More undisclosed image fakery

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:19:55 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: How many people who don't understand astronomical distances, telescope
: resolution, (which is about 99.99% of the public) realize the images
: of these newly discovered planets are fakes? Certainly not from
: reading the article. A bunch of comments for this story citing that
: were wiped by CNN.
:
: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/24/opinio...html?hpt=hp_c2

I wondered about that myself. To my knowledge, no planet outside our solar
system has ever been photographed in the visible spectrum. AFAIK, all evidence
for such planets comes from perturbations of the orbits of their host stars,
occlusion of distant stars, relativistic effects on the light from distant
objects, etc. Astronomers (and their computers) have gotten very good at
interpreting such evidence, and I guess the existence of these putative
planets is rarely questioned. But despite the detailed pictures they've been
waving around, I'm pretty sure nobody really knows what those planets look
like.

Bob

Robert Coe wrote in
:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:19:55 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
: How many people who don't understand astronomical distances,
: telescope resolution, (which is about 99.99% of the public) realize
: the images of these newly discovered planets are fakes? Certainly
: not from reading the article. A bunch of comments for this story
: citing that were wiped by CNN.
:
: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/24/opinio...dex.html?hpt=h
: p_c2

I wondered about that myself. To my knowledge, no planet outside our
solar system has ever been photographed in the visible spectrum.
AFAIK, all evidence for such planets comes from perturbations of the
orbits of their host stars, occlusion of distant stars, relativistic
effects on the light from distant objects, etc. Astronomers (and their
computers) have gotten very good at interpreting such evidence, and I
guess the existence of these putative planets is rarely questioned.
But despite the detailed pictures they've been waving around, I'm
pretty sure nobody really knows what those planets look like.

Bob


No, the best they've been able to do is image (as point sources) some
huge Jupiter-like planets, but it's impossible to image surface details
because they are simply too far away to form resolvable disks.

On 2011-12-25 23:32:17 -0800, Rich said:

Robert Coe wrote in
:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:19:55 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
: How many people who don't understand astronomical distances,
: telescope resolution, (which is about 99.99% of the public) realize
: the images of these newly discovered planets are fakes? Certainly
: not from reading the article. A bunch of comments for this story
: citing that were wiped by CNN.
:
: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/24/opinio...dex.html?hpt=h
: p_c2

I wondered about that myself. To my knowledge, no planet outside our
solar system has ever been photographed in the visible spectrum.
AFAIK, all evidence for such planets comes from perturbations of the
orbits of their host stars, occlusion of distant stars, relativistic
effects on the light from distant objects, etc. Astronomers (and their
computers) have gotten very good at interpreting such evidence, and I
guess the existence of these putative planets is rarely questioned.
But despite the detailed pictures they've been waving around, I'm
pretty sure nobody really knows what those planets look like.

Bob


No, the best they've been able to do is image (as point sources) some
huge Jupiter-like planets, but it's impossible to image surface details
because they are simply too far away to form resolvable disks.

The caption clearly states "chart" and is intended to demonstrate
comparative sizes. I don't see any claim that those are photographs,
but it certainly leaves the ignorant reader free to fantasize as there
is no disclaimer.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 12/26/2011 2:32 AM, Rich wrote:
Robert wrote in
:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:19:55 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
: How many people who don't understand astronomical distances,
: telescope resolution, (which is about 99.99% of the public) realize
: the images of these newly discovered planets are fakes? Certainly
: not from reading the article. A bunch of comments for this story
: citing that were wiped by CNN.
:
: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/24/opinio...dex.html?hpt=h
: p_c2

I wondered about that myself. To my knowledge, no planet outside our
solar system has ever been photographed in the visible spectrum.
AFAIK, all evidence for such planets comes from perturbations of the
orbits of their host stars, occlusion of distant stars, relativistic
effects on the light from distant objects, etc. Astronomers (and their
computers) have gotten very good at interpreting such evidence, and I
guess the existence of these putative planets is rarely questioned.
But despite the detailed pictures they've been waving around, I'm
pretty sure nobody really knows what those planets look like.

Bob


No, the best they've been able to do is image (as point sources) some
huge Jupiter-like planets, but it's impossible to image surface details
because they are simply too far away to form resolvable disks.

And where does the cited article say the images were faked.

--
Peter

On 12/26/2011 2:42 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-12-25 23:32:17 -0800, Rich said:

Robert Coe wrote in
:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:19:55 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
: How many people who don't understand astronomical distances,
: telescope resolution, (which is about 99.99% of the public) realize
: the images of these newly discovered planets are fakes? Certainly
: not from reading the article. A bunch of comments for this story
: citing that were wiped by CNN.
:
: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/24/opinio...dex.html?hpt=h
: p_c2

I wondered about that myself. To my knowledge, no planet outside our
solar system has ever been photographed in the visible spectrum.
AFAIK, all evidence for such planets comes from perturbations of the
orbits of their host stars, occlusion of distant stars, relativistic
effects on the light from distant objects, etc. Astronomers (and their
computers) have gotten very good at interpreting such evidence, and I
guess the existence of these putative planets is rarely questioned.
But despite the detailed pictures they've been waving around, I'm
pretty sure nobody really knows what those planets look like.

Bob


No, the best they've been able to do is image (as point sources) some
huge Jupiter-like planets, but it's impossible to image surface details
because they are simply too far away to form resolvable disks.

