I have to agree with Stuart after his presentation of the stretched files. That looks to me like PE whilst slewing.
Where the line ends looks like its a star, all the other white pixels look like noise.
How fast do meteors travel? Their trajectory must be such that they leave vectors. I can understand spirally trails left behind in gaseous vapour, but, this doesn't appear to be the case in this image.
There's a new case for not using ICNR and taking your own darks.
I think that whilst Stuart has arrived at some conclusions based upon his observations about the data presented to him, he is just proposing an alternative explanation to what has been recorded by the sensor and in his judgement, that explanation better fits his understanding of what a meteor trail should look like through a telescope.
Whilst Stuart has listed his findings, this does not necessarily mean that his interpretation is the whole truth. Chris appears to have already corrected some of the (incorrect?) educated assumptions Stuart made; that is, Chris writes that he was not focusing on a bright star at the time and he was also auto guiding. However, these corrections from Chris do not necessarily invalidate all the points raised by Stuart.
However, if Chris’ corrections to Stuarts assumptions can be validated, then that in itself can only be good news, as those uncertainties (focusing & auto guiding) can then be put to bed and the remaining issues can be further investigated.
I think that this ad hoc peer review process has been very useful thus far and I have asked Chris to e-mail me a copy of the original file to see if I can match up the “stars” with a planetarium program such as The Sky. If I can correlate Chris’ “stars” with certainty, to candidate stars in The Sky, then the hot pixel issue at least, can be put to bed and other issues focused on.
I personally did not feel that Chris’ integrity was being questioned and I also recognise that Stuart was working, in part, in the dark as he does not know Chris, his set up, his capabilities, equipment configuration, etc. and precisely what Chris was doing at the time. A lot of unknowns!
I'm not saying I'm right, just that I think I'm right.
Some of Chris' corrections come down to "I know what I was doing at the time". Whilst I don't doubt that he thinks he knows what the scope was doing, in reality he wasn't watching it, he was obviously looking at a clear night sky (who wouldn't). Because of this he can't be absolutely certain that his scope etc was working as he thinks.
I have asked for the preceeding shot of NGC 253 that he took, that will either kill or confirm the hot pixels absolutely, if he has a long exposure picture with stars there I will stand (or in this case sit) corrected.
Unfortunately Chris seems to have followed through with his threat of walking out, which is a shame really. I'm sorry Chris (if you're still reading this thread) but it's like you've stormed off in a huff, which wasn't anyone's intention.
I couldn't tell you wether it is a slewing problem, hot pixels or a meteor but I can tell you that I don't think there are "favourites" on this site that just get cudos for posting.
Just about every image I have seen put on this site has been up for scrutiny and members actually ask for it to be analyzed.
This is not to have a go at you but to learn and possibly take on a minor changes or something mentioned to assist in extracting the best you can with the equipment you have at hand.
Keep on imaging and posting as novices like myself do learn from reading all these posts.
The trail on this video looks very wavy like Chris' photo. In this video's case I think this is caused from the video camera being mounted on a moving/unstable object? Is it possible that chris' telescope got bumped during the photo and that caused the wavy lines, or some more minor vibration? I do remember him saying that he snapped the photo manually.
Also, wouldn't lining the picture up with a star map prove / disprove the hot pixel theory?
Good luck Chris, I hope your picture is proven to be true. In the end this process/thread will only make the argument for your picture stronger.
I think it's time for me to say something here.
It was my Telescope SW pro series 100mm Refractor on a HEQ Pro5 mount that Chris was shooting through, this was guided by an 80mm Orion Refractor using the Orion Star Guider.
Chris's honesty is beyond reproach in this matter.
I'm shocked that this has caused such decisiveness amongst a small community that should be focused on encouragement not negativity.
If the picture is a camera and slewing fault I certainly didn't witness it.
The mount was guiding at the time.
Maybe if one of us has the resources to have the image verified by an expert in this field and post his comment along with his qualifications as to finally put this contentious issue to bed for once and for all.
Chris, mate when you post something that is unique as this image may or may not prove to be. You must expect sceptisism, it goes with the territory of a public forum.
If the image does hold up to independent and qualified scrutiny , I can say with pride I was there. However if it is proven to be a glitch, well I'm still proud to be your friend.
Hang in there mate and try not to take it personally.
Mike.
PS. I swapped your chair over today.
Last edited by mike-wulff; 27-08-2009 at 09:10 PM.
I don't see why all this is any different to say, me taking a photo of a UFO through a camera that was set up to take a shot of Jupiter or a DSO and then posting it here.
