Starship Asterisk*

Julian wrote:Is APOD 2010 09 29 a fake?

This two images are too much similar:

Click to view full size image

Click to view full size image

http://www.skynews.ca/pages/pow_archive ... or----2221 ( # 334 | First Quarter Moon )

Light reaching airplane does not match sun light reaching moon. they seem to come from different directions.
A great photoshop work?

Julian

There is actually enough of a difference between these two images to produce a Left/Right Stereograph image
But I see your point Julian

A good 1st quarter + 1 day image of the moon exists so all other 1st quarter + 1 day images are obviously fakes. No one is capable of taking another image that is similar to another so they ALL obviously utilize photoshop and make copies of those 1 true image(s)

The photo of the airplane in front of the moon inspired me to try to post a picture I took of an airliner passing in front of the sun AND moon during the diamond ring stage of the total solar eclipse of July 11, 1991 in Baja California. However, I cannot post it until I have made 10 posts to this forum. So, y'all will just have to wait until I hit 10 posts.
Jay

If you look closely at the purported "fake" picture you can see the engine exhaust strung out behind the plane and covering the moon's surface. I don't believe this pic is faked.

neufer wrote:

quaver wrote:There appears to be 2 highlights along the body of the plane. Since the moon is behind the airplane, what light sources are causing these highlights? Shouldn't the airplane part of the image be just a silhouette. Please forgive me if I'm seeing things incorrectly. I'm legally blind.

Note that the sky is blue and not black.

Since this answer is the only one received, it must by default become the best answer. I thank the rest of you for showing even less consideration of the question.

quaver wrote:

neufer wrote:

quaver wrote:There appears to be 2 highlights along the body of the plane. Since the moon is behind the airplane, what light sources are causing these highlights? Shouldn't the airplane part of the image be just a silhouette. Please forgive me if I'm seeing things incorrectly. I'm legally blind.

Note that the sky is blue and not black.

Since this answer is the only one received, it must by default become the best answer. I thank the rest of you for showing even less consideration of the question.

What neufer implies is that the sky is blue in this image because the sun is either still up, or only recently set. Thus either Sol himself, or some gorgeous baby-makin' sun-set-glow accounts for the second light source. I think it may be the former, since a setting sun would give a golden-orange color to the white body of the plane. A third option that best fits the still-white body of the plane would be that it is reflected moonlight. At any rate, there's no reason for the moon to be the only light-source. If it was, we'd not be able to experience the awesomeness of a red tail amid so much blue and white.

Sam wrote:What neufer implies is that the sky is blue in this image because the sun is either still up, or only recently set. Thus either Sol himself, or some gorgeous baby-makin' sun-set-glow accounts for the second light source. I think it may be the former, since a setting sun would give a golden-orange color to the white body of the plane. A third option that best fits the still-white body of the plane would be that it is reflected moonlight. At any rate, there's no reason for the moon to be the only light-source. If it was, we'd not be able to experience the awesomeness of a red tail amid so much blue and white.

The plane is flying high enough that, even though the sun may have just set, there still could be sunlight on the plane.

Susanvb wrote:Too much like Photoshop to work.

This comment has been bugging me. Ignoring the possibility that Susanvb was unjustly accusing the photographer of faking, there remains the horrific possibility that the poster's intent was closer to
'Since this kind of thing can be faked so easily using Photoshop, no one should bother doing it honestly or they won't be taken seriously; furthermore, whatever time they spend on it will be wasted time, because even the final, honest, image won't "work".'

Now, I'm not sure what it means for an image to "work": if work in a physical sense implies motion, then this picture is rather a perfect example of an image projecting motion to the viewer (and several different rates of motion at that!). Perhaps the contrails are just too realistic for Susanvb, or she doesn't like the subtly pleasing effect of the Australian flag's colors.

