Stupidly proud of myself

Al Denelsbeck

Lights-smallI mentioned before, I take pride in being able to retrace my steps, even on trips long ago where I’ve never been before or since. But back when I added the Google Earth placemarks to many of the images in the photo gallery, one in particular was a little tricky: the time exposure on the side of the highway.

It was the night of a total lunar eclipse, and after totality had ended, I went out looking for some other night images to capture. My first time-exposure experiment to capture moving traffic came out far better than anticipated, introducing to me the idea that a full moon (quite bright, now that the Earth was out of the way) was sufficient to light up the landscape given enough time. I never took any notes, so I’ve had to piece it all together, but I’m fairly certain this was the eclipse of August 16-17, 1989 – the year, season, and time of eclipse seems right. And I had a rough memory of where I’d stopped alongside I-81, but had noted no landmarks other than what was captured in the image. I remembered the interstate being separated there, cut into a hillside which put the north- and south-bound lanes about 20 meters different in elevation, and that Syracuse was visible from my vantage though I was outside the city itself. I took my best guess on the location where the tripod had sat and created the placemark.

Just this evening, I was playing around again in Google Earth – this time, the Google Street View option was available, and I started cruising up I-81 to try and locate the position more accurately. Eventually, I pinned it down pretty tightly, based on the two yellow diamond signs visible in the image, and loaded the placemark with the intention of correcting it for this new perspective.

I didn’t have to – it was already right smack where I’d confirmed the shooting position when I’d added the placemarks in 2011. Feel free to check it yourself by clicking here to load the placemark (if you have Google Earth installed.) Not only that, but I think I’ve located just where we received the best directions I’ve ever been given in my life – I’ll have to check with my friend (and it bears noting that it was her camera I borrowed for this shot.)

It’s trivial, I know, but I love it when I can nail something this closely after 23 years. Age hasn’t addled the ol’ brain yet…

Yeah, yeah, that’s an opening for a cheap shot, I know…

Odd memories, part nine

Al Denelsbeck

It’s funny – as a species, we seem to have a propensity for discovery, to explore uncharted areas in the hope/belief that something magical awaits just over the horizon. It’s probably responsible for most of our explorations across the planet. There is definitely a cool feeling when you’re traveling, and you see a new and interesting place awaiting you on your path; while I have no idea how many people have actually experienced this, here are two of my examples.

While touring Florida over a decade ago, doing a photography vacation, I had an open itinerary and decided each day, sometimes by the hour, where I was going to head next. I have to admit that I have never had the faintest interest in going into Miami, though twice I had the displeasure of doing so anyway, so I was making the valiant attempt to bypass the city on the outskirts, something that the civic planners obviously felt was not in their best interests; there are no ‘through’ routes past Miami when coming up from the Keys, since all of them run a short ways north before turning directly east into the city. In order to avoid the hideous and overcrowded, quintessential urban blight of southeast Florida, you must keep exiting from the road that you are on before it draws you in, and get on another bypass lane, usually at the cost of a toll. After navigating my way through all of my small bills and pocket change, I had finally arrived with relief at the northern limits of the city sprawl, seeking the junction of Route 27 which would bear me northwest to Lake Okeechobee and, I hoped, something unconcretelike to photograph.

This turned out to be harder than imagined, since the exit looped around in a way that destroyed my bearings, and the signage that would lead me to Rt 27 was either inadequate or nonexistent, on purpose I suspect. While expecting to reach a junction with my intended route within a few kilometers, I ended up wasting an hour going into, and back out of, North Miami, not what people imagine when they think of Florida vacations, unless they think of Detroit. You know, motels with large wooden walls around the parking lots so no one can see your car while you park there for an hour or so? Yeah. When I finally reached Rt 27, I was tired and frustrated and eager to get to the lake.

Looking at it on a map now, the distance looks far less than what it seemed at the time, part of the subjectivity of memory I suppose. Rt 27 goes through Florida’s sugarcane industry, running very straight, flat, and featureless for long distances, something I was totally unfamiliar with in my travels well-removed from the western states. In other words, it’s boring, unrelieved by anything to look at, anyplace to stop, and any cars that would permit announcing their states of origin to oneself in a gibbering manner. I think a fox crossed the road once, but that was it. To make matters worse, darkness had settled in with triumph, broken only by my headlights and not the least sign of civilization. Yes, I know that was what I had just been decrying, but when you’re fatigued, a long straight dark road with no place to stop is not the best of choices. Not to mention that it’s where the extraterrestrials tend to hang out.

Eventually, when my estimates had told me I should be coming up on the settlements at the edge of Lake Okeechobee soon, I spied lights in the distance that were not headlights of a Driving Dutchman. Yes! Knowing that I would soon locate a place to bed down for the night, I watched them approach through, seriously, the longest distance I have ever seen something approach except for a storm. It took much longer than anticipated to get to this cluster of lights spelling a large town, which I had apparently spotted from fifteen klicks or so away. As I got closer, it seemed to be surprisingly compact, and also veering off to the left a bit. Quite a bit. I’m hoping you can imagine my feelings as, with the lights now almost three kilometers directly off to the west, I passed the sign which announced the entrance to the Okeelanta sugar processing plant. Visibly ahead on my route: nothing, yet again. That was a dirty trick, Florida.

A few years later, I was making an unplanned move to stay with a friend in Texas for a while, doing a hard drive from Atlanta to Houston in one go. I had just basic maps and had looked at them for only the correct interstates to be on, not bothering to calculate driving times between cities, for instance. Since I was now on I-10 and that led directly into Houston, I had little to do but keep driving.

In Louisiana, I had traversed a long section of elevated highway over stereotypical bayou country, where the road had to be raised on seven-meter columns because the gators could climb anything shorter – we’re not talking Starbucks and Apple Store country, here. Later on, after night had arrived, I reached a complicated cluster of interchanges and bridges where my path crossed a major river, and climbed a high suspension bridge that vaulted over big ship traffic. At the top, appearing before me from below as I crested the bridge, lay a towering Oz of glittering city lights, a metropolis of unexpected height and complexity. It was the kind of city that is imagined by artists and film directors, the sparkling lights on impressive buildings, rather than the overcrowding of industry that makes up most cities. I descended the bridge with this compelling sight awaiting me, a smalltown girl seeking her dreams in show business – well, okay, not quite, but you get the idea. It was exactly that kind of effect.

Suspicion set in when I realized that all of the lights were the same color, that curious amber of sodium lamps, and no lit windows of taller buildings were actually visible. It wasn’t long before this promising city revealed itself as a vast and surprisingly tall petroleum refining area, industrial development at its ugliest – I must have had the wind at my back. My fairy-tale experience of arrival kind of petered out at that point. A little tip, Louisiana Tourist Commission: run the interstates far from areas like that.