I may believe that what I saw with my eyes is what I captured, but when I post that image with a description that its a UFO and people take a look at it and think "hang on, that doesn't look right" surely there is room for people to be free to say "I don't think thats a UFO".
Most of us are not experts in what a meteor looks like when captured through a telescope, but if it looks significantly different to what you see in widefield pictures and video as well as what you see with your own eyes, then why can't we be skeptical? There certainly hasn't been a raft of personal attacks or derision or anything negative by calling someone a fake, liar or questioning their integrity.
When I initially looked at this photo and made the comment (intended as humour and not with any sort of malice) about it looking like an Asteroids game, this was probably because to me it didnt look right. I expected to see a meteor streak like I have seen in real life and in pictures. I am not an expert in these matters, so if I thought this was strange, I can certainly see why others more qualified and experienced would have their doubts too.
After reading Stuart's analysis and hypothesis as to how this occurred, it seems in my opinion an experienced and plausible explanation as to what happened. Just because its plausible doesnt mean its correct either!
I don't think that there needs to be any ill feeling because someone is expressing their opinion which may not agree with someone else's.
If we all just sat here and only gave positive comments to every post or picture or discovery, then IIS would be a lot poorer place because of it.
I can understand Hotspur's disappointment in having his capture analysed, broken down and possibly debunked, but I honestly dont think anyone is calling him a fraud, or even vilifying him. Certainly he has been very open with providing the raw files for analysis which I applaud him for and sort of expect anyone would do in the same situation.
I also applaud Stuart for publicly sticking up for his own opinions and experience and dont think he or anyone else who may disagree with Chris should be criticised for voicing their opinion either.
It's all really just about the picture, which, to me, doesnt look like a meteor. It really all just boils down to this, doesn't it?
I think it's time for me to say something here.
It was my Telescope SW pro series 100mm Refractor on a HEQ Pro5 mount that Chris was shooting through, this was guided by an 80mm Orion Refractor using the Orion Star Guider.
Chris's honesty is beyond reproach in this matter.
I'm shocked that this has caused such decisiveness amongst a small community that should be focused on encouragement not negativity.
If the picture is a camera and slewing fault I certainly didn't witness it.
The mount was guiding at the time.
Maybe if one of us has the resources to have the image verified by an expert in this field and post his comment along with his qualifications as to finally put this contentious issue to bed for once and for all.
Chris, mate when you post something that is unique as this image may or may not prove to be. You must expect sceptisism, it goes with the territory of a public forum.
If the image does hold up to independent and qualified scrutiny , I can say with pride I was there. However if it is proven to be a glitch, well I'm still proud to be your friend.
Hang in there mate and try not to take it personally.
Mike.
PS. I swapped your chair over today.
Hi Mike,
I have no problem with the gear used, but now I know exactly what it was it may help.
Chris' honesty about what he believes the photo to be has never been in question. Just because we question his conclusion doesn't mean we question him personally, I have gone to great lengths to ensure that I didn't post a personal comment.
I'm not sure that there is an expert in this field i.e. what a meteor would look like when photographed through a telescope. I have taken many deep sky and planetary pictures and have seen just about everything go wrong with an exposure. I have created pictures just like this one in the manner that I have explained may have occurred to Chris. So whilst not an expert in the field of meteor photography, I would consider myself to be an expert in stuffed up astrophotography, simply from experience.
Again, I have asked for the preceding photograph of NGC 253 so we can see if the stars match up etc. Chris hasn't sent it to me, I can only comment on what I have to examine.
Again, I have no vested interest in this, I would love to be able to analyse the pictures and confirm that this is indeed a picture of a meteor. I can't say that with any confidence with the evidence available. Things go horribly wrong very quickly when autoguiding, I have lots of subs where the guide star has been lost, sometimes because our cat has investigated the scope when I was inside watching telly (he left pawprints on the scope).
Try talking to Chris and get him to send me that file.
Thanks Mike! I to am shocked at the grass fire this meteor has caused
I have posted this pic on other forums and not been subjected to the
negativity,as i have here,I have submitted high res pics to many other people,including other experienced astronomers in other countries,again
i have had no doubting feed back,I currently have another person in Brisbane looking at it,and is making analaysies.I have spoken with that person on the phone,to give all details.
As Mike has confirmed there was no slewing going on,or star that we were focusing on,also Stuart,if you have examied the full res pic,
Why did'nt you make a comment on the second meteor in the picture?
or have you not seen it,too busy counting pixels?perhaps.
It is above the bright one and goes right across the sky,its faint but
when you blow the pic right up,you should have noticed that straight away!