However, as a musician, I am particularly aware of the process of painstaking months and years that go into preparing a performance lasting a comparatively minuscule length of time, much like Chris Thomas's preparation for producing this photo and his nerves of steel as he was taking it. His vision and dedication to achieving it is laudable; there is so much glory and satisfaction in his statement:

"Today, I achieved something I have wanted to do for a considerable length of time. A plane crossing the moon."

If his achievement is going to be dismissed simply because some other bum could potentially put shapes together on a computer screen to make something similar, then...well, such a dismissal is depressing, disheartening, angering, and disgusting all rolled into one. It would be a sad day when humanity no longer bothers to do beautiful things honestly merely because beauty has once been perverted by dishonest means.

Congratulations, Chris, on your photo. To conclude, a beautiful quote from Brahms on the "Herrlichkeit des Menschen" (I highly recommend following the link and listening to it as well):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_German_Requiem_(Brahms)#Text wrote: Denn alles Fleisch, es ist wie Gras
und alle Herrlichkeit des Menschen
wie des Grases Blumen.
Das Gras ist verdorret
und die Blume abgefallen. I Petrus 1:24

For all flesh is as grass,
and all the glory of man
as the flower of grass.
The grass withers,
and the flower thereof falleth away. I Peter 1:24

The camera they used to take the picture must have been a high speed camera. The moon trackers must have had to wait many months to take this rare photo.

bystander wrote:
The plane is flying high enough that, even though the sun may have just set, there still could be sunlight on the plane.

There appears there might just be a reflection of a setting sun on the nose of the Dash-8.

Sam wrote:

Susanvb wrote:Too much like Photoshop to work.

This comment has been bugging me. Ignoring the possibility that Susanvb was unjustly accusing the photographer of faking, there remains the horrific possibility that the poster's intent was closer to
'Since this kind of thing can be faked so easily using Photoshop, no one should bother doing it honestly or they won't be taken seriously; furthermore, whatever time they spend on it will be wasted time, because even the final, honest, image won't "work".'

Now, I'm not sure what it means for an image to "work": if work in a physical sense implies motion, then this picture is rather a perfect example of an image projecting motion to the viewer (and several different rates of motion at that!). Perhaps the contrails are just too realistic for Susanvb, or she doesn't like the subtly pleasing effect of the Australian flag's colors.

However, as a musician, I am particularly aware of the process of painstaking months and years that go into preparing a performance lasting a comparatively minuscule length of time, much like Chris Thomas's preparation for producing this photo and his nerves of steel as he was taking it. His vision and dedication to achieving it is laudable; there is so much glory and satisfaction in his statement:

"Today, I achieved something I have wanted to do for a considerable length of time. A plane crossing the moon."

If his achievement is going to be dismissed simply because some other bum could potentially put shapes together on a computer screen to make something similar, then...well, such a dismissal is depressing, disheartening, angering, and disgusting all rolled into one. It would be a sad day when humanity no longer bothers to do beautiful things honestly merely because beauty has once been perverted by dishonest means.

Congratulations, Chris, on your photo. To conclude, a beautiful quote from Brahms on the "Herrlichkeit des Menschen" (I highly recommend following the link and listening to it as well):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_German_Requiem_(Brahms)#Text wrote: Denn alles Fleisch, es ist wie Gras
und alle Herrlichkeit des Menschen
wie des Grases Blumen.
Das Gras ist verdorret
und die Blume abgefallen. I Petrus 1:24

For all flesh is as grass,
and all the glory of man
as the flower of grass.
The grass withers,
and the flower thereof falleth away. I Peter 1:24

Thanks Sam, I enjoyed the music.

Any work that inspires both good and “evil” responses is simply “being” art… art is finished by the viewer and/or listener. The subjectivity is created within everyone’s personal life experience… which can be predominately good or bad... also perception of an art work is derived from a practiced attitude.

Chris’s image deserves the positive comments it’s getting.

Sam wrote:What neufer implies is that the sky is blue in this image because the sun is either still up, or only recently set.

