Internet Eclipse Photos: Fakes, Unrealistic Enhancements, and Hijacked Images

NOT a fake image. Photo by the author. ©2017 Mark Alsip.

After the “Great American Eclipse” of April 8, 2024, social media and the Internet have become swamped with highly-manipulated and/or completely fake images of totality. As an eclipse chaser with 26 years experience under my belt, I’m greatly disturbed by this. Total eclipses of the sun are the most beautiful events in nature. There’s absolutely no need to falsify how they look.

In this edition of Bad Science Debunked, I’d like to take in-depth looks at a couple of the most popular fake or manipulated images. I’ll explain how we know they aren’t real (or are manipulated). I’ll talk about why some photographers manipulate their images, how such images are sometimes hijacked without the photographer’s permission, and look at both the good and bad that can come from such manipulation.

Artificial Intelligence Rears It’s Head

Let’s start with the photo below.⁶ In a moment I’ll talk about the impossibility of capturing the wide dynamic range of light in the various parts of the the sun’s corona (atmosphere) seen in this image, but alarm bells were already going off in my head just based on knowing something about the April 8, 2024 eclipse.

Image Credit: author unknown, please see photo credits at end of article for attribution and declaration of usage rights.

First, notice the sunset/sunrise colors in the photo. Notice how close to the horizon the moon and sun are. This simply wasn’t possible on April 8. The eclipse began at sea southwest of Mexico, so there would’ve been no land from which to shoot a sunrise shot. Likewise, the eclipse ended over land in the North Atlantic. Again, there would be no land-based position from which to shoot a sunrise or sunset photo.

Second, look at all the little golden beads and “swirls” around the edge of the sun. The beads are known as Bailey’s Beads. These “beads” are small glints of sunlight shining through mountain passes on the limb of the moon. The swirls that seem to leap off the sun are called “prominences.” Prominences are large masses of gas leaping off the surface of the sun.

To see so much of this phenomena literally 360 degrees around the sun would have required what’s known as a “shallow eclipse.” The moon would have needed to be far enough from Earth to just-ever-so-slightly cover the face of the sun, allowing so many beads and prominences to be visible. I was clouded out on April 8, but I’ve looked at a great deal of photographs from those who weren’t, and the eclipse just wasn’t this shallow. Nor was it expected to be. Look at some legitimate images of this eclipse from NASA and you’ll see the difference.¹

Third, notice what appears to be full foliage on deciduous trees. For this to have been a sunset image, it would have had to been taken at a high latitude. The eclipse left land for good near tiny Bonavista, Newfoundland & Labrador, just north of St. John’s, Newfoundland², at a latitude of 48 degrees north. With the foliage just now thickening near my home of Lexington, KY, a full 10 degrees farther south, I find it incredible to believe the trees are this far advanced 10 degrees to the north.

Worse yet, the eclipse ended in BonaVista at 4:30pm local time on April 8. The sun would not set there until over three hours later (7:44pm local time).

The eclipse leaves land for good in Newfoundland, with totality ending at 4:30pm, three hours before sunset.² Map courtesy Javier M. Xubier/Google Maps.

Things don’t get any better for the possibility of a sunrise photo. Aside from a minor island, the eclipse first touched land near Mazatlan, Mexico.³ The sun rose at 5:51am in Mazatlan on eclipse day, but totality didn’t end until 11:11am local time. That’s about five hours after the sun first touched Mazatlan’s beaches. There was no possibility of taking a sunrise picture of the eclipse in Mexico on April 8, even though the country would have the foliage.

So, this image was not taken at sunrise or sunset, anywhere in the path of the eclipse, despite the very clear colors indicating this would be the case.

The eclipse comes ashore near the resort city of Mazatlan, Mexico, where totality ended at 11:11am local time.³ The sun rose a full 5 hours earlier, at 5:51am local time. Map courtesy Javier M. Xubier/Google Maps.

AI Generated? Yes, Most Likely
Being unable to track down any source for this photo to learn how it was produced, I followed the suggestion of the Facebook page Exploiting the Niche,¹⁰ which has a thread dedicated to solar eclipse photo fakes. The suggestion? Run the image through an analysis tool designed to look for AI-generated fakes. I used the free Hive⁹ plugin for Chrome. This is what I found:

In contrast, let’s run the Hive⁹ detector on my own image, the un-retouched feature image for this story:

 

Case #2: Clear and Obvious Image Manipulation
Let’s turn our attention now to another highly modified image which, again, in no way represents what totality actually looks like. This hijacked image was shared very widely, including the Facebook sites “Science Updates” and the fake “James Webb Space Telescope”⁵ (has nothing to do with the real JWST) page:

The fake JWST page blocked me when I pointed out they were sharing a misleading image:

The fake JWST Facebook page won’t allow dissenting comments, pointing out the problems with the image they hijacked.

There’s a little more information on this image than was available for the previous one. A reverse image search on Google first led me to the Twitter/X page of Dr. Sebastian Voltmer, from who, it turns out, the image was hijacked.