So that evidence by it self blows Stuarts threoy of focusing on a star and slewing bit,Plus Mikes statement,WHO WAS THERE AT THE TIME!
I don't have a problem with Stuats Threoys,what i do have a problem
with is people are looking at it.and Going "yes,he is right,chris appears to be wrong"
already that is the feeling i am getting,by reading Octranes,and Sckrerdruver ones comments,and others.
I feel that Stuart has not really taken into account all of waht was going on.
I am not sending any more full res pics,as this debate has cost me alot of bandwidth,time,and headaches.there are plenty of people around the
world that have most of the frames i took that night,i an sure they will nut it out,
C P.S stuart is a cat did things like that in my observatory,it would be dead!
Last edited by hotspur; 28-08-2009 at 10:28 AM.
Reason: extra detail
Firstly, welcome back, it's good to see you posting again.
Secondly it would have had to have been a meteorite to cause a grass fire
As to the no negative feedback, if you're going to quote people, you have to name them, merely saying that other people have looked at it and don't agree with me is not enough. At least let them know you need some support for your theory and get them to post here, that way you won't have to do anything more, just sit back and watch.
Quote:
As Mike has confirmed there was no slewing going on,or star that we were focusing on,also Stuart,if you have examied the full res pic,
Why did'nt you make a comment on the second meteor in the picture?
or have you not seen it,too busy counting pixels?perhaps.
OK, now I've tried really hard not to get personal, then you turn that around and attack me personally, not fair!
Quote:
It is above the bright one and goes right across the sky,its faint but
when you blow the pic right up,you should have noticed that straight away!
So that evidence by it self blows Stuarts threoy of focusing on a star and slewing bit,Plus Mikes statement,WHO WAS THERE AT THE TIME!
From one of my previous posts;
"Also present in the image are multiple non-parallel streaks that start at one edge and make it through to another, this is caused by the scope slewing in both RA and Dec, these are stars moving through the frame. The fact that none of them stop means the shutter closed before the mount had stopped."
This is what you are referring to as the second meteor I assume. I have noticed, commented on them and explained then rationally, so the don't disprove my theory, in fact they strengthen it. Why haven't you commented on the other streaks in the enhanced image I posted, I can count at least five trails other than the ones mentioned. All these trails move from lower left to upper right (or vice versa, it's impossible to tell). Are these five other meteors? I think not, so I have to attempted to explain the streaks in a rational, logical manner.
Quote:
I don't have a problem with Stuats Threoys,what i do have a problem
with is people are looking at it.and Going "yes,he is right,chris appears to be wrong"
already that is the feeling i am getting,by reading Octranes,and Sckrerdruver ones comments,and others.
I feel that Stuart has not really taken into account all of waht was going on.
I am not sending any more full res pics,as this debate has cost me alot of bandwidth,time,and headaches.there are plenty of people around the
world that have most of the frames i took that night,i an sure they will nut it out,
Clearly, you do have a problem with my hypothesis. I am trying to take everything into account, but I don't have all the evidence required. You have sent the files to other people, why not me? You have my email.
Please send me the preceding frame of NGC253, that should be all I need to at least settle the issue of the bright spots being hot pixels or stars. I'm also trying to "nut it out", but your resistance to sending the files to me is perplexing.
Quote:
P.S stuart is a cat did things like that in my observatory,it would be dead!
Luckily for my daughter's cat I'm a little more tolerant, I would have like to take a picture of the cat on a Cat though!
I think its time for you to move on and ruin someone eles'
post,
You have done a pretty good job in discrediting,this one,and
making yourself look good.
I really don't have the time to continue presenting data,to
you,
I also think its time for a moderator on this site,to come in
and may be,offer some adutication,or perhaps some monitoring.
I never put this photo on with the intent to cause such a stink.
I do feel the some people on this (please note i am not making a comment directly about Stuart) may tend to over do the anyalasises
on many of the post,the last three post i have put on this site,have
caused considerable flak,i never thought this would occur on such a forum site,i thought this was supposed to be a family orrientated forum
not a site where you had to have N.T.S.B training,or a degree in astrophysics before you could safely post a basic star picture.
Have said all that,this recent thread has
really turned me off,ever posting a photo again,
good luck to all the people who post pictures here,your going to
meteors can indeed have a wavy/zig zaggy path/non-linear, and i'm not talking about a smoke train over time due to winds - here's a pic of a wavy meteor (terminal end trail) rom my friend took while we observed it visually during 2001 leonids, widefield tripod shot, film
- also there are historical woodcuttings of wavy meteors, cant find the best one, lost it somewhere, but theres another i found, its a very old argument still i dont think its a meteor either, sorry!
