stephenramsden wrote:as always when a fake is pointed out, the people that constantly seek APODs or have gotten a few in the past defend these indefensible frauds with statements like this.
Chris Peterson ,with all due respect to your prestigious and well earned academic position, you have "won" APODs in the past and are of course completely satisfied with the system as is.
I do not seek APODs. I believe I have had one image posted on APOD, many years ago, before there was a submission process at all.
In fact, I am not completely satisfied with the system as it is, although it generally works and I respect the editors' choices regarding how it is run.
Here is an astroimager posting an alleged video that has no consensus and goes against the mainstream science of his peers, why are you defending it and continuing to defend the site that published it even after it, and several other images posted by this same site, have been identified by the community of astroimagers (peers and experts like Damian Peach, Christopher Go) as fraudulent? It seems to go against your own advice on identifying pseudo science web sites?
I am not defending the image. But I do know what pseudoscience is (and so, I assure you, do the site editors, and if there was any pseudoscience involved they would have been quite aware of it), and there is nothing pseudoscientific about this image. It accurately reflects what it purports to show. Its only fault lies in the (alleged) misrepresentation of the data sources and the (alleged) misrepresentation of the processing details. Ethical failures, not scientific ones.
"APOD is not a forum for astroimagers. Never was, and never should be. It's a forum for astronomy, presented through images."
are you serious? that is nonsensical It's not a forum for astroimagers, it's a forum for astronomy through images?
Absolutely serious. Indeed, it is regrettable that it has come to be seen as a competition, because that attitude is why we've seen a few cases of fraud in recent years. I don't know what the fix is. Something editorial perhaps- not looking for the prettiest pictures, but for those which clearly emphasize a featured scientific point? Geck's suggestion of a slightly longer pipeline, allowing some of us who regularly frequent Asterisk to have more time to note questionable images?
"this doesn't represent all that serious of a problem"
There is a problem. Ignoring it and applying the standard establishment indifference to it will only see it get worse.
I did not suggest there is no problem, or that it should be ignored. What I said- because I think it's true- is that there is no serious
problem. The tiniest fraction of a percent of all the APOD images have been faked, and in every case, the resulting fake was an ethical error only and we did not see science misrepresented. And APOD is about the science, not about the quality of the image.