Dr. Sebastian Voltmer’s Twitter/X page⁷ says he does High Dynamic Range (HDR) solar eclipse photography:

The comment above refers to a photo he took in 2017. Before I dive into his 2024 photo, the one that’s causing all the controversy right now, let me explain what HDR photography is, and what it is not.

HDR photos are not “high resolution” photos, as they’re so often mislabeled. Instead, they are digitally enhanced pictures that use software to make up for the fact that even modern cameras cannot possibly capture the wide range (the “R” in “HDR”) of brightness found in various features of the eclipse.

For example, look closely at the surface of the moon in the previous Photoshopped eclipse photo. See all that detail? It’s visible–but only just so–because of light reflected back from Earth onto the face of the moon. To capture any type of detail from the very dim light of “earthshine” takes very long exposures… in my experience one second or longer.

Contrast this vastly greater brightness of features such as the “diamond ring,” Bailey’s Beads, or the inner corona (the milky-white atmosphere of the sun, “inner” referring to the part of the sun’s atmosphere closest to our star’s surface). Here’s we’re talking exposure times much shorter than a second… perhaps 1/500th to 1/125th of a second. This is all well and good for the features we want to record, but unfortunately this exposure time is way too short to capture any detail on the face of the moon, made possible by the dim earthshine. The difference is too vast.

As we step away from the sun, the corona (again, this is the sun’s atmosphere) is less bright. To properly expose this region of the solar atmosphere, we must resort to longer exposure times, perhaps 1/60th to 1/30th of a second. Notice we’re doubling to quadrupling the time needed to get detail in the inner corona. But (there’s always a “but,” isn’t there?) now that we get nice detail in the mid-corona, the inner corona becomes washed out. It’s just too bright.

By the time we get all the way to the outer corona, farthest away from the sun, we’re back in the neighborhood of 1/30th to 1/8th of a second, or even a full second. Look again at the manipulated photo… see all those delicate “streamers” far away from the sun? They’re captured with slow shutter speeds which, to beat a dead horse here, totally washes out both the inner and mid parts of the corona. Those features lose detail, turning into a white blob.

I’ll illustrate using my own photography, looking at three parts of the range, including the most extreme. In each case, all my camera settings are the same. I’m only changing the exposure time, letting in more light with each shot, in order to capture different parts of the eclipse.

A diamond ring, the very inner corona, and a red prominence (the ruby-red dot) at two-o’clock. ISO 200, F/8, 1/250 second. Green spots are lens flare (internal reflections in the glass of my lens). Photo by the author. ©2017 Mark Aaron Alsip.

 

“Mid” corona. Notice detail farther from the sun, but pay attention to the fact that detail in the inner corona, visible in the previous shot, is now wiped out due to the difference in brightness. ISO 200, F/8, 1/60 second. Photo by the author. ©2017 Mark Aaron Alsip.

Outer corona. Notice some detail appearing very far from the sun… detail that couldn’t be seen in the previous photos because the exposure wasn’t long enough. But notice how the inner and mid corona are completely wiped out. And even at this slow speed, we’re still not picking up enough light to show detail on the moon from earthshine. ISO 200, F/8, 1/2 second. Photo by the author. ©2017 Mark Aaron Alsip.

So at this point, you might be saying… “Hey, wait a minute! I’ve seen total eclipses before and much more detail was visible to me, through all parts of the wide range you’re showing here!”

And you’d be absolutely correct. Our eyes and brains are much more sophisticated than our cameras. When we look at an eclipse, these organs work together to process the incredible dynamic range of the lighting.

Read that last paragraph again please. When you look at the fanciful, admittedly-beautiful photographs showing fine detail in all parts of the corona, you are looking at deliberate manipulations made by the photographer in an attempt to recreate what he/she saw with their own eyes.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with this! I’ve played around with the technique myself.

The problem, in my humble opinion, is that sometimes photographers go too far. I can’t say for certain what another person believes they have seen, and I accept that artistic license is involved in the attempt to invoke how it felt to witness totality. I respectfully submit that the photographer, and all who reproduce the photographer’s work, should be very clearly labelling the images as manipulated.

To his great credit, Dr. Sebastian Voltmer, whose work has been hijacked by unscrupulous or unaware web sites, does explain exactly what he’s doing. He even posted a disclaimer on his Twitter/X page about the misrepresentation of his work:⁸

HDR eclipse image by Dr. Sebastian Voltmer. ©2024 Dr. Sebastian Voltmer. See image credits at article’s end for disclaimer on usage rights under fair use laws.

While clearly a stunning piece of art, to a seasoned eclipse chaser, this just is not reality. Presented out of context, which others have done without Dr. Voltmer’s permission or knowledge, the image could mislead the public into believing eclipses really look this way. They are already the most beautiful event in nature. There’s no need to misrepresent them by hijacking someone else’s work. This can set high, false expectations in the public’s mind.