Last edited by fringe_dweller; 28-08-2009 at 12:35 PM.
I wish you wouldn't take comments so seriously, or as personal attacks, or as attempts to question your credibility. We have nothing to gain by going down that path.
I simply offered up what I thought I was looking at. And, as I said, nothing ventured, nothing gained. You could quite as well have caught a meteor in your photograph, and, if you have, it is a fantastic shot. I don't understand the central brightening, however. That part doesn't make any sense to me. It's like as if it has hit something and blown up. It is very reminiscent of a star.
Stuart
I think its time for you to move on and ruin someone eles' post,You have done a pretty good job in discrediting,this one,and making yourself look good. I really don't have the time to continue presenting data,to you
Hang on a minute there. Like I've said at least three times before, I didn't want this to get personal. I have apologised to you personally (via email) and publicly in this forum if you had taken offence to anything that I have written. I welcomed you back with open arms when you started posting again, what more do I need to do, short of saying that it is a meteor (which I still don't believe, so won't be saying)? I don't think that I deserve such invective. You should apologise (though I'm not expecting it).
It's not YOUR post, this is a public forum, it's everyone's post.
I do not gain anything by analysing your picture. My reputation stands or falls on my own work in astrophotography. When I post a picture I expect critisism, it's sometimes the only way to get better. I marvel at other shots and tell them when I really like them, or try to glean details from them to emulate them.
Quote:
I also think its time for a moderator on this site,to come in and may be,offer some adutication,or perhaps some monitoring. I never put this photo on with the intent to cause such a stink. I do feel the some people on this (please note i am not making a comment directly about Stuart) may tend to over do the anyalasises on many of the post,the last three post i have put on this site,have caused considerable flak,i never thought this would occur on such a forum site,i thought this was supposed to be a family orrientated forum
I'm sure the moderators are monitoring the forum. I'm sure if I had written something not fit for a family oriented discussion that they would have stepped in. Let's get this straight, you are claiming to be the second person to photograph a meteor with a telescope, and you don't expect that people will analyse the image to determine if it is what you say? Get real, of course they will. It seems that I am a lone voice in trying to analyse your picture, did you send it to anyone else, why haven't they posted?
Quote:
not a site where you had to have N.T.S.B training,or a degree in astrophysics before you could safely post a basic star picture. Have said all that,this recent thread has really turned me off,ever posting a photo again, good luck to all the people who post pictures here,your going to need it,and a swag of reference books too!
This is not a basic star picture!
Anyways, I'm now sick of the invective so I'll state what I really think.
This is a picture of a bright star.
The mount was stationary for a period of time, then slewed.
During the slew the shutter closed.
The other bright spots are due to imperfect subtraction of a dark frame.
The bright spots do not conform to any known asterism near NGC253.
Chris' refusal to supply other images confirms that he suspects I am right but doesn't want to back down.
Chris' refusal to supply another analysis by an independant person shows he has received no such independant analysis that substantiates his claim
I will attempt to recreate Chris' image at some stage in the future, I know what happened, so you will see that what I am saying is correct, confirmed by experiment.
inspired by the revelation that Einstein came up with the einstein cross/halo ect. E=MC2 blah blah after watching the defractions of light in a river/pond, an experiment to determine if meteors can have non-linear paths (which i believe they can after seeing many over the years - could have perturbed actions, like a tumbler in a way) would be to throw at great velocity stones into a pond or pool and have someone observe their path below the water - eureka!
Last edited by fringe_dweller; 28-08-2009 at 01:38 PM.
From a review of the posts, it seems to me that you are coming from “culturally different” backgrounds.
Chris comes from a rural background, is a keen wildlife observer, skilled craftsman and generally good bloke amongst other things, but has little experience of the “brutality” of the impersonal peer review process. A rural environment provides scant opportunities to grapple with the raft of issues when one’s work products are subjected to an independent review, from what are essentially a bunch of strangers. Often it is received as personal criticism and understandably so, with such little experience and exposure to the process.
Stuart has identified that he is a scientist and this suggests that he dwells in a culture where data, objective analysis and peer review are the norm and such independent reviews are not received as personal attacks. In this culture, with heaps of experience, training and a thick skin, the peer review process tends not to ruffle the feathers too much!
I’m sure if you guys met in a pub over a beer, or at the telescope, you’d iron things out quite quickly!
P.S stuart is a cat did things like that in my observatory,it would be dead!
