First Possible photo of extrasolar planet

[Nortilus (Josh)]

Saw this on Astronomy daily forum. Thought i'd post it here too.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...lanet_pic.html

[rumples riot]

Look at the date this was posted 1 April, you been fooled.

[Astroman (Andrew Wall)]

LOL not hard to see that the companion is fake, good effort though.

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

2 different graphic image sizes where used. (see enlarged photo).

If I was going to deceive, at least I would have used matching pixelation!

[astroron (Ron)]

Hi all here is a email I recieced from Rob Britt of Space.Com re AHi Ron:
European astronomers tend not to publicize their findings as
aggressively as U.S. researchers. I came upon this when an astronomer
tipped me off. It has now been covered by CNN, the New York Times
(today's issue, in the Science section) and others. No joke. The thing
is that while the lead researcher told me he was confident the object
is a planet, the scientific paper cautiously calls it a "companion" to
the star. There was a debate among scientists over the weekend as to
how firmly the mass of the object is pinned down.
cheers,
Rob

On Apr 5, 2005 8:30 AM, Ron Knight <astroron@hotkey.net.au> wrote:
> Hi Rob I amazed that no one else even ESO are not claiming wht you are saying, I have been on the ESO website everyday and their is no mention of this event, even going back to June last year and there is no mention of that discovery, is this an April fools joke . Regards Ron
>


--
Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
SPACE.com & LiveScience (www.LiveScience.com)
rob.britt@gmail.com


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 01-Apr-05

pril Fool and New Planet Photo

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

So is it a hoax or not. The photo is a definately a composite! Maybe a composite of a real thing just for clarity?
Thanks for the info Ron. Pity we can't point our scopes and see for ourselves!!

[astroron (Ron)]

Roy Britt is certain it is genuine, If you can find a spare 8 metre interferometer to use you might get a look at it.
we should find out soon when they get another look at it with Hubble . Cheers Ron

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Nup, no interferometer here. I'll have to wait for Hubble! Ta Ron.

[astroron (Ron)]

Hi Ken, arn't almost all astrophoto's composit, wether CCD or Digetal? How did you work out that the image was a composit? Ron

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Open the enlarged photo then enlarge that image. Look at the size of the pixels in the star, then look at the size of the pixels in the planet. They are slightly different sizes meaning it is a fake or they have pulled out the planet, clarified it's image and placed it back in but not quite the same size as it was originally. If it is not a fake, then they have done this for the sake of study or to make the image clearer. But whoever put it in (or back in) is a few percent out.

Hope that makes sense. I have an extroadinarily good eye for detail. Comes from many years of fine detail artwork (Tattooing etc,)

[astroron (Ron)]

Hi All go to this site to see the true story of the April fools day photo of Exoplanet Regards Ron http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-09-05.html

[RAJAH235]

Hi all. Ken, with the enlarged Spitzer image I zoomed up to 4400 x 4100 pixels & it looks genuine. The pixels line up exactly across the image. The "corony/corona"(ala Marx Bros.), flares look good.
With my old eyes I could be wrong tho. L.