The image was made at 17:24 (if the camera clock was correctly set), which agrees with the imager's comment that these planes fly over every day at about 17:30. From his location near Brisbane, sunset on that day was at about 17:45, so I expect the Sun was still illuminating the plane.

This is a doctored photo, there are strong traces of manipulation: light inconsistencies, jpeg block inconsistencies, jpeg re-compression, etc. The image was last modified in Adobe Photoshop CS5. See this: http://www.forensicav.ro/download/moonp ... blocks.tif

[]Hi Folks

Can someone give me instructions on how to load a 'attachment"

I will load up the original image,yes it has been in C5 for a crop and slight contrast adjustment,but that is all

If that's what Caitlyn means by 'doctored'.

The image has been examined by NASA,CASA and NTSB,they all say it is a very fine image of what it is

A plane passing the moon!

Thanks Sam for your comments

cheers Chris

Catalin wrote:
This is a doctored photo, there are strong traces of manipulation: light inconsistencies, jpeg block inconsistencies, jpeg re-compression, etc. The image was last modified in Adobe Photoshop CS5. See this: http://www.forensicav.ro/download/moonp ... blocks.tif

Well, certainly the image was cropped in Photoshop....SO

What light inconsistencies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catiline wrote:
<<Catiline (108 BC–62 BC) was a Roman politician
who is best known for the Catiline conspiracy,
an attempt to overthrow the Roman Republic.

"Catiline was found far away from his own soldiers among the corpses of his enemies. It would have been a glorious death if he had thus fallen fighting for his country." —From Florus' Epitome de Tito Livio (II.xii)

hotspur wrote:
Can someone give me instructions on how to load an 'attachment'

When you are writing your post there are two files under the "Save / Preview / Submit" buttons.

One is Options, the other is Upload attachment.

Go to Upload attachment, enter your Filename, and hit the "Add the file" button.

Interesting that this particular picture has been so questioned and attacked. When was the last time a lot of people wrote in to say that an APOD was a fake?

I wonder if it can have anything to do with the fact that the picture features an airplane and the Moon, two objects that we all are so familiar with. So many APODs show things that people can't strongly relate to. Maybe that's why they don't seem to provoke any strong reactions?

I'm reminded of all those who claim that NASA never sent any astronauts to the Moon. Well, there is a ton of evidence that the Moon landings were real, and that Neal Armstrong and a dozen or so other astronauts have indeed walked on the Moon. Those who say that these things never happened are people who get a kick out of believing in conspiracies, in my opinion. Bear in mind, too, that in these days American seem to like to blame their government for everything, and the Moon landings were government-led efforts. Perhaps, if they had been the result of free enterprise, more Americans had been willing to believe.

Chris, I'm not a photographer and lack the understanding I need to know if your picture is "real" or not. But let me just say, in any case, that I like your picture a lot!

Ann

Ann wrote:
Interesting that this particular picture has been so questioned and attacked.
When was the last time a lot of people wrote in to say that an APOD was a fake?

We have a "color commentator" who is always complaining about "faked" APODs.

As far as controversy per se : 2 major pet peeves come to mind:

1) Non astronomy APODs: e.g., Matt Harding
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100725.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080722.html

2) Professional Astrophotography APODS: e.g., Wally Pacholka
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100202.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091217.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091212.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090818.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090729.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090704.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090219.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090127.html
etc., etc., etc......

Most folks here have a very strong amateur love of astronomy and/or astrophysics
and these two issues above grate on the nerves of some.

Ann wrote:
I wonder if it can have anything to do with the fact that picture features an airplane and the Moon, two objects that we all are so familiar with. So many APODs show things that people can't strongly relate to. Maybe that's why they don't seem to provoke any strong reactions?

I think it has more to do with the fact that Chris's picture seems too good to be true; I mean the plane is smack in the middle of the moon If the plane or photographer were 20m to the right or left the shot would be ruined. Most people go by to adage: "Anything that seem too good to be true (probably) IS too good to be true." While I do believe that Chris worked hard to get this TRUE shot I also believe that he was damn lucky to get it too.

