Cookie consent

AstroBin saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to deliver better content and for statistical purposes. You can disable the usage of cookies by changing the settings of your browser. By browsing AstroBin without changing the browser settings, you grant us permission to store that information on your device.

I agree

A possible thieve

skywalkerww37
13 Jan, 2020 06:49
Hey guys, I think the thief we caught last time is back again…https://www.astrobin.com/forum/c/group-forums/iotd-staff/something-strange/
Compare this image: https://www.astrobin.com/swlmg7/?nc=user with Lloyds' DSW Cave https://www.astrobin.com/365820/C/?nc=user, they are very similar…
This time, this possible thief is clever. The resolution of his image is 6464*7434, resolution of Lloyds image is 3232*3717. So this possible thief  Drizzle 2* to change the resolution… I personally compare these two iamges, they are very similar in every part.
Btw the thief we caught last time also stole this Lloyds' DSW Cave Nebula image and that's why when I saw it this time I immediately feel something went wrong.
Maybe I am wrong. Hope you guys can check this out!
Edited 13 Jan, 2020 07:47
Andys_Astropix
13 Jan, 2020 07:07
Interesting, although he has very few images- he also appears to own at least 4 telescopes - that’s not necessarily a crime though!  smile
Edited 13 Jan, 2020 07:08
siovene
13 Jan, 2020 07:09
The framing is identical, down to the pixel and the same exact orientation. You can see it by opening the two full-sized pictures in two browser tabs, and switching back and forth. That's a bad sign…
jtrezzo
13 Jan, 2020 07:14
I think you have a case for it being that data, but isn't DSW data just able to be paid for and downloaded?

Fraudulent, yes, since it's listed as backyard with other scopes and cameras, but not outright thievery I don't think. The fact that he has the part where the watermark is on Lloyd's is what makes me think this.

The field radius and orientation are only 0.001 difference. And the exact same center RA/Dec coordinates shows its definitely that data. That alone can't be a coincidence, and what you say about the resolution makes sense too.
skywalkerww37
13 Jan, 2020 07:14
Andy 01
Interesting, although he has very few images- he also appears to own at least 4 telescopes - that’s not necessarily a crime though!
The last thief we caught aslo own many telescopes, like to write processing steps in description area… ( Detail: https://www.astrobin.com/forum/c/group-forums/iotd-staff/something-strange/) I even think they are the same person..
He claims this was imaged by 127mm apo, but this is newtonian telescope's star…https://www.astrobin.com/udcqr5/N/?nc=user
Edited 13 Jan, 2020 08:31
jtrezzo
13 Jan, 2020 07:28
Zhuoqun Wu
Andy 01
Interesting, although he has very few images- he also appears to own at least 4 telescopes - that’s not necessarily a crime though!
The last thieve we caught aslo own many telescopes, like to write processing steps in description area… ( Detail: https://www.astrobin.com/forum/c/group-forums/iotd-staff/something-strange/) I even think they are the same person..
He claims this was imaged by 127mm apo, but this is newtonian telescope's star…https://www.astrobin.com/udcqr5/N/?nc=user
Yeah I mean someone could add spikes with PS plug in but I know for a fact from using that telescope in the past it is not that good. smile

Seems weird, the guy can process clearly, I don't think anyone could totally fake all those steps, but doesn't admit where he got the data? Why.
skywalkerww37
13 Jan, 2020 07:33
Jarrett Trezzo
Yeah I mean someone could add spikes with PS plug in but I know for a fact from using that telescope in the past it is not that good. Seems weird, the guy can process clearly, I don't think anyone could totally fake all those steps, but doesn't admit where he got the data? Why.

What's your opinion on these two images:
 https://www.astrobin.com/gi0ngj/0/?nc=user
https://www.astrobin.com/284809/0/?nc=all
This guy claims he imaged this at his local astronomy club…
Edited 13 Jan, 2020 07:34
jtrezzo
13 Jan, 2020 07:59
Zhuoqun Wu
Jarrett Trezzo
Yeah I mean someone could add spikes with PS plug in but I know for a fact from using that telescope in the past it is not that good. Seems weird, the guy can process clearly, I don't think anyone could totally fake all those steps, but doesn't admit where he got the data? Why.

