From: Warren Smith <warren.wds@gmail.com>

...

From: Phil Carmody <thefatphil@yahoo.co.uk> Anyway, back to:

...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2013/01/02/planet-formation-s...

It's a lot less remarkable than most paintings I see in the local art galleries near here. You didn't believe USAToday when they credited it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "(Photo: M. Kornmesser, ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO))", did you? It's just an ^^^^^^^^ artist's impression, that's all.

The actual *photo* is here: http://www.eso.org/public/archives/images/screen/eso1301b.jpg

--hmm.   The USA Today I got this from said "photo" not "artist impression"

Ack, see above. That was the bit that they, and others like them, did wrong.

and, what really sealed the deal to my gullible mind, was they also gave a VIDEO not just still, which I foolishly thought actually meant it was, like, real data from ESO.

It was real *PR* from ESO. That's what (IMHO) they did wrong.

Not just an attempt to be even more artistic. But when you think about it, you realize there is no way in hell that star-in-process-of-forming is going to be flying across the background field of fixed stars at that high a rate, so this video was actually a complete fabrication!! That's really really obnoxious to a degree I would have thought unbelievable. Lower my opinion of the press to new lows.

The video was ESO's PR too. It was gag-makingly bad. Heads, or PR-agency contracts, should roll. (Again, IMHO.) I know some in the field who are very much pro this kind of "give them pretty pictures to hook them when they're young" approach, so I know that My Honest Opinion is just that and nothing more. I am hoping to have a chat about this very example with one of them real soon now... The press' involvement in the scam was just a small (one word wrong) bit of sloppiness. (The same magnitude of error that can turn "rumours" into "reports", for example.)

The real "photo" which by the way was from radio telescope array, not optical, is not nearly as nice and convincing as the fake.  Is it legitimate to draw the conclusion expressed by the fake?

Not from a single photo. I'm sure they have many, and have studied them closely together before arriving at their conclusion. For example, the smears which are claimed to be bars of dust presumably rotate. I'm sure the scientists are doing their job responsibly. Alas they don't seem to share all their source (or processed) data. Phil -- () ASCII ribbon campaign () Hopeless ribbon campaign /\ against HTML mail /\ against gratuitous bloodshed [stolen with permission from Daniel B. Cristofani]