B Debunking Bat and Skull Nebulae fakery

[DaveC426913]

TL;DR Summary

If something fake is promulgated heavily enough, does it become de facto real?

These images of the Skull and Bat Nebula are circulating:

I have called them both out as - not merely edited - but outright fake.

These are unfaked images of the two:

Unfortunately, in the case of the Bat Nebula, even reputable sources seem to be promulgating the lie.
News claiming NASA released it,
APOD,
even Snopes seems to have been duped.

I am looking for a definitive source, particularly for the Bat Nebula.

 

[glappkaeft]

There is no definitive source on how especially nebulas (but also other astronomical objects) are pictured. It depends on what the sensor is sensitive in (Far IR, visual, UV, X-ray, various radio frequencies, etc.), which filters you use (narrow band, wide band, monochrome, RGB, RGB-Alpha, etc), how long your exposures are, how you decide to weight the different filters, etc. ad nauseum.

If we go by how the naked eye would see it it would 99% of the time (ETA: when visable at all) be a mostly shapeless, dim grey blob or series of blobs.

 

[Orodruin]

TL;DR Summary: If something fake is promulgated heavily enough, does it become de facto real?

These images of the Skull and Bat Nebula are circulating:
View attachment 339834

I have called them both out as - not merely edited - but outright fake.

These are unfaked images of the two:
View attachment 339836

Unfortunately, in the case of the Bat Nebula, even reputable sources seem to be promulgating the lie.
News claiming NASA released it,
APOD,
even Snopes seems to have been duped.

I am looking for a definitive source, particularly for the Bat Nebula.

I give you … the unicorn nebula:

Created by one line of text without any real counterpart using Bing AI …

 

[glappkaeft]

Do you have any sources of the four images (ie. including details like equipment, exposures, filters used etc.)

Looking at the "Bat nebula" (eastern part of the Viel nebula?) for instance the Batlike one looks like a pretty standard long exposure LRGB (monochrome to get good signal, plus red green and blue for color) image to capture the dark dust in "natural" colors and the non-bat like one as narrowband pallet image to capture H-alpha, O-II, etc., emission lines where the filters are assigned different colors using for instance the Hubble palette.

Even taking into account what I said in my first post would definitely say that the Bat is "more" natural than the narrowband image.

Either of them can of course be totally/partially faked but you cannot make that determination based on that image comparison.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is no definitive source on how especially nebulas (but also other astronomical objects) are pictured. It depends on what the sensor is sensitive in (Far IR, visual, UV, X-ray, various radio frequencies, etc.),

I'm simply alluding to an original, published astro photo from an official source.

No combination of sensors and filters will produce those Photoshopped fakes.

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you have any sources of the four images (ie. including details like equipment, exposures, filters used etc.)

Metadata of the real ones doesn't really speak to the fakeness of the faked ones.

And the faked ones, of course, have no such metadata.

 

[glappkaeft]

I'm simply alluding to an original, published astro photo from an official source.

No combination of sensors and filters will produce those Photoshopped fakes.

You might assert that but here is an image of the top 9 images of a quick Google search of LDN 43 (the "bat nebula"). Pretty batlike if you ask me and I'm not even sure if your "Official" one is of the same object since there is no data about the image.

 

[DaveC426913]

You might assert that but here is an image of the top 9 images of a quick Google search of LDN 43 (the "bat nebula"). Pretty batlike if you ask me and I'm not even sure if your "Official" one is of the same object since there is no data about the image.
View attachment 339843

Indeed. And as I have been arguing, trust only reputable sources. Internetters are doing the same thing you did. Google does not curate its results, and this image is being spread with zero comments about its veracity or its provenance.

Which is the very reason why I am asking for a definitive source.

Now if one of those bat-like images were found with associated metadata, I'd consider that confirmed.

 

[glappkaeft]

Indeed. And as I have been arguing, trust only reputable sources. Google does not curate its results, and this image is being spread with zero comments about its veracity or its provenance.

No, no, no! Not indeed! Look at the sources of those images APOD, Sky & Telescope and a bunch of reputable amateur astronomers.

 

[russ_watters]

.... and a bunch of reputable amateur astronomers.

I haven't looked into these images yet, but just to expand on that: astrophotographers spend years producing dozens of photos and then share their work online. There's no good reason why one picture in particular out of all those real images of their hobby would be an AI generated fake.