What's your opinion on these two images:
 https://www.astrobin.com/gi0ngj/0/?nc=user
https://www.astrobin.com/284809/0/?nc=all
This guy claims he imaged this at his local astronomy club…

He is clearly a fraud. He takes data from other sources and processes it himself and claims it as his own. Chris Gomez releases a lot of his own data publicly.  And here it is: https://www.astrobin.com/rawdata/publicdatapools/105/
Edited 13 Jan, 2020 08:03
gnomus
13 Jan, 2020 08:25
Great spot Zhuoqun.

I've had a look at both Cave images.  The bright orange star just to the right of centre has a very distinctive series of 'lighthouse' aberrations emanating from it.  These are identical in size, shape and direction in both Cave images.  While DSW data is available if you are a member of one of their teams, what you get are individual subs that have to be downloaded, calibrated and then cropped (unless things have changed).   The crop in both images is identical.  It seems unlikely that there would be an exact , pixel-perfect, match between one imager and the next.

I wasn't convinced by the M106 comparison at first.  But, again, if you look at both images you can see that Christopher's image is not quite properly cropped - there is a noisy 'strip' down the left hand side suggesting an area of poor coverage from one or more channels.  There is also a blue strip down the left hand side of the BB image.  In addition, the star spikes have an identical orientation, which is suspicious.

Against this, of course, is the fact that there is no evidence of an old watermark in either BB picture.  If it is a straight screengrab from AB then I'm not sure how he is getting rid of the watermark so well. I see that DSW has images in their sample gallery that carry no watermark.  There is a Cave Nebula on there, but, frustratingly, this seems to be the only image in the gallery that I can't open.   Cutting in a patch from another image might also be possible (though trickier to get luminance to match I would have thought).
Edited 13 Jan, 2020 09:26
gnomus
13 Jan, 2020 08:49
If you take a peek at his M33 (https://www.astrobin.com/udcqr5/N/?nc=user), BB is offering to share the data as a download, although he adds (somewhat ironically) "Please do give me credit for the data."

I downloaded the Ha file and took a look in PI's FITSHeader.  BB says he is using an Explore Scientific Telescope, a ZWO ASI 1600 camera, and an Explore Scientific G11 mount.  Yet the FITSHeader on his Ha states that the camera used is a 'MicroLine ML16200' and that the 'TELESCOP' is an 'AstroPhysics GTO V2 Mount'.

That all seems a bit curious.
Edited 13 Jan, 2020 10:00
skywalkerww37
13 Jan, 2020 10:25
Steve Milne
If you take a peek at his M33 (https://www.astrobin.com/udcqr5/N/?nc=user), BB is offering to share the data as a download, although he adds (somewhat ironically) "Please do give me credit for the data."I downloaded the Ha file and took a look in PI's FITSHeader.  BB says he is using an Explore Scientific Telescope, a ZWO ASI 1600 camera, and an Explore Scientific G11 mount.  Yet the FITSHeader on his Ha states that the camera used is a 'MicroLine ML16200' and that the 'TELESCOP' is an 'AstroPhysics GTO V2 Mount'.

That all seems a bit curious.
His M 33 version M (https://www.astrobin.com/udcqr5/M/?nc=user) possibly come from this one https://www.astrobin.com/7m10b9/?nc=user  He did a little bit rotataion but the stars' shape is same.
Version N (https://www.astrobin.com/full/udcqr5/N/)  was mixed with M and some other data. You can compare the core area with the edge of  the galaxy, definition has huge difference.  In M version, NGC 604 has really high definition, I think he probably mixed scientific data.
Edited 13 Jan, 2020 10:31
gnomus
13 Jan, 2020 10:37
Zhuoqun Wu
His M 33 version M (https://www.astrobin.com/udcqr5/M/?nc=user) possibly come from this one https://www.astrobin.com/7m10b9/?nc=user  He did a little bit rotataion but the stars' shape is same.version N was mixed with with M and some other data. You can compare the core area with the edge of galaxy, definition has huge difference.  In M version, NGC 604 has really high definition, I think he probably mixed scientific data.