So How’s It Done?

Describing the various methods of producing HDR eclipse images is beyond the scope of this article. If you’re interested in learning more, you can find great reference material on the web, including this primer by Sky & Telescope Magazine.⁴

In a nutshell, there are a couple techniques I can briefly describe.

The first, and perhaps the most common, is to do what I showed earlier: take multiple images of the eclipse at various exposure settings, then “stack” them all together in a program like Photoshop, and apply a special High Dynamic Range filter to the image stack to achieve the desired result. One old trick that really makes the streaming corona “pop” is to use Photoshop’s “emboss” filter to create a masking layer that can then be used to artificially create detail that isn’t really there in the original image.

More than you want to know if you’re not a photographer: Many photographers now shoot in “raw” mode, rather than simply capturing images as jpegs like simple consumer cameras and phones will do. Raw image data preserves much more information about the original photo than a jpeg, which, due to being a compression algorithm, must necessarily throw away information you can never get back. As described in the linked Sky and Telescope article⁴, one can shoot a single raw image and pull out details through various tweaking.

It’s all up to the photographer. Photography is art, but it’s also an important scientific tool. As long as the photographer makes an effort to disclose manipulation, and, importantly, the public who consume and pass along the work maintain this disclosure, there aren’t any problems.

References
(1) The 2024 Eclipse Through the Eyes of NASA
https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/skywatching/april-8-total-solar-eclipse-through-the-eyes-of-nasa/
Retrieved 12 Apr 2024

(2) Eclipse Path Over Newfoundland, Map Courtesy Xavier M. Jubier/Google Maps
http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/solar_eclipses/TSE_2024_GoogleMapFull.html?Lat=48.66416&Lng=-53.07724&Elv=26.0&Zoom=6&LC=1
Retrieved 12 Apr 2024
This map image is used in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

(3) Eclipse path over Mazatlan, Mexico, Map Courtesy Xavier M. Jubier/Google Maps
http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/solar_eclipses/TSE_2024_GoogleMapFull.html?Lat=23.08103&Lng=-106.24692&Elv=4.0&Zoom=8&LC=1
Retrieved 12 Apr 2024
This map image is used in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

(4) Eclipse Photography: Reveal Totality in HDR (Sky & Telescope, 15 Mar 2020)
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/astrophotography-tips/revealing-totality-in-hdr/
Retrieved 12 Apr 2024

(5) “James Webb Space Telescope” (Warning: fake page. Not associated with the real JWST or NASA)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/203565655155826/
Retrieved 12 Apr 2024
This image is used in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

(6) “Physics-Astronomy” “sunset eclipse” (Warning: Most likely AI generated. Not how an eclipse looks! Dubious web site. Many faked/altered images found)
https://www.facebook.com/physicsdashastronomy
Retrieved 12 Apr 2024
This image is used in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

(7) Deep High Dynamic Range Photograph of Totality, by Dr. Sebastian Voltmer
https://twitter.com/SeVoSpace/status/1776379193678582041
Retrieved 12 Apr 2024
Dr. Voltmer’s image is used in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

(8) Dr. Sebastian Voltmer Sets the Record Straight
https://x.com/sevospace/status/1526185965995311105?s=46
Retrieved 13 Apr 2024
Dr. Voltmer’s image is used in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

(9) Hive AI-detection plugin for Chrome
https://hivemoderation.com/ai-generated-content-detection
Retrieved 12 Apr 2024

(10) Exploiting the Niche (Facebook)
https://www.facebook.com/ExploitingTheNiche
Retrieved 13 Apr 2024

 

Other Image Credits
Images attributed to the author, ©2017 Mark Aaron Alsip. All rights reserved.

Debunking Ken Ham Using Artificial Intelligence

Ark Encounter ©2015 Mark Aaron Alsip.

I created my first neural network over forty years ago, when artificial intelligence (AI) was a nascent blip on the radar. This field of study has advanced significantly in the intervening decades and, in my humble opinion, still has a long way to go. But I see promise.  I do not see a future in which machines are taking over the world. I do see an economy where jobs are not going to be replaced by artificial intelligence, but, rather, those with a knowledge of AI are going to have a distinct advantage over those who don’t. 

Self-driving cars? I could be wrong, and will admit it when proven so, but based on four decades’ experience, I suspect we are further from this goal than Elon Musk will admit. Sorry, but not sorry, I’ve been around longer, and have seen what can go wrong. Others in my field, many far more proficient than I, are bravely stepping forward to issue the same cautious warnings.  I don’t think we’re as close as the new hype would have us believe.

And yet, Large Language Models such as ChatGPT have made computer science fun again. As Bad Science Debunked makes its return after a two year absence, I thought it would be fun to apply Artificial Intelligence techniques to one of my favorite purveyors of pseudoscience: Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis (AIG) industry.