However, Hubble, Webb and others can take photos amateurs can't, and images of the same object can look very different from each other.

 

[glappkaeft]

Also about the skull. After some searching it looks like that is NGC 2237, the Rosette Nebula which can, if you select your narrowband filters and palette in certain ways, indeed look like a skull (cool, did not know that).

Although the image in your example is badly processed there are very nice more subtle ones out there.

Next please debunk the horsehead nebula.

 

[russ_watters]

Next please debunk the horsehead nebula.

I am working on the Horsehead nebula right now. Last night I was discussing what it should look like with my girlfriend. We googled images of it to see what the true color looks like. It is pretty much just red as the emission nebula surrounding the horse is almost entirely hydrogen. But we found a Hubble image online that showed the head in red and the surrounding area black. It took us a minute to figure out that that was a real Hubble photo in infrared showing the dust cloud of the head as opposed to the emission nebula behind it. I'll post the photos later.

 

[glappkaeft]

But we found a Hubble image online that showed the head in red and the surrounding area black. It took us a minute to figure out that that was a real Hubble photo in infrared showing the dust cloud of the head as opposed to the emission nebula behind it. I'll post the photos later.

I might have been thinking about just those images when I posted...

 

[DaveC426913]

Also about the skull. After some searching it looks like that is NGC 2237, the Rosette Nebula which can, if you select your narrowband filters and palette in certain ways, indeed look like a skull (cool, did not know that).

Surprisingly, of all the parts that I assumed were faked in, it is the nose and nasal septum that are really part of the nebula.

 

[glappkaeft]

Metadata of the real ones doesn't really speak to the fakeness of the faked ones.

It very much does if you want to be able to determine if it is plausible that they are different representation of the same object.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, no, no! Not indeed! Look at the sources of those images APOD, Sky & Telescope and a bunch of reputable amateur astronomers.

I am not convinced. It was sent out by Chris Hadfield on Halloween. Just because fellow astronomers are reposting it does not mean it's real or that they are claiming it is or that they think it is.

 

[DaveC426913]

It very much does if you want to be able to determine if it is plausible that they are different representation of the same object.

As you point out yourself, the "alternate" pics could always be some photos taken with a different filter or sensor or cropped - I can't prove they're fake by proving my photos have metadata and are real. It might convince most people that these "alternate" pics are fake but it's not exactly conclusive.

 

[glappkaeft]

I am not convinced. It was sent out by Chris Hadfield on Halloween. Just because fellow astronomers are reposting it does not mean it's real or that they are claiming it is or that they think it is.

They are not reposting it! They are imaging it themselves. Can you not see that the images are all processed and cropped differently?

Maybe this will be enough to convince you:
I cannot link to the search but go to the European Southern Observatory - Digitized Sky Survey at
https://archive.eso.org/dss/dss
Set the object to LDN 43, image size to 45x45 arc minutes, survey to DSS-2 red, output to Display as gif and then imagine that the result is not a GIF of a short exposure in red with no processing but a nicely processed very long exposure in LRGB.

Should look like this.

 

[glappkaeft]

As you point out yourself, the "alternate" pics could always be some photos taken with a different filter or sensor or cropped - I can't prove they're fake by proving my photos have metadata and are real. It might convince most people that these "alternate" pics are fake but it's not exactly conclusive.

I'd consider that being able to conclude that both images are valid representations of the same thing is when you should stop your attempts at debunking one of them based on their appearance. Especially since it is obvious you don't know much about astrophotography.

The images could still be fake, the Swedish Astro photo community many years ago exposed one of the local experts on photographing planets. They where able to prove (and he later confessed) that he was blending in images taken by other people closer to the equator to improve his images (hard to get sharp planet images from far north and under the jet stream to boot). For these images IF THEY WHERE FAKE you would have to do some forensic photo analysis to determine that.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'd consider that being able to conclude that both images are valid representations of the same thing is when you should stop your attempts at debunking one of them based on their appearance.

Sure. I have not been able to do that so far.

Do you think they're real? If so, why?

Especially since it is obvious you don't know much about astrophotography.

I am not sure why you say that or how you know what I know. What have I said that leads you to believe I "don't know much".

The images could still be fake
...
For these images IF THEY WHERE FAKE you would have to do some forensic photo analysis to determine that.

I have a better idea: prove they're bona fide.

I assert that you will not find this skull picture with any associated metadata.

