me to be a scientifically answerable inquiry and should be a focus of the analysis. If Jesus can prove with his raw images, for example, that these features were really there at the indicated times, that would go a long way to answering his critics.

It would certainly be helpful to know the actual dates the imagery represents- something a bit finer than just the month. It's likely that for any given date with Mars this close to opposition we could identify other images showing the planet.

In the Spanish forum astronomo.org there is a photo with two images and exact times, so that comparisons can be made:
http://www.astronomo.org/foro/index.php ... ia;id=1555
Here are the photos captured by amateurs from around the world on May 13, 2016. The photos of Clyde Foster are closer to the time of capture. I don't see many similarities... http://alpo-j.asahikawa-med.ac.jp/kk16/m160513z.htm
And on May 27: http://alpo-j.asahikawa-med.ac.jp/kk16/m160527z.htm
Please look at the photo of Antonio Lasala, again i see no similarities.

If those are his images, that is not even remotely realistic. I'm 100% sure this is faked data.

He has done it before so it seems, from a quick glance at the galary there: http://www.astronomo.org/foro/index.php ... ia;id=1475

Compare the left image supposedly from April 2014 to this with the 1999 Hubble shot: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... g_1999.jpg
And more importantly, this set of images from Damian Peach at a similar time showing a much more realistic Mars, with different cloud structures (bottom of the page: http://alpo-j.asahikawa-med.ac.jp/kk14/m140414z.htm )

(click for larger image: http://www.astrokraai.nl/dump/doneitbefore.jpg )

If people don't know how to judge images like these, look for example at the tiniest features that are visible in the image by Jesus that are exactly in the same place as the Hubble images. These details are smaller than a telescope that size can resolve. Compare this with the data by Damian Peach, someone who actually knows what he is doing, taken from Barbados with a 14" under excellent seeing conditions. There are other things that give it away, but the bottom line is Jesus is a fraud.

Why on earth do people do this, and even worse, have the balls to lie to you about this 'in your face' when they are caught...

Some people have some serious mental issues.

Luckily 99% of the astrophotography community is actually pretty nice...

Lol, by the way, the 2014 reprocess of Jesus has some MAJOR Photoshop errors in them:


(you can see some features misaligned by a huge amount, along with some ghost images...)

Well, at least his photoshopping skills got better over time apparently.

Another fake one where he copy-pasted the pole from Hubble into his own image, and some other details here and there (the orientation is all wrong): http://www.astronomo.org/foro/index.php ... em;id=1217

JSG wrote:Hola.
---
---
Dado mi jornada de trabajo,en breve les mandaré los datos necesarios que considere oportuno para que los puedan ver,pues los que ya me conocen saben que comparto todos los datos de las capturas en España,e incluso cedo mis vídeos originales de las capturas en los cursos que realizo(por cierto en mi patrocinador se pueden descargar,lo mismo alguien aprende algo diferente) para su procesado.
---
---
Jesús Santos.

We're all waiting for the raw data that can prove indeed you have been truthful with the description. It should be very easy to produce and will immediately end this poisonous discussion