Starship Asterisk*

Knight of Clear Skies wrote:Mystery solved. There is a short video here which shows lots of insects flying through the shot, and a fine selection of images before and after totality.

And yet... the none of the shots are THIS shot... he is too far left... they would have had to change camera placement to do it... which they may well have done, but some show him before, during, and after the "diamond ring" effect...

It still makes you wonder....

:---[===] *

Without claiming that the pic is faked, I am confused by the location of the diamond ring effect. Can somebody who is better informed about the precise geometry explain it. I understand that Smith Rock is toward the south border of the totality zone, but still, how did that make the "diamond ring" appear where it does in the photo?

barneywolff wrote:I understand that Smith Rock is toward the south border of the totality zone, but still, how did that make the "diamond ring" appear where it does in the photo?

Oh good angle on this question, haha pun intended. Simply by moving laterally one could "put" the diamond ring at any position on the clock.

Just imagine the eclipse paused for a moment, that the circular umbra, the area of totality, were stopped on the ground. Then simply by walking around that circle, the edge of totality, one would see the diamond ring likewise walk 360 degrees around the sun.

Or imagine the umbra was 1 foot in diameter. Then one could easily move their head in a circle and make the diamond ring appear to move in a circle around the sun.

Conclusion: The orientation of the diamond ring is - by itself - no clue as to where along the track you are.

For those who still doubt that the photo is a single shot: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YLiqrwjIPIQ

Elias Chasiotis wrote:For those who still doubt that the photo is a single shot: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YLiqrwjIPIQ

I'm not sure that would prove anything to the doubters. I don't doubt it, myself. Some people I think know a little too much to accept photos at face value, but not quite enough to tell the difference when it's actually a well-executed, rarely, or never-before seen photo.

geckzilla wrote:

Elias Chasiotis wrote:For those who still doubt that the photo is a single shot: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YLiqrwjIPIQ

I'm not sure that would prove anything to the doubters. I don't doubt it, myself. Some people I think know a little too much to accept photos at face value, but not quite enough to tell the difference when it's actually a well-executed, rarely, or never-before seen photo.

We have pictures of humans walking on the Moon, and there are still people who don't believe it!

Chris Peterson wrote:

geckzilla wrote:

Elias Chasiotis wrote:For those who still doubt that the photo is a single shot: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YLiqrwjIPIQ

I'm not sure that would prove anything to the doubters. I don't doubt it, myself. Some people I think know a little too much to accept photos at face value, but not quite enough to tell the difference when it's actually a well-executed, rarely, or never-before seen photo.

We have pictures of humans walking on the Moon, and there are still people who don't believe it!

To be fair, most of those people probably have different motivations, and that is an important distinction.

geckzilla wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

geckzilla wrote: I'm not sure that would prove anything to the doubters. I don't doubt it, myself. Some people I think know a little too much to accept photos at face value, but not quite enough to tell the difference when it's actually a well-executed, rarely, or never-before seen photo.

We have pictures of humans walking on the Moon, and there are still people who don't believe it!

To be fair, most of those people probably have different motivations, and that is an important distinction.

Yes, different motivations. But they are all operating with the same epistemological defect, a refusal to accept convincing photographic evidence if it conflicts with their existing biases.

Chris Peterson wrote:... Yes, different motivations. But they are all operating with the same epistemological defect, a refusal to accept convincing photographic evidence if it conflicts with their existing biases.

Apropos of which...
Rob

bobFranke wrote:That's a beautiful shot. But good grief, man!

With all the involved planning, why not take the extra five or 10 minutes to touch up the dust bunnies that are sooo distracting.

Well, I guess the "dust bunnies" should stay. :-}

Chris Peterson wrote: Yes, different motivations. But they are all operating with the same epistemological defect, a refusal to accept convincing photographic evidence if it conflicts with their existing biases.

Something like "climate-change doubters"? And the fact that water definitely exists on Mars? Science is evolving and it is no longer necessary to have clear and convincing evidence of the truth.

Confused wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: Yes, different motivations. But they are all operating with the same epistemological defect, a refusal to accept convincing photographic evidence if it conflicts with their existing biases.

Something like "climate-change doubters"? And the fact that water definitely exists on Mars? Science is evolving and it is no longer necessary to have clear and convincing evidence of the truth.

It was never necessary to have "clear and convincing evidence". But it is silly to not have a high degree of confidence in anything which actually is supported by such evidence. Just as it is silly to have a high degree of confidence in anything that isn't.

What we "believe" should be weighed by the amount and quality of supporting evidence.