In this post, I’ll be going after what I admit is low hanging fruit: food and animal capacity on the Ark. I know this topic has been covered ad nauseam, but I’d like to demonstrate how easy it is to use a conman’s own words against him. And it is Ham’s own words (and data) that I’ll be using. For reference, we’ll be using this AIG article:

How Many Animals Were on Noah’s Ark?¹

In his article, Ham claims, without any backing evidence whatsoever, that there were 6,744 animals on the Ark and their average size was that of a sheep. OK, let’s take that and run with it. My teachers always told me to show my work, but I fear that page after page of math will have my readers running the other direction, so I’ll give you my prompt, the ChatGPT response, and next to the response, there’ll be a black arrow you can click to show/hide the math. See sample image below.

(click the black arrow next to “Response” to show/hide the math and work done by ChatpGPT.

OK, enough chatter, let’s get started!

Prompt to GPT: Approximate the total volume of Noah’s Ark.

Response: 1,518,750 cubic feet.

To estimate the total volume of Noah’s Ark according to the dimensions given in the Bible, we can refer to the Book of Genesis, which provides specific measurements. In Genesis 6:15, the ark is described as being 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. The exact length of a cubit can vary, as it was based on the length of the forearm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger and was typically about 18 inches (45.72 cm) in ancient times.

Using the commonly accepted length of 18 inches for a cubit, we can calculate the volume of the Ark in cubic feet:

1. Convert the dimensions from cubits to feet: Multiply each dimension by 18 inches (or 1.5 feet, since there are 12 inches in a foot).
2. Calculate the volume: Multiply the length, width, and height in feet to get the volume in cubic feet.

Let’s perform these calculations.

The estimated total volume of Noah’s Ark, based on the dimensions given in the Bible (300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high) and using the commonly accepted cubit length of 18 inches (1.5 feet), is approximately 1,518,750 cubic feet.

Approximately one and a half million cubit feet. Keep this number in the back of your head. It’s going to come up later.

Ken Ham doesn’t give us any information on the species of sheep or their approximate dimensions (he just says “average sheep”), so we’re left to make some assumptions here. First, we must dispense with Ham’s claim that God took baby animals on the ark. Baby mammals who have not been weaned can’t survive without their mother’s milk. They could not have made the journey to the ark on their own. Plus, Ham violates one of his own rules here. The Bible, in his view, is the absolute word of God, and nowhere does it say Noah took babies.

I’ll endeavor to pick, from the thousands of possible choices, an average sheep for our calculations. I like bighorn sheep. Maybe Ken Ham won’t. But hey, he got to pull out of thin air not only the average animal but a suspiciously precise-looking head count. So I claim dibbs on the species.

Prompt to GPT: I’m going to give you some data about dimensions and weight of an average bighorn sheep. Please calculate the average volume a sheep would occupy, assuming a simple rectangular volume for sake of simplicity. Please present your output in english units of measurement (rather than metric), preferably cubic feet. Please show your math.

Your data is:^3,4
Height: 46.5”-65.4” | 118-166 cm
Width: 13.8”-19.3” | 35-49 cm
Length: 51.2”-72.8” | 130-185 cm
Shoulder Height: 31.5”-39.4” | 80-100 cm
Weight: 110-315 lb | 50-143 kg

Response: The average volume occupied by a bighorn sheep, assuming a simple rectangular volume, is approximately 33.22 cubic feet

The average volume occupied by a bighorn sheep, assuming a simple rectangular volume, is approximately ( 33.22 ) cubic feet. Here’s how the calculation was done:

1. Average Dimensions (Inches):

• Height: (46.5 + 65.4)/2 inches
• Width: (13.8 + 19.3}/ 2 inches
• Length: (51.2 + 72.8)/2 inches

1. Convert Dimensions to Feet:

• 1 inch = 1/12 feet
• Average Height in Feet: (Average Height in Inches} * 1/12
• Average Width in Feet: {Average Width in Inches) * 1/12
• Average Length in Feet: ( Average Length in Inches) * 1/12

1. Volume Calculation:

• Volume in Cubic Feet: Average Height in Feet * Average Width in Feet * Average Length in Feet

Applying these steps, the calculated volume is ( 33.22 ) cubic feet.

Prompt to GPT: Great. Now use this volume calculation for one sheep an do the simple math to come up with the volume needed for a flock of 6,744 sheep. Again, please show your work.

Response: Therefore, a flock of 6,744 sheep would require approximately 224,059.62 cubic feet.

To calculate the total volume needed for a flock of 6,744 sheep, we multiply the volume of one sheep by the number of sheep in the flock:

• Volume of one sheep: ( 33.22 ) cubic feet
• Number of sheep in the flock: ( 6,744 )

The calculation is as follows:

Total Volume} = 33.22 * 6744 = 224,059.62 cubic feet

Now comes the problem of food. AIG only gave us sheep to work with, though we know that carnivores would have had to have been on the ark. We can use hay for food estimates for our “average sheep,” but we’re ignoring the reality that the digestive systems of the carnivores did not evolve to enable them to obtain sufficient nutrition from hay, and so they would have all died. Or eaten the sheep. Or been left on a ship full of stinking, rotten meat that would have killed them from parasites, toxicity, or other causes.