Ah, OK, here is the Bat Nebula with associated acquisition metadata confirming it.

https://www.astrobin.com/full/7z89it/E/

 

[glappkaeft]

Sure. I have not been able to do that so far.

Do you think they're real? If so, why?

Yes, real. The "bat" is what I would expect for that object. The skull is a (in my opinion) badly overdone narrowband image of the rosette nebula but if you want to post on social media about a skull nebula that would be the most obvious to use.

I am not sure why you say that or how you know what I know. What have I said that leads you to believe I "don't know much".

The things you ask about, the conclusion you draw and the things you say.

I have a better idea: prove they're bona fide.

To the level you want that would be like proving a negative. While I have not been active lately there is nothing here that are, based on my years doing astrophotography, getting them published in astronomy magazines and now and again winning top 10 astrophotography of the year awards, suspicious.

 

[glappkaeft]

I assert that you will not find this skull picture with any associated metadata.




View attachment 339850


Ah, OK, here is the Bat Nebula with associated acquisition metadata confirming it.

https://www.astrobin.com/full/7z89it/E/

After literally 10 seconds of searching I think the skull is this one and then someone stole it and made it worse.
https://www.astrobin.com/isf1eu/

 

[DaveC426913]

The things you ask about, the conclusion you draw and the things you say.

Unless you object to something specific I've got wrong, please don't presume.

To the level you want that would be like proving a negative.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it?

If it's real, it's easier to prove it's real (like by citing this https://www.astrobin.com/full/7z89it/E/)

If it's fake it's harder to prove it does not exist - especially since it appears there are more than one Bat Nebula.

So it is I who am in the position of proving a negative.

While I have not been active lately there is nothing here that are, based on my years doing astrophotography, getting them published in astronomy magazines and now and again winning top 10 astrophotography of the year awards, suspicious.

Great. But I have been asking for a definitive source, not a considered opinion.

Imagine if I went back and said "I can prove this is real because some astro guy I've only just met on a forum thinks it's real in his opinion." That's not how to science.

After literally 10 seconds of searching

Yes. This is what I think too.

But "I think so" or "I seached Google for ten seconds" or "this other guy thinks so" is not how I science.

 

[glappkaeft]

But "I think so" or "this other guy thinks so" is not how I science.

That where we differ, I don't see a reason to "science" this question. If you want to know where the skull image came from with certainty the you need private detectives or the FBI to run down who started it.

 

[DaveC426913]

That where we differ, I don't see a reason to "science" this question.

And that's OK. I'm the one asking.

There's a reason I'm sciencing it.

Someone posted it, implicitly promulgating it as real.
Me: "This is fake".
They: "No, it's real. Here's a ten second Google search of images proving it."
Me: "They're all fake. It's viral. Here is the real image, and here's why I know it's real. (Me, reaching out to PF)"

If you want to know where the skull image came from with certainty the you need private detectives or the FBI to run down who started it.

No I don't. In this case there is only one skull nebula, and the faked picture isn't it. The preponderance of evidence falls in my favour and I would require someone who is claming its real to go find a reputable pic of it.

 

[DaveC426913]

That where we differ, I don't see a reason to "science" this question.

And that's OK. I'm the one asking.

There's a reason I'm sciencing it.

Someone posted the skull pic, implicitly promulgating it as real.
Me: "This is fake".
They: "No, it's real. Here's a ten second Google search of images proving it."
Me: "All the Google images are fake. It's viral. Here is the real image, and here's why I know it's real. (Me, reaching out to PF) for a source."

If you want to know where the skull image came from with certainty the you need private detectives or the FBI to run down who started it.

No I don't. In this case there is only one skull nebula, and the faked picture isn't it. The preponderance of evidence falls in my favour and I would require someone who is claiming its real to go find a reputable pic of it.

 

[glappkaeft]

Someone posted it, implicitly promulgating it as real.
Me: "This is fake".
They: "No, it's real. Here's a ten second Google search of images proving it."
Me: "They're all fake. It's viral. Here is the real image, and here's why I know it's real. (Me, reaching out to PF)"

Ok, so you think someone is wrong on the internet. I though we had (at least almost) established that the "skull" is a valid (if IMO probably stolen and badly processed) narrowband astrophoto representation of the Rosette nebula which would mean that everyone I have ever discussed this with in astrophotography circles would agree that the skull image is not fake. Also in other posts that the "bat" is real.