It has occasionally happened the other way around, too. Seeking out recommended spots for bird photography, I had ventured into Delray Beach, Florida and was driving through a heavily developed area liberally strewn with gated communities – it does make me wonder why anyone might move into a city and then sequester themselves away from everyone else, but hey. Locating my destination, I stopped in a parking lot typical of a strip plaza, with the discount shoe stores and Little Caesar’s Pizza replaced by a palm line. Quite often, decent nature photography spots have completely unfinished parking areas when they have any at all, so I was having some misgivings at this point – one does not typically seek high-traffic areas. I went up the wooden steps and crossed a boardwalk through the screening trees, and then the sound hit me.

WakGatorOn the other side of the trees was a large wetlands area, and the cacophony of bird calls would have made a jungle movie Foley artist weep tears of joy. Nestled in the suburbs of West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale, Wakodahatchee Wetlands has to be heard to be believed, and I deeply regretted not bringing any recording equipment. While photography there requires a tolerance of speed walkers (see ‘gated communities’ above,) the birds, and a few other species, have adapted to their roles as models and present plenty of photo ops. While the most productive areas for nature photography tend towards undeveloped areas (fancy that,) this is a location that is often right on your route if you’re touring Florida, so easy enough to stop at.

I also had misgivings while on the other side of the state. When your directions to a “great area” include turning off a major mid-city route into the entrance to the public works facility, you begin to think someone is either pulling your leg or hasn’t traveled much. You park by the sign and wander down the path (since then upgraded to a sidewalk) and see the island in the middle of a moderately-sized pond. And more wild birds in one location than you are likely to ever see anyplace else in the country. The Venice Audubon Society’s Rookery in Venice, Florida represents nesting conditions that you might think wouldn’t be so hard for birds to find farther from people, but the incredibly crowded conditions there belie that. If you’ve ever wanted to see herons and egrets in every stage of nesting and child-rearing at once, this is the place to go.

Anhingas are a species of waterfowl that are awkwardly named put most others to shame. Ducks, for instance, do not swim – they float on the surface and thrash about like a toddler with a pair of pool noodles. Anhingas occasionally surface for air. My first encounter with the species occurred at the Rookery, as the head of one popped from the water directly in front of me in a manner wholly reminiscent of the trash compactor monster from Star Wars, and just as brief. Later the same day I observed one glide in for a water landing and skid to a halt in a delicate wake – then vanish entirely, despite our distance from Bermuda. Time spent floating on the surface is just wasted, seems to be the attitude.

AnhingaPair2Confession here: I have a special connection with fire ants. Mind you, it is not a amiable one; I will not garner my own television show as some kind of Whisperer, though late night cable might pick me up as The Fire Ant Filthy Blasphemer. If they’re around, I will find them, usually by standing in the ant hill in sandals. And it was on the shore of the pond in Venice when I did this yet again. I had sideskipped away and removed my sandals, beating them mercilessly on the ground to dislodge the remaining ants and take out my frustration over the cluster of newly-arising burning welts, in a pointless yet satisfying manner, when I glanced up to see an anhinga sailing low over the water directly towards me at eye level. Nobody was around at the time to witness this, which is a shame, because this tableau deserves to be imagined at least. Me, kneeling on the ground in mid-invective with one sandal raised threateningly over my head, staring with concern at the rapid approach of a large bird with a beak like Macbeth’s dagger aimed at my skull. I had enough time to wonder if this was some kind of aggressive or protective display by a parent, enraged by my uncouth behavior, and if I was going to have a memorable encounter fending off a bird with totally inadequate footwear (spiked heels would have been at least sporting, but I tend not to wear them in public,) when the anhinga flared upwards into a stall and alighted in the tree directly over my head, immediately alongside another anhinga only two meters above whom I had missed entirely. They then carried on a loving yet croaking conversation while presenting the ludicrous spectacle of birds with webbed feet perching on a branch.

I cannot mention fire ants without relating another story. Riding with friends one night soon after a vicious thunderstorm (this is, again, in Florida,) there was a sudden plunk and a treefrog of immense proportions appeared suddenly on the windshield. They pulled over onto the grass immediately, and I got out to attempt to capture the frog for photographs, and because staying there while we got on the thoroughfare was probably not a wise move on the frog’s part. The amphibian abandoned its perch and hopped under the car, and I flopped down on my belly to try and retrieve it. In four seconds I had determined that it was out of reach, and also that my face and chest had suddenly produced an itching, burning sensation that I was all too familiar with. Just in case you were contemplating this experience, I will tell you that putting your face almost directly into a fire ant mound engenders no hidden charms. My friends eventually understood that I was not displaying a case of Sudden Onset Tourette’s Syndrome, but had an adequate reason, if not necessarily possessing adequate reason…

Since moving back to North Carolina I have been mercifully free of fire ant welts, but I suspect that they miss me and are working north in a dragnet. The last trip to Georgia clued me in on my remaining freedom, since despite my caution while walking through my friend’s yard, I still attracted the advance column – this is the only explanation, because no mound or colony was visible in the slightest. Their ambassadorial overtures resulted in the entire top of one toe turning into a water blister and preventing me from appearing in any kind of footwear commercials for weeks, and only adding to the abuse my foot took on that trip. I’m not joking; if you’re planning any research on fire ants, get in touch, because I will find them for you, and I might as well get paid for my skills. I am very understanding about the place of all species on this planet, but those little fuckers need to die and rot in hell.

Bridges peak in the middle

Al Denelsbeck

There is a common confusion among humans between doing something that is fun and doing something that it useful. Put as directly as that, it seems silly – “I can tell the difference between fixing my flat tire and putting plastic wrap across the toilet seat” – but it’s a bit more subtle than all that. As my example, I’m going to use a current internet “fad” (which may be gone by the time I post): Randall Munroe’s “Up-goer Five” exercise.

In short, Randall Munroe of xkcd wrote about how the Saturn Five rocket boosters worked using only the thousand most common words in the English language. This led Theo Sanderson (among others, I believe) to make a text editor that would flag any words that did not fit into this criteria, which led to others describing their careers, research, or simply common scientific principles in the same manner. It becomes clear, very quickly, that a thousand words (or ten-hundred if you prefer, since “thousand” doesn’t even make the cut) is remarkably limiting.