But we started with sheep, it’s all we have to work with. Let’s make some hay:

Prompt to GPT: Now let’s talk about food. We’ll assume the sheep eat hay. According to my information,² a typical bale of hay is 14x13x86 inches in size (width, height, length) and weighs an average of 65 pounds. Calculate the volume occupied by one bale of hay.

Response: the calculated volume of one bale of hay is 9.069.06 cubic feet

The volume occupied by one bale of hay, given its dimensions of 14x13x86 inches (width, height, length), is approximately ( 9.06 ) cubic feet. Here’s the breakdown of the calculation:

1. Convert Dimensions to Feet:

• Width: ( 14 ) inches = ( 14 * 1/12 ) feet
• Height: ( 13 ) inches = ( 13 * 1/12) feet
• Length: ( 86 ) inches = ( 86 * 1/12 ) feet

1. Volume Calculation:

• Volume in Cubic Feet: Width in Feet * Height in Feet * Length in Feet

Applying these steps, the calculated volume of one bale of hay is ( 9.06 ) cubic feet.

Hang in there. We’re getting close. Please keep in mind, the purpose of this exercise is not so much to disprove something that’s already been debunked ad nauseam; rather, it’s to demonstrate thought processes and techniques useful in using Artificial Intelligence and Prompt Engineering, and encourage the reader to embark on his/her own explorations.

So, having some necessary information on our food source, the next logical step is to estimate how much of that food will be needed for a year-long tour.

Prompt to GPT: Now using the dimensions and weight of a single bighorn sheep calculated earlier, estimate the nutritional needs of that one sheep. Give me an answer for just a single day, and for an entire year. In your answer, include an estimate of how many bales of hay would be required to meet these requirements, for both a day and an entire year.

Response: to meet the nutritional requirements of one bighorn sheep, approximately 1/10th of a bale of hay is needed per day, and about 36 bales are needed for an entire year.

To estimate the nutritional needs of a single bighorn sheep and the corresponding amount of hay required, we’ll follow these steps:

1. Estimate the Daily and Annual Food Intake Needs:

• A general guideline for sheep is that they consume about 2-4% of their body weight in dry matter daily. We’ll use an average value of 3% for this calculation.
• Average weight of a bighorn sheep: We’ll take the midpoint of the provided range, which is (110 + 315) / 2) pounds.

1. Calculate Daily and Annual Food Intake in Pounds:

• Daily intake: Average Weight} * 3%
• Annual intake: Daily Intake * 365 days

1. Determine the Number of Hay Bales Required:

• Since each bale weighs 65 pounds, we divide the daily and annual intake by this weight to find out how many bales are needed.

Let’s proceed with these calculations.

Based on the calculations:

1. Average Weight of a Bighorn Sheep: ( 10 + 315) / 2 = 212.5 ) pounds
2. Daily and Annual Food Intake:

• Daily Intake: ( 212.5 * 3% = 6.38 ) pounds
• Annual Intake: ( 6.38 * 365 = 2,326.88 ) pounds

1. Number of Hay Bales Required:

• Daily: 6.38 / 65 ~ 0.098 bales (About 1/10th of a bale)
• Annually:2,326.88 / 65 ~ 35.8 bales

Thus, to meet the nutritional requirements of one bighorn sheep, approximately 1/10th of a bale of hay is needed per day, and about 36 bales are needed for an entire year.

And at this point, dear reader, imagine, please, ominous music swelling in volume and intensity, because we are about to deal a death blow to the ark, using Ken Ham’s own numbers:

Prompt to GPT: Using the annual hay bale requirement for one sheep, calculate how many bales of hay would be needed for the entire flock of 6,744 sheep for one year. In addition to the number of bales of hay, use your earlier calculations for the volume of a bale of hay to come up with the total volume of hay needed to feed the flock for an entire year

Response: to feed the flock of 6,744 sheep for one year, approximately 241,422.23 bales of hay would be required, occupying a total volume of about 2,186,771.27 cubit feet.

To feed the entire flock of 6,744 sheep for one year, the calculations are as follows:

1. Total Number of Hay Bales Needed:

• Annual hay bales needed per sheep: ( 35.8 ) bales (as calculated earlier)
• Number of sheep in the flock: ( 6,744 )
• Total bales for the flock: 35.8 * 6,744 = 241,422.23 bales

1. Total Volume of Hay Needed:

• Volume of one bale of hay: 9.06 cubic feet (as calculated earlier)
• Total volume needed to feed the flock: 241,422.23 * 9.06 = 2,186,771.27 cubic feet

Do you see the problem? Let’s let ChatGPT point it out to us.