You can see that there is a triangular black corner top right on BB's image that does suggest rotation from an already-cropped image.  And that would bring the star spikes into close alignment again.  However, 'Fan' is not using an FLI camera, nor is he using an AP mount.  There could be 'blending' going on, I suppose.  I'm not going to spend hours of my time 'investigating' this.  The examples previoulsy mentioned seem to paint a fairly compelling picture.  The supposed original imagers could be asked for an opinion and BB should be asked to account for what has been noticed.

I trust from his earlier post that Salvatore is already on this.
tolgagumus
13 Jan, 2020 11:41
Zhuoqun Wu
Compare this image: https://www.astrobin.com/swlmg7/?nc=user with Lloyds' DSW Cave https://www.astrobin.com/365820/C/?nc=user, they are very similar…

I can tell you first hand that this image is from the AP175 at DSW. I recognize the star aberrations unique to that telescope. At very least he is lying about the source.
Snjór
13 Jan, 2020 13:45
In same user account is this:

https://www.astrobin.com/l8b8z9/

Say taken 02&03 Aug 2019 for 23+ hours, there not enough darkness at this time year in Chennai plus object not well placed above horizon for this amount of time.
dotmod
13 Jan, 2020 15:04
Sigga
In same user account is this:https://www.astrobin.com/l8b8z9/

Say taken 02&03 Aug 2019 for 23+ hours, there not enough darkness at this time year in Chennai plus object not well placed above horizon for this amount of time.

Well he could be to lazy to fill out all the dates when "he captured" the shown data, I think this is no proof. His Cave nebula on the other hand looks very, very similar to the original image…
Edited 14 Jan, 2020 11:29
Snjór
13 Jan, 2020 18:57
Agree Yannick is possible.
Barry-Wilson
14 Jan, 2020 13:43
Is this M83, uploaded today, another example from this person?  https://www.astrobin.com/fpi0ey/B/?nc=user
siovene
14 Jan, 2020 21:16
I'm going to contact them privately asking for clarification on their Cave nebula.
Edited 14 Jan, 2020 21:17
Arringar
14 Jan, 2020 23:36
As someone who works with Lloyd and DSW, I can tell you, this data IS from DSW.  The FITs headers on the raw data mentioned by Steve match the system profile of the AP175 that sits right next to my own scope.   It's one thing if this data is being processed by a DSW member and they just put some other equipment profile on it, but even if they were a member, the data is not allowed to be shared.  I'm going to take a look and find out if this is a member.
Arringar
15 Jan, 2020 00:00
I spoke to Lloyd, he also believes this is his image.  Also, not a DSW customer.
Die_Launische_Diva
15 Jan, 2020 09:37
He was skilled enough to deal with the watermark but not good enough to remove the satellite passing between the bright stars at the top left corner of the image. The same trail appears at Lloyd's image. An entire planet lies between Chennay and New Mexico smile! By what laws of geometry these locations can share the same view of the swarm of artificial satellites surrounding Earth?
Arringar
16 Jan, 2020 03:34
Has any action been taken against this user?  Everyone here agrees this person stole the image, right?
Edited 16 Jan, 2020 03:56
siovene
16 Jan, 2020 05:52
I contacted them to ask some proof. I will delete the account if I don't get a reply within a week.
gnomus
16 Jan, 2020 08:45
This guy is still offering M33 data on the image page I linked to above.  Given that there is a significant possibility that he does not own this data, I wonder if the link should be removed or disabled until such time as the matter has been resolved.  If this is data that has been obtained nefariously then that is theft.  There is a distinct possibility that other AB users could download, process and present this data here or elsewhere (credited to BB, no less!) thus being unwittingly complicit.  That would be something that I am sure we should wish to avoid.

I don’t especially want to turn this site into something overly authoritarian.  But in exceptional cases such as these where the evidence is quite compelling, perhaps accounts should be suspended pending the outcome of investigations.
siovene
16 Jan, 2020 09:30
Hi Steve,
I agree with you but unfortunately there is no such thing as "account suspension" implemented on AstroBin code, at the moment.
 
Register or login to create to post a reply.