Ann wrote:
I'm reminded of all those who claim that NASA never sent any astronauts to the Moon. Well, there is a ton of evidence that the Moon landings were real, and that Neal Armstrong and a dozen or so other astronauts have indeed walked on the Moon. Those who say that these things never happened are people who get a kick out of believing in conspiracies, in my opinion. Bear in mind, too, that in these days American seem to like to blame their government for everything, and the Moon landings were government-led efforts. Perhaps, if they had been the result of free enterprise, more Americans had been willing to believe.

If it wasn't the government it would have been big corporations out for a profit.

No, I think the moon landings were just an unbelievable experience at the time;
and they are still hard to believe 40 years later.

Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
(And who really believes in magic?)

Ann wrote:
Chris, I'm not a photographer and lack the understanding I need to know if your picture is "real" or not.
But let me just say, in any case, that I like your picture a lot!

Being green with envy is most certainly a factor in those questioning Chris's picture.

hotspur wrote:Can someone give me instructions on how to load a 'attachment"

As an Asternaut you can't upload attachments, you must make Ensign first.

For instructions, see How to post images.

here is link to original file (3377) http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/show ... hp?t=65931

The original JPEG file is 3377 its there for all the naysayers.

I also have a RAW file untouched on the SD card.

I can not find the 'attachment' area under 'save,submit,preview" buttons

Hope the naysayers look at the ice in space thread and original images.

Yes the plane flys over everyday at approx 5.30 pm,yes the sunset around 5.45 pm that day,Yes the camera clock was correct.

Do all APODs get such a pizzling? I would have thought people at NASA inspecting them would be good enough pass

Ann wrote:Interesting that this particular picture has been so questioned and attacked. When was the last time a lot of people wrote in to say that an APOD was a fake?

Every time there is an image that looks a bit different than what people might expect, or whenever a picture seems like it would be difficult to produce. If they make concrete claims that can be refuted, it's worthwhile to do that. Otherwise, they are best ignored.

hotspur wrote:I can not find the 'attachment' area under 'save,submit,preview" buttons

See above.

Here is IMG_3377.JPG from the above thread.

Art wrote:

We have a "color commentator" who is always complaining about "faked" APODs.

Objection! When was the last time I said that an APOD was a fake?

Yes, I have said many times that they are false color. But being false color is not the same thing as being a fake!



(Hmmm... that shot of the Moon appears to be a bit off color.)

Ann

And if you're wondering, I googled "fake Moon landing" and got this picture. No need to write in and complain that it is a picture of Mars!

Ann wrote:Art wrote:

We have a "color commentator" who is always complaining about "faked" APODs.

Objection! When was the last time I said that an APOD was a fake?

Yes, I have said many times that they are false color. But being false color is not the same thing as being a fake!

Fake, n. A trick; a swindle.
..............................................
Fake, v. t. [Cf. Gael. faigh to get, acquire, reach, or OD. facken to catch or gripe.]

1. To cheat; to swindle; to steal; to rob.

2. To make; to construct; to do.

3. To manipulate fraudulently, so as to make an object appear better or other than it really is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
False, a. [L. falsus, p.p. of fallere to deceive; cf. OF. faus, fals, F. faux, and AS. fals fraud.]

1. Uttering falsehood; unveracious; given to deceit; dishnest; as, a false witness.

2. Not faithful or loyal, as to obligations, allegiance, vows, etc.; untrue; treacherous; perfidious; as, a false friend, lover, or subject; false to promises.

3. Not according with truth or reality; not true; fitted or likely to deceive or disappoint; as, a false statement.

4. Not genuine or real; assumed or designed to deceive; counterfeit; hypocritical; as, false tears; false modesty; false colors; false jewelry.

5. Not well founded; not firm or trustworthy; erroneous; as, a false claim; a false conclusion; a false construction in grammar.

I predict there will now ensue a fake argument about the meaning of fake.
Rob

I think they are just trying to "fake" us all out