Prompt to GPT:

Do you see the problem? Remember at the beginning I asked the reader to keep in mind the volume of the ark. Let’s let ChatGPT point out Ken Ham’s error…

Prompt to GPT: Wait a minute. I see trouble. Please compare the total volume that you just calculated for the hay to the total volume of the ark (1,518,750 cubic feet) calculated when we began this conversation. Answer two questions: (1) was there enough room for the food on the ark, and (2) what percentage of the total ark volume would be occupied by the food? Remember to show your math.

Response: there was not enough room for the food on the ark. The total volume of hay needed for the flock for one year exceeds the total volume of the ark by 143.98%

1. Was There Enough Room for the Food on the Ark?

• No, there was not enough room for the food on the ark. The total volume of hay needed for the flock for one year exceeds the total volume of the ark, which is 1,518,750 cubic feet.

1. Percentage of the Total Ark Volume Occupied by the Food:

• The percentage of the total ark volume that would be occupied by the food (hay) is approximately 143.98%.

These results indicate that the volume of hay needed to feed the flock for one year is about 143.98% of the available space in the ark, meaning there is not enough room for all the hay required.

Ouch. Using Answers in Genesis’ own numbers, there wasn’t enough room for the food. We are out of room to the tune of 43.98% of the ark volume (almost half!) But wait, let’s not forgot the animals had to be on board also.

Prompt: Let’s not forget the animals. You previously calculated we’d need 224,059.62 cubic feet for the sheep. Add this volume to the total volume required for the hay and repeat the last calculation, this time answering the question, “was there enough room for both the food AND the animals on the ark?” Tell me by what percentage the ark volume was exceeded when both food and animals are included

Response: This would result in a total occupation of 158.74% of the available ark space.

You’re correct. When considering the total volume occupied by both the sheep and the hay, it would exceed the ark’s total volume by 58.74%. This means that the combined requirements for the sheep and their food result in a total occupation of 158.74% of the available space.

So by AIG’s own numbers, the ark was 58.74% too small to hold the animals and their food.

Conclusion

We could go on forever. Astute readers will have noted that the ark was also supposed to have had room for eight humans and all their food and necessities for an entire year. Visit the Ark Encounter in Williamstown, KY (no, please don’t!) and you’ll see a roomy ship with room for individual sleeping quarters, workshops, an indoor garden, and more.

And yet, using the very data provided to us by the man who’ll be happy to charge over $50/ticket to view this imaginary floating world, we can see there wasn’t even enough room for the animals and their food.

Water, you ask? What about water for the animals and people? One can only assume Ken Ham will argue that it rained every day so the water could be collected… wait… no, it can’t be collected, there was nowhere to store it… perhaps all the living creatures were able to drink in real time, as the rain came down.

So, the prosecution rests. AIG didn’t really give us a lot of data to work with, but they did give us enough, and I believe we filled in any missing gaps fairly by, for example, using average animal sizes. I encourage readers to use this AI Prompt Engineering exercise as a starting point, not a final answer. Try dividing the 6,744 animals into half herbivores and half carnivores. Play with average daily nutrition requirements for, say, lions the size of sheep (as Ham claims) and work up a system for storing and providing enough meat for those creatures.

One final warning: with Artificial Intelligence, you are responsible for the results. ChatGPT did not always give me the expected answers as I worked through this exercise. I did sometimes have to go back and refine my prompts. Be careful in how you ask your questions. Be very clear about the data you’re providing, and be even more clear about how you expect the results to be presented. You’ll notice that sometimes I repeated numbers (like the volume of the ark) in subsequent prompts, even though we’d already calculated this value much earlier. In very long conversations, the language model can “forget” work that was done much earlier on.

With these caveats in mind, this is an exciting, developing technology. I don’t believe it will ever replace humans, but it can be a valuable helpmate in simplifying tasks such as debunking a con man who wraps himself in a cloak of God’s words to tell innocent little children lies, such as stories about humans walking with dinosaurs.

References

(1) How Many Animals Were on Noah’s Ark?
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2022/09/08/how-many-animals-were-noahs-ark/
Retrieved 07 Dec 2023

(2) Bale Sizes and Shapes — Picking What’s Right for You
https://www.agproud.com/articles/32770-bale-sizes-and-shapes-picking-what-s-right-for-you
Retrieved 07 Dec 2023

(3) Facts About Sheep (Live Science)
https://www.livescience.com/52755-sheep-facts.html
Retrieved 07 Dec 2023

(4) Bighorn Sheep (Ovid canadensis)
https://www.dimensions.com/element/bighorn-sheep-ovis-canadensis
Retrieved 07 Dec 2023

Finally! A Good Use for CVS Oscillococcinum! (Valentine’s Special)

Oscillococcinum literally contains nothing but sugar, and cannot under any circumstances cure the flu, reduce body aches, headaches, fever, or chills.

After a long and grueling search, a use has finally been found for the CVS homeopathic product known as Oscillococcinum.  No, it doesn’t fight flu.  It can’t–there are no active ingredients.