Now, some things to consider. The thousand-word cutoff is arbitrary, a nice round number yet not representative of much, since just about anyone’s vocabulary surpasses this number before they hit kindergarten. So reducing any explanation down to this level doesn’t really have a target audience. Second, in order to do this, one must simplify the subject described to the point where it has little, if any, meaning whatsoever. Some of them may seem descriptive, provided we already know what is being described, but presented to anyone who does not (and needs that thousand-word simplification to begin with,) they accomplish, well, probably not a damn thing. Take Jaime Sterns’ entry:

I use very strong light of different colors to study how the smallest pieces of stuff stick together and change one another. My focus right now is to understand new kinds of stuff that might be used to make a space car go when it’s in space, so we can make better, safer, space-car-go-stuff for less money.

Or maybe Jennifer Wang’s:

In my job I take care of flies and try to make them different by putting something into flies that are not babies yet to make the babies different from their parents. I also watch boy flies try to do it with girl flies to see if they really like to do it or they like boys flies more. This happens when they can’t smell something the girl flies have that makes them want to do it with girl flies or something the boy flies have that makes them not want to do it with boy flies.

Ask yourself in what way these descriptions can help anyone understand what it is the writer is actually doing. While you’re at it, you can edit your own block of text to field the inevitable questions of why colored light shows how things stick together, and precisely what “do it with” means to boy and girl flies…

Am I missing the point? Is this all supposed to be just fun? Perhaps, though it’s a lot of trouble to go through to produce something just for giggles. The moment anyone attempts to justify these efforts as something more than amusing, however, the problems arise. There is already a well known, and significant, problem in science journalism where research and new discoveries are presented in over-simplified, misleading, and often wildly inaccurate manners. I feel safe in saying most people in the US think “cancer” is a specific form of illness, rather than a very broad term like “bacteria” – otherwise we wouldn’t see so many mentions of “the search for a cure for cancer.” Dumbing science down rarely leads to greater understanding, because few fields of science are able to be described in so simple a manner – that’s kind of why PhDs take more than an afternoon seminar to obtain.

Is there a real need to reach a greater audience in scientific topics? Absolutely. Does this audience need something limited to the most common words in English? Absolutely not – no one does, really. While many topics will benefit from the removal of ‘jargon’ and words that are very specific to their field, there is a difference between climbing down to an audience, and reaching down to bring them up to your own level. In fact, it’s even misleading to use “up” and “down” in this manner, and this might even be part of the problem – the goal is translation, using a language that the audience understands. And online, there’s little reason to remove many of the specific terms at all, since it’s remarkably easy to link sources that provide greater explanation as needed, and those who have no need for those links do not have to wade through a word-salad targeted at elementary-school levels.

Moreover, this approach is quite likely to breed the highest level of understanding. Those interested in the subject can easily pursue it in greater detail, and let’s be real: you only need to hear the definition of any given term once. We have such words specifically to streamline communication, and everyone can benefit from the expansion of their vocabulary. Not to mention, they become more common the more we use them.

There is a final perspective to consider. Anyone involved in communicating science to an audience not conversant within the field needs to know how to reach them, which is a skill all its own – and they need to learn how to bridge this gap. It’s safe to say that no one will ever have to explain a DDOS attack to pre-schoolers, but knowing the different approaches to reach both high-school grads and the elderly can have distinct applications. Anyone that wants a fun exercise that may also lead someplace could be spending their time pursuing those goals, and accomplish more for it. Bridges are not intended for one-way traffic, and it’s even possible to meet someone in the middle.

The proper way

Al Denelsbeck

Sorry, this will be brief, and pointless. Courtesy of a post by Sean Carroll, I herewith present the proper way to order your favorite drink:

1. Ask for what you want.

2. Drink it.

You will note that I have excluded everything having to do with learning how anyone else does it, receiving instruction, and most especially long discussions about what effect some method produces. It’s your drink. You’re doing it for yourself. If you’re doing it to show off, then you have some serious psychological issues and should spend the time looking for a decent therapist rather than pretending to be sophisticated by, for fuck’s sake, discussing in what manner you fuck your brain cells over with alcohol. Because, seriously, no matter what the pageantry or ritual or pompous bullshit, that’s what it comes down to. You can’t handle reality and need to alter your perceptions.

I’ll take this opportunity (especially because doing a short post makes me itch) and address every one of the various proscriptions over proper grammar and usage with a simple reminder: language is about communication. It fails, not when some arbitrary rule isn’t followed, but only when someone is confused. It’s true, there are countless conventions that we use through force of habit, but there’s nothing against these changing through common acceptance. If you really care about the proper use of an ‘Oxford Comma,’ or that your sentence follows some ideal structure, you’ve got problems completely unrelated to communication. Do not be surprised when someone asks you how you can be that big an asshole with that tight a sphincter.

But, at least Superbowl is over. Now we only have to get through a few more weeks of discussing Superbowl commercials. You realize that someone invented a stupidity filter for internet connections long ago, but people thought their router had failed…

What’s not in a word?

Al Denelsbeck

Not too long ago, I picked up a book that I’d had, not exactly in my childhood, but in my earlier adulthood (which may yet be my childhood, at least if you ask some people, including me.) Tortured sentences aside, I’m finding it quite interesting to note how differently I react to the content now, two decades after my first read-through.

The book is called Mysteries of the Unexplained, probably one of several bearing that title – this one is published by Reader’s Digest Association. Essentially it’s a collection of curious stories, mostly quite brief, about various accounts, encounters, and experiences ranging from coincidences to religious revelation, UFO sightings to frogs in a block of coal. And as might be imagined, it’s not a small book.

The biggest problem with books of this type is that they rely solely on the story. “Here’s what someone said,” they declare, but at no point is there any effort to examine such accounts closely, critically, or to even attempt to verify that it really was said. Sources of information are actually listed after every account (Reader’s Digest has always relied on at least 50% recycled content,) and this perhaps implies that some effort was made to produce stories with a degree of accuracy – “Look, this information has been printed elsewhere!” From a critical thinking standpoint, however, this is pretty much meaningless, since there is nothing that demonstrates that their sources made any effort to examine or verify the accounts, and if said source embellished it (or simply made it up,) then the flaw is repeated and compounded. Wikipedia has run into this problem more than once, in seeking print citations for its pending (yet still published) material, only to find that the cite they proudly list had used their own entry as a source – in other words, the entry was verified by referring to itself. This is a proud tactic of religions everywhere, but that’s another story…

So what we end up with is a book that is better than 90% anecdotal, and to an unknown degree not even confirmed anecdotes. People put an amazing store in anecdotes, especially when they appear in print, but a moment’s thought reveals the fatal flaw in such things. My neighbor may tell me that he jumped his minibike over the family car when he was ten years old. Should I believe him? Ah, but if the same account is printed in a book by a ‘journalist,’ what then? The implication is that this is somehow better, and now a confirmed experience from his youth – but nothing’s changed. Perhaps we think that, because someone else decided it was important enough to repeat, then they must consider it more trustworthy than the same old bullshit we hear every day, but that’s not how most ‘journalists’ actually work, and far too many hide behind the idea that they’re simply reporting what someone said. Most of the content of this book, and millions more like it, is exactly of this nature.

