rstevenson wrote:owlice wrote:~~~~~ sigh ~~~~~
...and other such disrespectful comments will not endear you to those scientists you want to sit next to. I said...
No, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. But the image seems to be exaggerating a relatively minor natural occurance.
I don't think that rather mild stance warrants such a response.
Rob
Rob, I agree with you: the image seems to be exaggerating a natural occurrence, and
why it seems to be was explained -- to my satisfaction anyway -- on the page that says "the cumulative result in the composite view gives the appearance of a massive blaze." Did you follow the link to that page? Did everyone else who questioned that image on this thread?
I'm thinking that the answer to at least one of those questions is "no," hence the sigh. I'm weary.
I don't know that the point of the imaging is to "show the ... human presence" on our planet; I think rather it is one of the results of, rather than the reason for, the imaging, but fully acknowledge I could be completely wrong about that.
neufer wrote:Especially considering what owlice is being paid to do this
![Exclamation :!:](./images/smilies/icon_exclaim.gif)
I often have questions about APODs, and when I do, 99% of the time, following the links provided answers those questions, and if they don't, following subsequent links takes care of most of the remaining 1%. But maybe I'm incurious, gullible, or easily satisfied if I think the source (NASA, NOAA [even retirees from NOAA], etc.) reliable.