But it can be used as a stand-in for sugar in icing for Valentine’s Day cookies!

You read it here first!

In this Bad Science Debunked Valentine’s Special, I’ll walk you through the steps but, more importantly, we’ll do a little Kitchen Science, using the dye from our cookie icing to illustrate the scientific illiteracy behind homeopathy and why you, if you’re a CVS shopper, should be deeply upset that a modern pharmacy has this product on their shelves.

Nothing but the Facts, Ma’am
As described in my article “If it Quacks Like a Duck: Oscillococcinum“,¹ and confirmed by scientists around the world, there is literally–literally–nothing in CVS’ so-called medicine except sugar, rendering it absolutely useless for treating the flu.  This is the case for nearly all homeopathic medicines.

There are a few exceptions. For example some homeopathic concoctions contain enough alcohol for underage drinkers to get three sheets to the wind,² while others incorporate toxic plants that can poison babies.³  In 2018, the Center for Inquiry sued CVS for fraud over its homeopathic “cures,”⁴ but a resolution has yet to be found, and CVS continues to mislead consumers, selling them $36.00 sugar pills potent enough to make dessert icing.

However, the potential for a mistake is all too real.  Walk into any CVS store and you’ll find Oscillococcinum displayed in the aisles as if it were a real medicine–as evidenced by the below photos from a shop in Lexington, KY.  Should the parent of a flu-infected child purchase this rubbish, thinking they were getting real medicine, we could have a youngster being treated with sugar–a potential tragedy in the making.  Over 30,000 people were hospitalized due to influenza during last year’s flu season.⁵  The flu can kill.  It cannot be treated or cured with sugar.

CVS Cold/Allergy/Children’s Health Aisle (click/enlarge)

Lots of “meds” to choose from in CVS… (click/enlarge)

Sadly, oscillococcinum, mere sugar pills, hides among the real meds at CVS. (click/enlarge)

A Baker’s Quarter Dozen
So let’s make some cookies!  Oddly enough, critics of the plain sugar cookies I bought for this project claimed the they were “GMO,” apparently because they didn’t have the silly little non-GMO butterfly.  One of the dangers of GMO labelling is nobody understands what it means.  There isn’t any GMO sugar, there isn’t any GMO flour, but just to poke good-natured fun at those who won’t take the time to learn any better, I’ve dubbed my cookies “GMO sugar cookies for duration of this experiment.

If facts aren’t going to change minds, you might as well have some fun.

Anyway, here’s the video.  For the not-so-video-inclined, printed recipe and instructions appear at the end of this post.  Feel free to print the web page, clip, and save.  Oh, and while you’re at it, you might want to protest to CVS (cough cough).

 

Mixology
Next, let’s look at how we know that CVS Oscillococcinum has no active ingredient. The homeopathic claim is that they begin with a piece of (supposedly diseased) duck, then dilute, dilute, dilute, with water (hold on, this is where it gets strange), where the water “remembers” the disease, and my Aunt Fanny has a bridge in San Francisco to sell you.

Homeopaths actually believe all of that except for the part about my Aunt Fanny.  Why they don’t like her, I’ll never know.  Anyway…

In this Kitchen Chemistry experiment, we’ll do what homeopaths would call a “5C” dilution on the food dye we used on our cookie icing. The principle is simple, but will leave you rolling your eyes in wonder when you see it in action.

1ml of dye is added to 99ml water and “succinated” (shaken). 1ml of the resulting solution is extracted and added to another 99ml water. Each repetition gives us a “C” (centesimal) preparation. Homeopathic preparations such as oscillococcinum start around 200C, at which it’s mathematically impossible for even an atom any original material, which was supposedly a diseased duck, to remain. Some preparations go even higher. For our demo here, I’m preparing just a 5C solution of dye. Pull up a chair, phone the kids and wake the neighbors, and watch what happens. Does the dye get stronger or weaker?

 

Food for thought:  Because homeopaths falsely believe that water has a memory and that repeatedly diluting a substance makes the water memory stronger, consider what happened to the H₂O downstream of the cookies and aspartame in this experiment when I went to the bathroom after the second video.  The toilet water went to a water treatment plant where my waste was repeatedly diluted.

Consider further, dear homeopaths, that the water on this planet has been constantly recycled for over 4.5 billion years.  Imagine all the waste it has diluted.  You really gonna drink that stuff?

Cookie Recipe
For those of you rich enough to spend approximately $36.00USD for enough icing to cover three or four sugar cookies, here’s the full recipe. This is just the cost of the oscillococcinum alone!

 

The Oscillococcinum used in this “experiment.” Click to enlarge.

Warning: Oscillococcinum cannot cure the flu, mitigate its symptoms, or help with any other disease.  Its only use is as described here: as a stand-in for sugar.  If you’re upset about this, please contact CVS to complain: 1-800-SHOP-CVS (1-800-746-7287).