Should we be fair, and say that simply repeating some info is not evidence of any particular guilt or agenda, and what the reader takes from it is their own responsibility? Perhaps, if it weren’t for the specific approach taken in numerous portions (and again, it is very easy to see this elsewhere too.) For instance, in the preface of the section titled, ‘Monsters,’ we have this statement (p 138):

The skeptic who feels inclined to say, “Yes, but – ” after reading these reports should note that hundreds of sightings have been omitted for each one included and that many viewers are converted scoffers.

Ah, so, because hundreds were omitted, what’s left should instill confidence? Well, no, because we have no idea what criteria, if any, was being used in selection – they could have picked at random, or selected those with no chance of follow-up, or just those that sounded cool. And the second part of that sentence is merely an appeal to mob thinking, in essence implying that you’re stupid because others think differently. What this really means, however, is that the editors have no idea what skepticism really entails.

Immediately following, we have an account from 1734 of a sea serpent spotted by a Norwegian missionary. The caption under the illustrating painting begins with:

Missionary Hans Egede, a person of unquestioned integrity…

Well, this is plainly not true, because I question his integrity (and I’m appalled that they never checked.) Even more, I’m not inclined to fall for the misleading choice of words. First off, a missionary isn’t really anything special; it’s simply a person who decided to proselytize, and requires no particular certification, training, or background checks. Second, even if Egede were an ordained archbishop, this really doesn’t mean that he was free from prevarication – in fact, there is more than a little support for the idea that he would be much more accomplished at it than the average person, and even inclined to trade on his ‘integrity.’ But ignoring what history has told us time and again, there’s the simple matter that integrity usually refers to someone’s ethical standpoint, and has absolutely nothing to say about their ability to be mistaken, or unconsciously biased, or simply a poor observer. Someone can be perfectly honest about what they think they saw, but still mistaken in their interpretation of it, and this is a very fundamental facet of eyewitness accounts. Wrong does not have to imply anything at all about the person’s personality.

There’s another matter with books of this nature, demonstrated by the painting that illustrates the entry. A green serpentine creature twists in and out of the water, it’s crocodilian head raised high to spout water like a fountain. Odds are that the artist was not guided by anything more than the brief written account below, if indeed the painting was originally intended to illustrate it (I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, at least from the inclusion of the ship and water fountain.) The direct quote from integrity-riddled Egede says:

appeared a very terrible sea-animal, which raised itself so high above the water, that its head reached above our maintop. It had a long, sharp snout, and blew like a whale, had broad, large flappers, and the body was, as it were, covered with a hard skin, and it was very wrinkled and uneven on its skin; moreover on the lower part it was formed like a snake, and when it went under water again, it cast itself backwards, and in doing so it raised its tail above the water, a whole ship length from its body. That evening we had very bad weather.

I love the part about the weather, which seems to imply that these were related in some way – after all, the chances of a ship running into bad weather are infinitesimal…

But note that, taken without the illustration, there isn’t a lot which supports the ‘serpent’ idea anyway, save for the single mention of the lower part formed like a snake. Does this mean the back half of the body, which presumably would still have been in the water, or simply the underside of the visible portion? Everything else, with remarkable accuracy, fits with a whale breaching, and it would not be hard to imagine the grooved underside of a humpback whale, known especially for breaching behavior that fits this description perfectly, to be considered reminiscent of a snake, especially if you’re not a close student of snakes. Further questioning of Egede to clarify his account is, of course, impossible, and one would have to refer to the book cited as the source (Mermaids and Mastodons by Richard Carrington) to see just what source that used. It is not unheard of that someone in search of a good story, especially when writing an entire book about a subject, would purposefully edit or fudge the account in order to make it sound more interesting.

This book, in fact, also brings up the Bermuda Triangle, a ‘phenomenon’ of blatant manipulation that was effectively exposed as a fraud. It’s very hard to treat any book as a serious effort when even rudimentary research reveals more hype than substance.

[I know this is beginning to sound like a book review, but my point is, many, many examples of this kind of behavior can be found – this is simply the one I have at hand to speak of directly, rather than in an abstract manner.]

The section on UFOs also demonstrates more questionable content. Herein can also be found illustrations that poorly match the accounts, leading readers to infer that things were somehow different from the only quoted source – in one case, the sketch made by the witness (Carlos Antonio De los Santos Montiel from May 3, 1975 over Mexico City, p 224) does not match his own account with any degree of accuracy. And on the following page, we have three examples of UFO photos, two computer-enhanced, that illustrate absolutely nothing. No one could possibly look at any of them and even think these are objects, much less gather that they’re supposed to be craft of some kind, and no details of any sort can be discerned from the images, so as supporting evidence they mean nothing.

More weasel words can be found. On the subject of physical evidence, we have, from page 164:

Droppings found near the [Yeti-like] prints were gathered to be taken back to England for analysis.

and from page 173:

The negative was checked for evidence of fakery by the Burns Detective Agency, and the circumstances in which it had been taken were attested to by the Watertown’s captain and assistant engineer.

Notice, however, that no mention is made of what was found in either case. The statements are therefore meaningless, but because they are mentioned in a significant way, we are to assume that this says something pertinent, and it’s really not hard to find someone who will fill in the blanks. And even if, for instance, the photo analysis pronounced them ‘genuine,’ this doesn’t say what is obviously implied. Most photographic tricks, such as double-exposures, masking, and the like, do not physically alter the negative in any way, so the image is still genuine, but genuinely of what? The most famous example is probably the Cottingley Fairies (credit to the book for not including this hoary one,) where the images were pronounced legitimate by ‘photo experts,’ and indeed were actual, bona fide, untouched and unedited photos… of paper cutouts. The experts (vague terms like this abound) were not ruling on the content, only on the medium.

By the way, every time I see Frances in that photo surrounded by fairies, I wonder why she’s wearing a flight helmet…

Fairly frequently, we also get to see statements similar to the second part of the last quote; a witness provides “sworn testimony” or some official-sounding report. Now, it would seem, we have the power of the courts to contend with, and grave consequences and all that – but, consequences of what? There aren’t actually any laws against lying, only against taking advantage of someone by doing so – fraud, misrepresentation, and so on. And even those require the ability to establish intentional deceit, and an aggrieved party to file charges. In fact, topics such as UFOs are ideal for fraudsters, because even on the odd chance someone is proven to be lying, the fans desperate for evidence of extraterrestrial life will bend over backwards to find ways to deny that it’s a lie. But even without that, in singular witness accounts, who could possibly prove that nothing was actually seen? Not to mention that someone who is honestly mistaken about what they saw is not legally liable in any way.

