[URL="http://www.tetherdcow.com/like-a-big-pizza-pie/"]Link[/URL]

[SPOILER][I]“WOW, that is so beautiful. God is amazing!”[/I][/SPOILER]

[STRIKE]That is the most striking eclipse photo I have yet seen. Talk about being in the right place at the right time! :smile:[/STRIKE]

Oops. It helps to read the article.

It is also embarrassing that I took it at face value in the first place. Any of the faults should have been obvious.

[QUOTE=kladner;412159][STRIKE]That is the most striking eclipse photo I have yet seen. Talk about being in the right place at the right time! :smile:[/STRIKE]

Oops. It helps to read the article.

It is also embarrassing that I took it at face value in the first place. Any of the faults should have been obvious.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, didn't mean to catch you out. :smile: I'd certainly have been taken in too if I hadn't seen it on that blog first, knowing the author's skills at debunking rubbish.

Strangely, though, the (only) fishy feature which I noticed about the picture before reading the article was one he doesn't actually mention, which is that the totally eclipsed moon is apparently shining so much red light that you see it reflected in the water. The features which the author did mention escaped me.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;412162]Sorry, didn't mean to catch you out. :smile: I'd certainly have been taken in too if I hadn't seen it on that blog first, knowing the author's skills at debunking rubbish.

Strangely, though, the (only) fishy feature which I noticed about the picture before reading the article was one he doesn't actually mention, which is that the totally eclipsed moon is apparently shining so much red light that you see it reflected in the water. The features which the author did mention escaped me.[/QUOTE]

I think I caught myself. Not to worry. :smile:

Same here. I said "what a lucky son/daughter of the... moon!" to be there at that time. Then I read the link. :blush:
(actually, the sharpness of the waves seemed a bit odd, I know how [U]my[/U] night photos look, at least the objects that move fast in a night photo,they are all a blur, but I am not an expert, and people today have amazing good photocameras, not comparable with my mobile phone's, so I didn't think to a fake).

The moon seemed to be just a bit too low to me for all of it to be visible. But the lack of distortion right at the horizon quickly raised a red flag in my mind.

Also, at full moon, especially if it's supposed to be totally eclipsed, the moon and sun should be almost exactly opposite each other in the "sky." So the sun should be just below the horizon, so there should still be fairly strong twilight at the time.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;412211]Also, at full moon, especially if it's supposed to be totally eclipsed, the moon and sun should be almost exactly opposite each other in the "sky."[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
[QUOTE]So the sun should be just below the horizon, [...][/QUOTE]Now you've lost me...

EDIT: And seconds later, I realise what you mean! Because the moon is shown just above the horizon. Yes, of course! That's another point the writer of the article didn't mention.

We just viewed the partial eclipse here (with Eclipse glasses), only about 17% covered but still impressive!

[QUOTE=kladner;412159][STRIKE]That is the most striking eclipse photo I have yet seen. Talk about being in the right place at the right time! :smile:[/STRIKE]

Oops. It helps to read the article.

It is also embarrassing that I took it at face value in the first place. Any of the faults should have been obvious.[/QUOTE]It's not wrong, to want to believe in someone's skill and integrity. Full-on pessimistic paranoia is an unpleasant way to go through life.

On the other hand, perhaps it's just as well the fakery was incompetent. "This is the 21st century, people. If you’re going to fake an image, there is no excuse to be less competent than a 1950s Russian propagandist."

[QUOTE=Nick;580531]We just viewed the partial eclipse here (with Eclipse glasses), only about 17% covered but still impressive![/QUOTE]100% covered and very unimpressive down in Somerset where I was this morning.

I watched it too, with homemade eclipse glasses, which consist of three layers of slightly transparent black tape (basically an ordinary transparent tape with a very dark red coloured foil added). Only about 9% cover, I think.

I've seen better...

A few years ago there was a relatively huge partial eclipse, which covered, by the estimate of my memory, about 40% of the sun. It was covered enough I watched it back then without any eye protection, however, me and my eyes being about 10 years old may have helped somehow.