The caption clearly states "chart" and is intended to demonstrate
comparative sizes. I don't see any claim that those are photographs, but
it certainly leaves the ignorant reader free to fantasize as there is no
disclaimer.


Rich's headline contains more fakery than substance.


--
Peter

PeterN wrote in
:

On 12/26/2011 2:32 AM, Rich wrote:
Robert wrote in
:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:19:55 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
: How many people who don't understand astronomical distances,
: telescope resolution, (which is about 99.99% of the public)
: realize the images of these newly discovered planets are fakes?
: Certainly not from reading the article. A bunch of comments for
: this story citing that were wiped by CNN.
:
: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/24/opinio.../index.html?hp
: t=h p_c2

I wondered about that myself. To my knowledge, no planet outside our
solar system has ever been photographed in the visible spectrum.
AFAIK, all evidence for such planets comes from perturbations of the
orbits of their host stars, occlusion of distant stars, relativistic
effects on the light from distant objects, etc. Astronomers (and
their computers) have gotten very good at interpreting such
evidence, and I guess the existence of these putative planets is
rarely questioned. But despite the detailed pictures they've been
waving around, I'm pretty sure nobody really knows what those
planets look like.

Bob


No, the best they've been able to do is image (as point sources) some
huge Jupiter-like planets, but it's impossible to image surface
details because they are simply too far away to form resolvable
disks.

And where does the cited article say the images were faked.


Whooosh!!!

Bob Dobbs wrote in news:4ef92db3.5412562
@chupacabra:

Rich wrote:

No, the best they've been able to do is image (as point sources) some
huge Jupiter-like planets, but it's impossible to image surface details
because they are simply too far away to form resolvable disks.

How did Percival Lowell do it?
Did he use a 'superzoom'?

Lowell only ever saw Pluto (which is something like 6,500,000 times closer
than one of the planets whose discovery they announced) as a point source.
He identified it as a "minor" planet by charting its movement against the
star background.

On 12/26/2011 7:17 PM, Bruce wrote:
Rich wrote:
PeterN wrote in
And where does the cited article say the images were faked.


Whooosh!!!



Whoosh indeed. A profoundly ignorant, malicious old man.


Malice charges from someone who does not read what I write?
Ignorance charges from someone who does not read what I write?

If calling out bull****ting bluster is ignorance and malice, I happily
plead guilty.

And this amazing statement is made by someone who has the unique ability
to say posted images he never looks at are crap.



--
Peter

On 12/26/2011 6:00 PM, Rich wrote:
wrote in
:

On 12/26/2011 2:32 AM, Rich wrote:
Robert wrote in
:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:19:55 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
: How many people who don't understand astronomical distances,
: telescope resolution, (which is about 99.99% of the public)
: realize the images of these newly discovered planets are fakes?
: Certainly not from reading the article. A bunch of comments for
: this story citing that were wiped by CNN.
:
: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/24/opinio.../index.html?hp
: t=h p_c2

I wondered about that myself. To my knowledge, no planet outside our
solar system has ever been photographed in the visible spectrum.
AFAIK, all evidence for such planets comes from perturbations of the
orbits of their host stars, occlusion of distant stars, relativistic
effects on the light from distant objects, etc. Astronomers (and
their computers) have gotten very good at interpreting such
evidence, and I guess the existence of these putative planets is
rarely questioned. But despite the detailed pictures they've been
waving around, I'm pretty sure nobody really knows what those
planets look like.

Bob


No, the best they've been able to do is image (as point sources) some
huge Jupiter-like planets, but it's impossible to image surface
details because they are simply too far away to form resolvable
disks.

And where does the cited article say the images were faked.


Whooosh!!!


Let's see. you post a heading that is not supported by the link. Please
explain your "whooosh"

It's also interesting that Brucie, who does not read my posts, calls me
ignorant and malicious.


--
Peter

On 12/27/2011 9:45 AM, John A. wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:05:58 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/26/2011 6:00 PM, Rich wrote:
wrote in
:

On 12/26/2011 2:32 AM, Rich wrote:
Robert wrote in
:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:19:55 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
: How many people who don't understand astronomical distances,
: telescope resolution, (which is about 99.99% of the public)
: realize the images of these newly discovered planets are fakes?
: Certainly not from reading the article. A bunch of comments for
: this story citing that were wiped by CNN.
:
: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/24/opinio.../index.html?hp
: t=h p_c2

I wondered about that myself. To my knowledge, no planet outside our
solar system has ever been photographed in the visible spectrum.
AFAIK, all evidence for such planets comes from perturbations of the
orbits of their host stars, occlusion of distant stars, relativistic
effects on the light from distant objects, etc. Astronomers (and
their computers) have gotten very good at interpreting such
evidence, and I guess the existence of these putative planets is
rarely questioned. But despite the detailed pictures they've been
waving around, I'm pretty sure nobody really knows what those
planets look like.

Bob


No, the best they've been able to do is image (as point sources) some
huge Jupiter-like planets, but it's impossible to image surface
details because they are simply too far away to form resolvable
disks.

And where does the cited article say the images were faked.


Whooosh!!!


Let's see. you post a heading that is not supported by the link. Please
explain your "whooosh"

It's also interesting that Brucie, who does not read my posts, calls me
ignorant and malicious.

Dude. "Undisclosed" *means* they didn't say it.

I know. When one writs a caption "more undisclosed image fakery," there
is a clear implication that the writer is presenting some proof of the
fakery. Or, that there was some fakery to disclose.
A woman's third teat is undisclosed. It never existed.

--
Peter