The overall point is, publications of this nature rely on countless forms of manipulation, inferences, and assumptions on the part of the reader, while providing almost nothing in the way of useful information. Every last personal account can, very easily, be just a story, and if that’s the primary content, it becomes impossible to say that there’s any value to be had from them at all. Now, many people, on hearing such a comment, immediately maintain that chances are at least some of them are legitimate (for whatever meaning of the word anyone wants to use,) if only on the basis of ‘odds’ or the thought that “this many people can’t all be lying!” But notice that the problems with all of this have never been restricted to lying, and such a statistical stance has (admittedly minimal) merit only if the reports represent a random cross-section of personal accounts. If, however, they were selected solely for how far they depart from normal expectations, then yes, the odds become demonstrably weighted towards the tall tale category. Let’s not forget that most books are aimed at sales, and providing a random selection of accounts is guaranteed to be more boring than selecting the sensational.

But even if we could somehow confidently say that at least 10% of them are accurate (again, meaning counts here,) then which 10%? To avoid just resorting to a crapshoot, some other criteria must be used to select accounts that provide verifiable information – criteria that really should be applied before such accounts are published in the first place, and most especially before any reader treats them as something more than pure fiction.

This is exactly where skepticism pisses off so many people, because where this leads is simply shrugging over all such accounts and then ignoring them. If there’s no way to verify them and nothing to be added, it’s Schrödinger’s Cat, forever sealed in a box and of unknown status. The clash between skeptics and ‘believers’ [anyone who considers such claims to be evidence of something specific] comes only from differing levels of assumption – invariably, the believer inferring far more than the accounts provide.

From the believer’s side, this is never how the clash is presented, however. Instead, it becomes ‘automatic dismissal’ by the skeptic, and it’s not hard to find actual examples of, “you don’t believe anything!” In fact, it can even become accusations that skeptics are paid disinformants, government or corporate stooges, and so on – desperate attempts to avoid the fact that such accounts are wide open to interpretation. Faced with the burden of proof or significance, many believers turn to denigrating every other viewpoint instead. Yes, this amounts to automatic dismissal, the same thing they often accuse skeptics of doing, and the irony is not lost on everyone.

It is always possible to read between the lines, but what’s between the lines is blank, able to be filled in at will. Sometimes, the real skill is reading only the words, and nothing else.

Anonymity and the web

Al Denelsbeck

Over at Why Evolution Is True, Jerry Coyne has posted a new rule regarding anonymity and pseudonyms – specifically, that he no longer allows someone to link to his site from another when critiquing his posts, unless they’re using their real name. I will stress that as a policy, it’s a relatively minor change, because it only affects the ‘trackback’ links that might pop up at the end of his posts (an automatic webby thing when someone posts a link to his post in their own post,) and occasions where he might specifically mention that someone has produced a reply/rebuttal to anything that he’s published, including his book and frequent appearances on other sites. Since he hasn’t stopped any pseudonymous comments in the slightest, all in all it’s not a big deal.

His stated reasons for this, however, bear some examination, especially since the word “cowardice” was actually tossed out. His commenters have presented a lot of very salient points, so perhaps he’s seeing where his viewpoint may have been rather narrow, but the current state of our media deserves some recognition.

First off, pseudonyms are not even remotely new with the interblobs, and have been used very frequently for centuries, for a large variety of reasons. With a name like ‘Al Denelsbeck,’ I fully understand those who adopt a pen-name to have something easier to say or remember, or that appeals better to people from a book cover. And as unfortunate as this is, I also understand those female writers who use a male name, especially in science fiction, where feminine names are often taken to indicate a girly-style story. John Wayne would never have become what he was if he’d remained Marion Morrison.

[Short diversion: When I moved away from my home state in 1990 and was considering both writing and photography, I had plans to change my last name to “Reynolds.” People, at least, wouldn’t be embarrassed to call me because they had no idea how to pronounce my name. But on moving into North Carolina’s tobacco country, the name “RJ Reynolds” means tobacco, not something I wanted to be associated with. And it took too long for Malcolm Reynolds to come along…]

But then, we can’t forget the nature of the web, where anything may remain indefinitely and finding information only takes the right search terms. As one example, identity theft occurs largely because it’s very easy to find pieces of information. Several years ago when I was active on photography newsgroups, I drew the ire of an inept-yet-pompous participant after I reviewed several of his lackluster images, and had a cute little internet stalker for a while. This even stretched to receiving phone calls from the dipshit, whispering to disguise his voice. I found it amusing, but not everyone would (which is why it was even being done in the first place.)

And then there’s the bizarre perspective seen too often, at least in this country, where having a private life isn’t allowable. Employers will scour the web looking for information on potential and current employees, apparently incapable of realizing that they’re responsible only for work performance, and any public figure is subject to a ‘dirt’ search. While it might be nice if people could maintain a perspective and differentiate job description from personal life, that’s not practiced often enough – apparently a lot of people need to apply labels to everyone to save themselves the herculean effort of thinking about actions instead.

Again, my own experience comes into play here. I advertise photography instruction, on the same site where I’m an outspoken atheist in the bible belt – I know damn well that I lose potential students over this (the church that contacted me and then, suddenly finding this info while they were on the phone with me, was the funniest – I have rarely heard anyone stammer and struggle for excuses so comically.) Yet, what does my viewpoint on religion have to do with photography? Does anyone worry that their auto mechanic might be a jehovah’s witness, or perhaps a Hummel collector? I have thought, numerous times, about switching such posts to another site, and yes indeed, if I think those posts affect business in a negative manner, they would be under a pseudonym as well. That might be considered “cowardice” if most people were capable of rational consideration in such manners, but if you’ve noticed, I place a lot of emphasis on being realistic – too many people just aren’t capable.

[If it helps, no, I don’t discuss religion at all during instruction, and I don’t insist they drink Pepsi at those times either. But you know, if anyone is scared that I might convert them during a lesson, they probably have reason to be, since it sounds like their faith isn’t very useful to begin with.]

It’s fairly common knowledge that public figures and celebrities gather more than their share of questionable followers, some of them quite fucked-up (the followers, not the… actually, never mind.) Popularity is a kind of class-consciousness, and public figures are often seen as some higher level of person, worthy of fanatic devotion. This actually has two parts. The first is, anyone public enough can find themselves under the attentions of someone far out of touch with social acceptability, and who could blame them for wanting to avoid this? Part two is, even without being a ‘public figure,’ you can still gain such attentions, perhaps far worse, when you dare to criticize a public figure and thus raise the ire of their sycophants (go over to Pharyngula and call PZ Myers anything at all, if you want an example.) And several prominent bloggers simply gave up on posting, tweeting, and other forms of mediabation when the trolling got too intense.