This leaves me with the belief that I don't understand what you think is wrong with the picture (other than my belief that it is probably stolen and then badly processed, which is an copywrite infraction and really bad manors).

So guessing a lot here, if you really want to educate the "They" person(s) on social media you should teach them, using you claimed knowledge of astrophotography techniques, that while both images are valid, how different imaging approaches and processing will give different results. Possibly also teach them about people using click bait on social media? Maybe teach them about applying source criticism?

BTW, why do you think someone posting "the skull" is bad/fake or whatever problem you are having with it? That might help me to understand your position.

No I don't. In this case there is only one skull nebula, and the faked picture isn't it. The preponderance of evidence falls in my favour and I would require someone who is claming its real to go find a reputable pic of it.

No, there isn't a "the one" or "official" image of astronomical objects as I explained in my first post. That the "Skull nebula" (an alias I did not know about even after decades of deep interest in astronomy/astrophotography but little interest in social media) is more well known as the Rosette nebula might be a hint but this is not uncommon.

And since you asked previously, this belief of yours of an "official" image was the first major sign that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to astrophotography. The second was mixing obvious LRGB and narrowband palette images of the same object (or still possibly different objects since you still haven't said what the "true" object is). No serious (amateur)/(photo)/astronomer would neglect that meta-data.

It then got worse...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Last night I was discussing what it should look like with my girlfriend. W

It will look prettier. Everything will look prettier with your girlfriend. At least you should say so.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ok, so you think someone is wrong on the internet. I though we had (at least almost) established that the "skull" is a valid (if IMO probably stolen and badly processed)

"stolen and badly processed" in my books counts as fake.

narrowband astrophoto representation of the Rosette nebula which would mean that everyone I have ever discussed this with in astrophotography circles would agree that the skull image is not fake.

The Skull Nebula is not fake. That image is. It's been heavily altered, by your own admission.

Also in other posts that the "bat" is real.

After finally finding that image of the Bat Nebula with acquistion data, there's no longer any doubt it's real

This leaves me with the belief that I don't understand what you think is wrong with the picture (other than my belief that it is probably stolen and then badly processed, which is an copywrite infraction and really bad manors).

It's misleading.

So guessing a lot here, if you really want to educate the "They" person(s) on social media

No. I am just obliged to defend my initial assertion when dismissed it as fake. I was challenged, and am now putting my money where my mouth is.

you should teach them, using you claimed knowledge of astrophotography techniques, that while both images are valid, how different imaging approaches and processing will give different results.

No. We're talking Photoshop here, not astrophotog techniques.

Possibly also teach them about people using click bait on social media? Maybe teach them about applying source criticism?

No need to second guess me. I'm just looking for facts, as specified in the OP.

BTW, why do you think someone posting "the skull" is bad/fake or whatever problem you are having with it? That might help me to understand your position.

In the context it was in, yes.

No, there isn't a "the one" or "official" image of astronomical objects as I explained in my first post.

And as I explained in my second post, that's not what I asked for.

Stop misattributing things to me. Read what I've written not what you think I've written.

And since you asked previously, this belief of yours of an "official" image was the first major sign that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to astrophotography.

And you were wrong.

The only time I mentioned "official" was when I was asking for a picture from an official source. i.e. the organization that acquired the pic being the ones who published it, as opposed to some Google search that will turn up a million fakes. For Pete's sake!

The second was mixing obvious LRGB and narrowband palette images of the same object (or still possibly different objects since you still haven't said what the "true" object is).

I did not mix these two things up.

I am comparing two images.

You are really reading in your own preconceptions into everything I say.

It then got worse...

Yes. Stop making it worse.

Read what I've written not what you think I've written.

 

[russ_watters]

For what it's worth, Dave, after a little googling, I'd judge both to be real, but the first one (Skull/Rosetta nebula) may have significantly altered colors. Without finding the original source of that, it's tough to know how it was constructed though. But there are many amateur photos of that nebula showing that shape/detail.
The bat is a little more rare, but I found a site that looks like a "reputable amateur" as @glappkaeft called them.

Here's one of each:
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/864747-the-cosmic-skull-aka-the-rosette-nebula/
https://www.astrobin.com/7z89it/E/

Also:

We're talking Photoshop here, not astrophotog techniques.

