I just had a look at Gendler's image of the same thing and, no surprises, there is the same reddish linear feature as in Paul's data - right in the same place near the orange star in the close pair. Granted it looks a little like it could be carryover from the diffraction pattern in the Arkaroola image, but Gendler's image shows that it is a separate feature that was hidden under a diffraction spike in Eric's image. Since the linear feature was hidden in Eric's image, it would have been impossible for Paul to remove the overlaying diffraction spike to reveal it - and yet it is there in his data. The fact that the linear feature is present in Paul's data confirms that he did not poach Eric's image. Thus, the single bit of evidence that has been presented, by anyone, to suggest that there has been cheating, actually shows that there has been no cheating. This could have easily been determined by the accuser prior to posting, but there was obviously an agenda underlying this whole saga and honourable behaviour was not part of it.
Thus, the single bit of evidence that has been presented by anyone, to suggest that there has been cheating, actually shows that there has been no cheating.
So just so were aware, what we are actually saying here is that Paul not only did not plagiarize any work, but he also discovered a jet in M83! What a turn around.
Sorry Peter, my ISP is solid, I referred to your IIS post that was deleted, not your atscope page [which I never visit directly].
So your image and comparison highlights an honest result of achieving as good an image from a 16" as opposed to a 32" [Chart32 link here], and as you have directly shown, nearly as good as a space based 2m telescope.
In regard to the Haese raw data being made available, I agree that is also hog wash, as everyone has different processing abilities. One could easily, and quite incorrectly, eventuate to a lousy processing result and conclude the Raw doesnt match the final result.
So just so were aware, what we are actually saying here is that Paul not only did not plagiarize any work, but he also discovered a jet in M83! What a turn around.
Cool your jets Peter... (sorry just had to say that)
There are a large number of background galaxies in the area.
fwiw) Here's a montage assembled from Hubble & Subaru data
In regard to the Haese raw data being made available, I agree that is also hog wash, as everyone has different processing abilities. One could easily, and quite incorrectly, eventuate to a lousy processing result and conclude the Raw doesnt match the final result.
Steve
Steve, with all due respect
The point of putting the raw files up is that they will have image origin meta data attached, which should end any argument without the possibility of misinterpretation.
Guilt or innocence doesn't alter the fact that it is a bad situation to be in. (As the saying goes - some of it sticks). I know if I was facing allegations of plagiarism (even implicitly) I wouldn't even wait for it to be suggested... my raw files would be public domain in a heart beat. (Kudos to Paul for doing so)
There is a silver lining to all this... Paul get's the opportunity to demonstrate that his results are literally unbelievable.. (to some)
Actually, there is a second silver lining to this, and that is to underscore the value of storing (all of your) data in a format which is recognised by professional scientists. Your data then becomes unique, forensically useful documents. If the calibration is traceable, the data then becomes THE standard by which reality (or some portion of it) is defined.
Last edited by clive milne; 11-05-2016 at 08:46 AM.
Again, I don't think Paul has anything to prove here. The feature in question is a red herring. Those who want to believe in deception will not be swayed, but it is their loss to not be able to appreciate the goodness present here. Can we just put this one to bed.
The point of putting the raw files up is that they will have image origin meta data attached, which should end any argument without the possibility of misinterpretation.
<snip>
Actually, there is a second silver lining to this, and that is to underscore the value of storing data in a format which is recognised by professional scientists. Your data then becomes an unique, forensically useful document.
Metadata is trivially easy to edit. I can't see that the raw files would prove anything unless they've been time stamped and digitally signed by a trusted authority.
We've all seen Paul's work over a number of years. IMO he hasn't any need to prove himself.
Metadata is trivially easy to edit. I can't see that the raw files would prove anything unless they've been time stamped and digitally signed by a trusted authority.
We've all seen Paul's work over a number of years. IMO he hasn't any need to prove himself.
Cheers,
Rick.
+1 Superb photo. Paul, you don't need to answer to anybody, especially a troll with a few posts. Don't take the bait.
I actually cannot believe that this is even got this far. Aren't we supposed to be a community?
Trolls have an agenda that is at odds with the spirit of this site and he or she should have been carpeted quickly.
The follow on discussion defies belief as well.
Disappointed.
Graham
Steve, with all due respect
The point of putting the raw files up is that they will have image origin meta data attached, which should end any argument without the possibility of misinterpretation.
Guilt or innocence doesn't alter the fact that it is a bad situation to be in. (As the saying goes - some of it sticks). I know if I was facing allegations of plagiarism (even implicitly) I wouldn't even wait for it to be suggested... my raw files would be public domain in a heart beat. (Kudos to Paul for doing so)
There is a silver lining to all this... Paul get's the opportunity to demonstrate that his results are literally unbelievable.. (to some)
Actually, there is a second silver lining to this, and that is to underscore the value of storing (all of your) data in a format which is recognised by professional scientists. Your data then becomes unique, forensically useful documents. If the calibration is traceable, the data then becomes THE standard by which reality (or some portion of it) is defined.
How ridiculous. Unless you have the same, or better processing skills, this a waste of time. Anyone without the said expertise should not waste time to review the data as RAW data never resembles the final artwork.
Some of the new posts to this thread look more like fuel to a witch hunt.
I feel the best approach is to ignore threads with questionable results, as these will past from the first page quickly when no comments are posted.
Wow... this forum is disappointing.
Advocate the application of scientific method before employing the logical fallacy of 'appeal to authority' - and get flayed,
Critical thinking fail!
Last edited by clive milne; 11-05-2016 at 06:34 PM.
OMG, this guy obviously is in the land of the fairies. I have known Paul for years, and there is simply no way he would even consider copying any one's work. Me thinks he is treading on very thin ice, obviously does not realise that Paul is amongst other things a "legal eagle", so he may find himself in more strife than he has bargained for.
With all due respect Clive, if this person had not popped up and trolled this thread, no one would be questioning the veracity of Paul's work. We have all seen and followed the development of a 2014 Malin award winner on this site. Each picture. Each photon.
Why now?
Wow - very disappointing that one of the forum's premier astrophotographers has been attacked in this way by someone with zero credibility. It's not only Paul's large folio of work but also his generous and detailed technical advice to those learning the craft that show anyone paying attention that he has no questions to answer here.
Another fine image Paul.
I don't often comment on many of the superlative images by the top photographers here as they are so far above my abilities and understanding that I rarely have anything non-superficial to say about them. Each one is still viewed and well appreciated however.
I have spent some time thinking about what has transpired in this thread and want to say that whilst I am still not happy with the person making the accusation, I am humbled and grateful for the support people have shown towards me not only in this thread but via PM and emails. I want to thank people for the support that have shown me.
Whilst I agree that I should not have to show my data to anyone or how I go about processing my images; the only real way to discredit an accusation is by providing evidence that you are legitimate, no matter what your standing.
So thanks once again for the support and I will start another thread on this image once I have collected another 20 hours worth of data.