Nestled deep among all of this is a very simple idea, one that too few people ever master: it’s the content of the post or comment that deserves the attention, not who makes it. As much as anyone else, I’d like to be recognized as the guy who can produce thoughtful, incisive content, even if no one can pronounce my name, but it’s true, I write some stuff that’s not very useful sometimes (you might have to look hard for examples, though.) But overall, it should never be about who, just about what. It doesn’t matter if there’s even a name attached. Anonymity is the only way to get people to do this routinely. Though sometimes, we really do want to hear more of what someone says, so knowing how to find them again is useful – but that’s their choice, and they have to weigh all of the consequences themselves.

Finally, sometimes a pseudonym is simply a nickname, something cool or clever or appealing. We don’t get to choose our names, otherwise there would be a lot more Slut Bumwallas around, so adopting one for being online is a functional choice – sometimes even representing an online persona that’s not wholly accurate. In fact, it’s safe to say that online personae are never entirely accurate (I’m even more dashing in real life.) Anyone believing a pseudonym indicates that there’s something to hide just hasn’t realized that yes, there always is – but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Grecian troublemakers

Al Denelsbeck

This is a revisit of a subject that I first broached in this post, which I felt needed more examination. So let’s return to that radical concept of Phi.

Phi is a mathematical ratio that, curiously enough, has more than a few close representations in nature. It is an irrational number, one of those decimals that go on forever, but usually shortened to 1.618. If you create a rectangle with dimensions that follow this ratio, what it means is the long sides will be 1.618 times as long as the short side. If you were to subdivide the same ratio within that rectangle – turning the short sides into the long sides of another rectangle that sits inside the first – you can produce an ever-decreasing set of shapes within, turning 90° at a time; alternately you can expand by the same amount. If you then sketch a curve within each rectangle between opposing corners (90° arc,) you produce an expanding spiral like a nautilus shell. You can go here for a basic, and level-headed, mathematical visualization, and here for a great example of how to read way the hell too much into the idea.

fibbing15Why do I say that? Well, it’s simple. Try the same thing with the number 1.5 instead of 1.618. It would look like this. You can, in fact, use any ratio that you want and produce both a spiral and a nice descending composition, because that’s the nature of ratios – this isn’t anything profound. Phi is just neat: A/B=B/C.

Now we come to where it starts going silly. Using the first link I provided, you’ll notice that their diagram of the rectangle is claimed to look, “like a typical frame for a painting.” Well, yes, kind of, but the same can be said for many rectangles, and if we’re going to be specific, let’s take a look at the common photographic print sizes. 4×6 is a ratio of 1.5, 5×7 is 1.4, 8×10 is 1.25, and 11×14 is 1.27. Huh. Okay, but how about monitor and TV screen sizes, or widescreen ratios? Nope – 1.33 to 1.77, typically. If the claims are that a ratio of 1.618 is “most pleasing,” then why are we incapable of using it?

Okay, but wait. The same page shows how well the Parthenon fits the ratio, nicely diagrammed. Check it out (I’m not going to embed the images without permission, and not going to even try to obtain it just for this post.) Looks good? Unless, of course, you consider that two of their examples are measuring to the peaked roof, which seems to me to be fudging things a bit – does a triangle in that ratio count? Diagram a triangle either way and see if it seems “most pleasing.” But also, take a look at the most distinctive, and immediately apparent, rectangle of the Parthenon’s façade, the row of columns in the front. Whoops, nobody diagrammed that, and with good reason, since it doesn’t fit the ratio. Even including the header, it doesn’t come close. And this was the reasonable page.

You can go way off the mark if you go to that other page, and believe me, this is far from the only example online. I hate linking to such things because they really don’t need the traffic. You can diagram a Phi spiral onto a human ear, for example – as long as you find the right ear. 1.618 seconds of thought will tell you that not every ear looks the same, and this can be said for every other example where ‘nature’ demonstrates this remarkable mathematical property. Most snail and nautilus shells do not follow this ratio closely, since they depend on just how fast the critter is growing; nor do most seed spirals from sunflowers peg it, and if we stop using the examples that seem to match and just do a cross section of any flower head, nature’s wonderful reliance suddenly produces an abysmal hit rate.

NautilusNow, I’ll be fair. Sometimes, there are some pretty close fits to mathematical ratios in nature, but this shouldn’t be surprising in the least. Organisms that produce the most efficient ‘designs’ obviously will thrive better than those with less efficiency, so the trend will be towards maximum efficiency. But the keyword there is “trend,” and obtaining an average from a cross-sampling of species can only provide useful information in specific circumstances. Using an image of a real nautilus shell (Wikipedia Commons,) we really cannot see the ratio at work at all – now you know why Phi is illustrated by drawings so often. The overall ratio (outside rectangle) is 1.28, while the growth ratios wander about a bit. I scribed lines every 90° to roughly ‘center,’ which didn’t quite work, but also measured from center, getting growth rates from 1.23 to 1.43, which is a far cry from ‘logarithmic,’ especially when they went back and forth! Basically, what we’re dealing with here is a ridiculous attempt to force a fit rather than finding something either explanatory or ‘typical.’

The same can be said, shouted really, with all of the other examples of Phi in ‘great art,’ and literature, and so on. First off, there’s the basic nature of numerology. Pick any number or ratio, and go out looking for all of the places where it can be fitted in someplace. Found a bunch? Yeah, this is hardly stunning, especially if you don’t mind fudging the fit a bit – you can make a ratio of any point A to any point B that you like, and then go find matches. This is where a basic understanding of science comes in helpful, because the idea of looking for exceptions is important. You can see a lot of 1.618 ratios? Good, now try 1.5, and 1.75, and so on. If you find far fewer of these than 1.618, you might have a reason to be impressed.

But even this wouldn’t be very informative, since artwork and literature are influenced by cultures and biases. Did some of the classic artists use the ratio in their works? It’s quite possible, even though the numbers aren’t too convincing when someone starts looking for exceptions rather than fits. But such reliance only represents the quirks of the artist, perhaps their belief that it was important. If, for instance, changing the ratio to something else would completely ruin the artistic merit of the work, then perhaps a case could be made for Phi being important. But just because any popular work reflects some reliance on an idea doesn’t mean it’s the only thing that could have worked, or that the artist was onto some big secret. If you like arbitrary rules, you could notice that most great works of art feature humans, even though we are just one of millions of species on the planet – is this profound? Does this make humans special? Well, if by “special” you only mean “egocentric,” then yes. We’re special as hell.