Photoshop is a normal part of nearly every astrophotographer's toolkit and process. Most astrophotography images are heavily processed, even professional ones.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am disgusted with the way this thread went off the rails. If posters are going to misread me and put words in my mouth and then go deaf when I point it out, and then reitereate the same misattributions, and then have the nerve to presume I don't know what I'm talking about, then it really should be locked before they can make bigger fools of themselves.

 

[glappkaeft]

"stolen and badly processed" in my books counts as fake.

To me the images are stolen and badly processed.

The Skull Nebula is not fake. That image is. It's been heavily altered, by your own admission.

While I don't condone it the least I would not say heavily altered. They went for a blue/monochrome where the original was red/yellow. A valid choice if done better I would say.

After finally finding that image of the Bat Nebula with acquistion data, there's no longer any doubt it's real

It's misleading.

Yeah, and that you claimed it was obviously fake is not a good look on your debunking run. That science reporting can be corrupted is a problem with almost every mass media coverage I know anything about but is not an problem with the image.

No. I am just obliged to defend my initial assertion when dismissed it as fake. I was challenged, and am now putting my mnet where my mouth is.

Depending on how you define wrong you might just be wrong (or need to clarify your position). BTW I think your position is wrong and I think it is very shortsighted.

No. We're talking Photoshop here, not astrophotog techniques.

There are no astrophotos that have not been modified (Bayer conversion, gamma conversion, curves, etc.). Many of these techniques where done using the chemistry and exposure of film and the printing processes to prints and glass...

The only time I mentioned "official" was when I was asking for a picture from an official source. i.e. the organization that acquired the pic being the ones who published it, as opposed to some Google search that will turn up a million fakes.

And when I did you brushed them off by claiming google interference. That is always a good sign...

I did not mix these two things up.

I am comparing two images,- one I say is real astrophotog and one is heavily Photoshopped.

I have done astrophotography a lot, all astrophotos are heavily modified. What matters is if you did it naturally, with integrity, etc.

You are really reading in your own preconceptions into everything I say.

I can only base my conception on what you write and what I read. Without more context (which has helped a bit) I cannot do better. Sorry.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, guys, I'm going to pause this for a while and let people cool down. I have no idea why it became so heated. Although, at this point it seems like there is some consensus/conclusion to the main points:

1. There is general agreement that the "Bat Nebula" photo is 100% real, by the standards of astrophotographers.
2. The "Skull Nebula" photo may or may not be "real". It's close to ones that are definitely real, but without knowing how the colors were produced it is impossible to know if it was created in an honest way. But I submit that because it's not easy to find the original source, that's potentially an indicator that it was stolen and dishonestly altered.

Anyway, I'll let you know how the Horsehead Nebula goes either way. It's off to a good start. Also, it may be worth rebooting this discussion to be about how astrophotographs are made, and how much processing really goes into them. It's a lot.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't think the very first image, the Rosette Nebula (aka Skull Nebula) is a fake and I don't think it's 'significantly altered' in the context of astrophotography. First and foremost, there is no 'standard' way to present an image in astrophotography. Colors, saturation, level of detail, sharpness, contrast, and virtually every other property of an image varies widely, even for images of the same object. Images are taken using many different types of telescopes and cameras, in different environments, with different filters, and processed with different software packages and techniques, all with varying degrees of user skill in every part of the process. Even color is subject to great change, as there are many different palettes used in narrowband imaging to assign color to different wavelength bands, most of which make no effort to match these bands to their actual colors.

I am looking for a definitive source, particularly for the Bat Nebula.

There isn't one. The best you can do is to look at many different images of the same target and decide if the image in question is sufficiently different to warrant suspicion. I would say no. Every image of the Rosette Nebula I've looked at (several dozen unique images in the last few minutes) all show the skull-like look of the nebula.

To me the images are stolen and badly processed.

I can't say anything about it being stolen, but the processing looks perfectly fine to me.

 

[Drakkith]

To tie this up a bit:

The best I can find is that the image of the skull is the Rosette Nebula and was taken by Curtis Morgan about 4 years ago and posted on Instagram here:

It doesn't appear to be a fake, as Mr. Morgan seems to be a very skilled astrophotographer with many high quality images on his instagram account, including several more images of the Rosette Nebula. In addition, every other image of the Rosette nebula I've looked at contains most of the same details as the image in question, with the differences only being what you would expect with images taken at differing focal lengths, seeing quality, equipment, and processing choices. I see no reason to believe that it is faked or that it is 'heavily altered' in some way that is out of proportion with how most astrophotography images are created.