Then there’s the unanswered question in the middle of all this, which is, “If Phi is indicative of something, what is it indicative of?” Why is some mathematical property supposed to be something special? Math is simply ratios to begin with – it is entirely abstract, and requires arbitrary definitions to even be able to apply to anything physical. Even if we were to find some very specific ratio in nature that is not explained in “Well, duh!” terms, like exponential growth or size/mass comparisons, what would this mean? Some people, perhaps a lot, take it to mean that there is a grand design, as if mathematical ratios could not spring up naturally.

What this really demonstrates, however, is how easily we come at something from the wrong side, making assumptions or succumbing to internal bias. We are pattern-seeking animals; we get a positive reaction from finding something that seems to fit some kind of formula, whether it be visual symmetry, or trends in growth times, or just number patterns. It can be useful to us, because it lets us discern the camouflaged animal from random foliage, or create calendars to judge planting times, or see where monetary trends may eventually lead. But it’s imperfect in a certain regard, in that we get little to no positive reaction from discovering a lack of patterns, or a misleading situation, so very often we don’t even try.

This is the nature of critical thought, and something that we need more often than we might even think. We’re actually biased towards finding patterns, and truth be told, it can be very easy to find them. They mean nothing, however, unless they’re more prevalent than the lack thereof, or demonstrate something useful. We need to provoke ourselves to look for the lack every time we think we’ve found a pattern, just to determine if the pattern really exists – without this cognitive decision, we’re only responding to primitive internal goads rather than discovering useful information.

But how uncertain do you feel?

Al Denelsbeck

I have very mixed feelings about emotions [now, there’s a sentence of remarkable profundity.] As manifestations of internal functions to provoke behavior that benefits our species, they are distinctly important, but too often, they’re not specific enough, or they’re too easy to fool, producing behaviors that don’t really benefit us and are sometimes quite detrimental. I hate to imply that we should always try to override emotions, and probably couldn’t do so if we tried, but there are plenty of cases where a good dose of critical examination works a whole lot better than trusting our ‘instincts.’

One interesting manifestation of this comes up fairly frequently in the discussion of scientific topics. Sean Carroll talks about one particular example, where physicists were asked which interpretation of quantum physics they favored. As he points out, there are numerous problems with this, most especially in implying that science can be determined through voting or popularity, which is also demonstrated by how often debates about some topic are promoted through our media outlets. Carl Sagan recounts in Demon-Haunted World how he was often asked what he believed about extra-terrestrial life. Upon giving his answer based on what we could actually determine (which is not much,) he would then be asked what his gut told him. “But I don’t think with my gut,” was his response.

Questions of this nature depart from attempts to obtain verifiable, dependable information and instead ask what someone’s emotional response is. However, the answers to such questions cannot have much, if any, value at all. Even being an experienced physicist doesn’t mean that a gut feeling is indicative of Truth™, or that anyone at all is free from the bias of past experience, personal benefit, or just liking “how it sounds.” In fact, we are far more likely to reject any given idea because we feel the person presenting it is an asshole, than because it lacks substantiation. Those feelings of personal attraction that influence our social interactions can easily get attached to something that has no social impact whatsoever, and which really should be viewed impassively.

To be sure, there are times when an ‘instinctive’ feeling is actually indicative of something recognized subconsciously, like how we may realize some off-the-cuff hypothesis is flawed without initially seeing why – anyone well-versed in any profession may have knowledge that is second-nature, immediately supporting or denying some particular perspective even when not articulated in detail. Yet without hearing the reasoning behind any standpoint, we have no way of knowing if it originates with their knowledge and rational processes, or if it’s simply a manifestation of emotional bias.

This issue is openly recognized, at least among those familiar with common debating errors, in the appeal from authority fallacy. Very frequently, an argument is proposed wherein the opinion of some knowledgeable figure is forwarded. The implication is that someone can be an authority which makes them right, either in select areas or sometimes quite broadly; witness the number of times that someone’s PhD degree is announced, often without even specifying in what field. But science degrees are not some form of royalty, and determining what is correct is not done by decree or title, but by demonstrating the accuracy with evidence. Even if Charles Darwin really had recanted his theory on his deathbed, no one in any biological field would care, because the theory still holds up incredibly well. In fact, it is the strength of the theory which would tell us that Darwin’s recantation was mistaken, and not the other way around. This does, of course, make such claims by creationists all the more amusing, and demonstrates that they really don’t understand science in the slightest.

Some of the search for how others feel about something undoubtedly comes from our distaste for uncertainty. We really don’t like not knowing something for certain, which isn’t by itself a bad thing; it provokes us to search for knowledge. But then again, it has its shortcomings, because the lack of viable answers leaves us unsatisfied, and in a ridiculous number of cases causes us to settle for whatever answer fits our desires best. Carl Sagan, obviously quite interested in the idea of extra-terrestrial life, was asked for a specific ruling on its existence, in the hopes of locating a kindred spirit who supported the desire for such life to really exist.

This is stating the obvious, but most religions are built almost entirely on bold assertions, attempting to establish certainty through repetition and unwavering surety. Religious worldviews invariably come down to some statement to the effect of, “This is how it is” – almost always in the absence of any supporting evidence. It has nothing to do with how much sense any religious idea makes, the functionality of it, its usefulness or prediction; what is most visibly present is the assurance, the emotional state of surety. As a species, we have a strong propensity to take cues from others, and will honestly believe, far too often, that if someone is very firm and confident in their beliefs, then by god they have good reason to be! [You didn’t miss that, did you? Not just the “by god” bit, but the fact that such a phrase directly relies on the concept of surety? I do have fun doing this.]

It’s funny, though, because people often realize the problems with this, to some extent anyway. Challenged with why they might be so sure of something, to provide a reasoning behind their standpoint, they can resort to the most convoluted or insubstantial justifications. I have been assured that the bible is the perfectly accurate word of god, handed down from generations long before writing existed, because oral storytelling was a precise act back then; no chance of any error, misunderstanding, memory loss, or editorializing. Scriptural historians would be rolling on the floor dying with laughter at this idea, not just from the fact that this has never been demonstrated in human history, but in the literally thousands of versions of scripture that exist and the obvious adaptations from other cultures. It’s not about making sense; it’s about justifying a viewpoint with something that at least sounds like the rational portion of the brain was involved, bearing some recognition that mere assertion is a child’s game.

And then there are the people who have the opposite viewpoint, who feel that surety comes with the weight of the evidence, with how dependably something works or how well it predicts. Very often, there is the recognition that nothing is absolutely sure – there’s always the chance that some new evidence will pop up that makes us rethink our understanding of how it all works. The turnover between Newtonian and Relativistic physics is one example; quantum physics is another. While this viewpoint is largely held by anyone sufficiently immersed in the sciences, it isn’t limited to such, and proposes a chicken-or-egg question: is it the knowledge of how science works, the process of examining evidence, that fosters this view of certainty through support; or is it the idea that we can only be confident in something that demonstrates its reliability the very thing that gets people interested in science in the first place? Or, perhaps more accurately, how much of either is responsible for any given individual?

The ‘scientific’ acceptance of uncertainty rather obviously denies the emotional desire for certainty – with some exceptions, as seen in Carroll’s post. But overall, no small number of people can consider something like dark energy as a present mystery, and even when yearning to find out what it’s all about, will not resort to some easy assertion just to appease the inner demon. The stronger emotion seems to be feeling confident in any viewpoint because it’s supported by evidence, functionality, and simply making sense.

The truth is, until we become omniscient (and I wouldn’t suggest waiting on that event,) we’re going to have uncertainty. This isn’t even an ugly truth, because it’s a reasonable expectation – we just don’t like it, solely because we have a drive to understand. Yet, in some cases we’re not going to satisfy this drive, or at least not without substantial effort. It’s really not that big a deal, comparable to numerous desires that are not immediately fulfilled – emotions are, after all, just nudges in our thought processes, not any harder to ignore than the desire for a cooler phone [okay, maybe that was a bad example.] Uncertainty is not a failing, and with a little support from reason, it can serve a motivator towards greater understanding.

Nicely done!

Al Denelsbeck

[UPDATE: The video has been taken down now, since apparently the copyright holders of the ABBA music felt that a non-profit organization using it was “too commercial” and was unlikely to boost the sales of a thirty-five-year-old song. Did you need more proof that attorneys are not bright?]

It’s been a while since I mentioned having worked in an animal shelter, a portion of my life from years back… and this isn’t being overly dramatic, since typically such things do become some aspect of your life. It’s not just a job; it’s an attitude, a mindset, an entirely different way of looking at things. Like medical work (I imagine,) you experience very distinctive highs and lows, more emotional peaks and troughs than many other careers. There’s a message that you constantly strive to get across to the public: pet overpopulation is a serious issue, resulting in lots of unnecessary anxiety, illness, and death among those animals that we usually want to consider our companions, and it stems almost entirely from just not being aware of how much certain practices (like unchecked breeding and irresponsible ownership) contribute to the problem.

On top of this, animals have a tendency to stir our emotional responses, which may sound like a good thing until you realize that some issues benefit far more from rational responses instead. Shelter workers are often faced with having to try to communicate practical approaches to people who block it out with kneejerk reactions. Not fun, and often more than a little stressful.

There are a lot of approaches, too, and the neighboring SPCA of Wake County (North Carolina,) with the assistance of POV Productions, has produced a fantastic one. Check it out:

SPCA Pet Adoption Video from Chester McPurrs on Vimeo.

Most impressive is that this is one long shot, tracking through the shelter and choreographed among a few dozen people. I don’t even want to know what kind of planning went into this.

I’ve visited that shelter a couple of times now, once getting the full tour not too long after the new structure was completed. It’s exceptionally well-planned, not just on the aesthetic end, but in details such as the ventilation systems being designed to minimize airborne pathogens, which can hammer a shelter’s population even worse than flu season for humans. The place really is that nice looking, though if I recall it typically has fewer streamers…

Non-profit organizations can run the gamut, but the successful ones that I’ve encountered always have a significant outreach program, finding ways to get local businesses and philanthropists involved as well as fostering a positive overall approach, both from the public and from its employees and volunteers. Which reminds me: many, probably most, of the people you see here are volunteers, since animal welfare isn’t a field that provides the funding for large staffs. So the impressive part isn’t just the production values of the video, or the appeal of the facility – it’s the contagious enthusiasm of the people involved, which requires no small amount of behind-the-scenes effort on the part of the administration and board. Wake SPCA, you guys rock.

And yes, it needs to be said: spay and neuter your pets – any reasons to avoid this are trivial and self-absorbed. Pets are an investment for life, just like kids. And “pure bred” is an idiotic concept, stemming from an ancient superstition that a bloodline carried some form of superiority. All domestic animal “breeds” are the result of human manipulation, and usually not to their benefit. Adopt one that needs a home.

*          *          *

Posts from my own adventures in the field:

Flashback (November 9, 2009)

Flashback, Part Two (November 9, 2009)

Odd Memories, Part Two (August 30, 2010)

Odd memories, part three (October 27, 2010)

Not the right kind of composition

Al Denelsbeck

LunaJupiter
Just a quick image from tonight, as Jupiter passed close to the moon. Or at least, from the given perspective of one position in the universe presently occupied by Earth. Jupiter has often been much closer to the moon, distance-wise, even when not visible in the sky at all.

This is admittedly both not very good, and a digital composite. The reason for the composite is the wide disparity in light levels. A lot more of the light reflected from the moon reaches us than the light from Jupiter and its satellites (three of which are visible in this shot.) So the exposure time to capture our moon is many times less than that needed to capture Jupiter’s moons, and in the frame that produced the three moons shown here (from top, Ganymede, Io, and Callisto,) our moon was blown out into a featureless blob. Even Jupiter is both overexposed and showing distinctive chromatic aberration (“color fringing”) as well as some coma – I really shouldn’t attempt to use this lens for astronomical photos.

By the way, the spot that’s out of line with the others is not a moon of Jupiter, but a star – Jupiter’s satellites always appear in a line, and the third is very faintly visible below Jupiter (provided your monitor gamma is reasonably accurate) about five times as far away as the others.

Compositing astronomical images is fairly common anymore, which I find somewhat annoying, since a few years ago it was considered “Photoshopping” and a no-no. Very often when you see a detailed starfield, especially with detail in the Milky Way, over any kind of landscape, it’s digitally edited. Bringing up the detail in the faint clouds of the Milky Way requires long exposures and a tracking mount to counteract the rotation of the Earth, which would blur the foreground landscape, and depending on the light source for the landscape, the exposure values can be way too far apart. You can see a non-composited example here, and though many cameras now are better at high ISOs than the Digital Rebel (300D) I used, they’re not that much better.

But anyway, this is my quick peek at the conjunction. One of these days I’ll capture something disappearing behind the edge of the moon, but again, it will probably have to be two frames combined to see any kind of decent detail. Such is photography.

1 … 262 263 264 265 266 … 311