• 1/4 cup milk 
• 1.5 tbsp flour
• 3 tablespoons crushed CVS oscillococcinum pills**
• 1/4 cup margarine 
• 1/2 tsp vanilla extract 
• 1 drop food coloring

1. Heat milk and flour over low heat, until very thick. Let cool and set aside.
2. Cream together sugar and butter
3. Add cooled milk and flour mixture, mix thoroughly until whip cream consistency
4. Add vanilla, and mix thoroughly
5. Spread over cookies and enjoy

**Totally safe to use.  There are no medicines in CVS Oscillococcinum. It is pure sugar.

References
(1) If it Quacks Like a Duck: Oscillococcinum
https://badsciencedebunked.com/2014/10/22/if-it-quacks-like-a-duck-oscillococcinum/
Retrieved 19 Feb 2018

(2) Surprise Ingredient in CVS Medicine
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/investigations/I-Team-Store-Alcohol-Purchase-Drug-Regulations-337551261.html
Retrieved 19 Feb 2018

(3) FDA: Toxic Belladonna In Homeopathic Teething Product (via Forbes)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2017/01/28/fda-toxic-belladonna-in-homeopathic-teething-products/#54bea4c140dd
Retrieved 21 Feb 2018

(4) Center for Inquiry Sues CVS
https://centerforinquiry.org/press_releases/cfi-sues-cvs/
Retrieved 12 Feb 2019

(5) CDC: The 2017-2018 Flu Season
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2017-2018.htm
Retrieved 12 Feb 2019

Image/Music Credits
CVS Oscillococcinum product image by the author.  Copyright © 2018 Mark Aaron Alsip.  All rights reserved.

Duck image by the author. Copyright © 2014 Mark Aaron Alsip. All rights reserved.

The “Dancing With the Stars/Oscillococcinum” mashup image is a product of the author’s imagination.  The Dancing With the Stars Judges are used used under the parody provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

The excerpts of the Beatles’ “Twist and Shout” and Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get it on” are also used under the parody provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Amazon’s Alexa appears used under the parody provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Josh Axe: Fly On A Windshield

Sitting at a stoplight yesterday, I noticed a fly on my windshield.  It stubbornly held on while I accelerated to 10MPH.  It was still there at 20, 30, then 40MPH.  At 45MPH I admit a cruel streak brought on thoughts of flipping on the windshield washer, but the scientist in me fought off the urge, and so, curious, I accelerated hard and, finally, at 55MPH, the creature succumbed to the inevitable.

Chiropractor Josh Axe is a lot like that insect  Give him a bad idea and he’ll cling to it like a fly to a windshield in a tempest.  Hang on at all costs.  Never, ever, let go, despite the obvious outcome.  No matter how much the right thing to do would be to let go (of your incorrect opinion).

Back in December, 2015, I wrote that Axe was pushing Bentonite clay as a detox agent, even though the product was loaded with the same “toxic” heavy metals Josh claimed would kill you.¹  Undeterred, on November 19, 2018, Axe used Facebook to recycle another Bentonite detox post.  Like a fly on a windshield, Josh clings to irony in a hurricane of hilarious gaffes.²  Let’s have some fun.

For reference, below is an analysis of one of the Bentonite clay products Axe was hawking back in 2015.¹  I don’t have a breakdown of the bath product he’s pushing in his 2018 Bentonite resurrection, but it’s reasonable to assume the clays are chemically similar:

Chemical analysis of a Josh Axe Bentonite product from 2015 .¹
Note the lead, cadmium, and mercury.
(click/enlarge)

According to Axe, Bentonite clay is used to remove toxic heavy metals from the body, by either consuming or applying the mud topically.  Quoth the raven, er, chiropractor:

“Heavy metal toxins” usually refer to substances like mercury, cadmium, lead and benzene.”⁴ — Josh Axe, Ten Bentonite Clay Benefits and Uses

Isn’t it ironic then, that Axe’s own chemical analysis revels that Bentonite contains mercury, cadmium, and lead, the very elements he’s trying to remove?¹ (See the chart above)

Now, this is the part in our story where Axe defenders leap in to invent a magical chemical matrix that works synergistically to scoop up the toxic heavy metals and channel them safely away.  “Even though they’re present,” (I hear you, David Avocado Wolfe!) “they aren’t toxic.  Their ionic charges are reversed causing them to blah blah blah…”

Go ahead Axe fans.  Make something up, I’ll wait. Then I’ll shoot you down in Axe’s own words.  Time is on my side.

 

Ready now?  You see, in his article, Axe confesses that Bentonite clay does not trap toxins.  He acknowledges that lead is present in the clay, and warns that it’s a danger, but only to pregnant women, except when you’re pregnant.  SAY WHAT?  OK, walk through this with me… it’s all from the same article:

“Bentonite clay benefits your body by helping to expel many of these toxins–Josh Axe, Ten Bentonite Clay Uses and Benefits³

 

“Some bentonite clay products contains trace amounts of lead and other heavy metals and may not be appropriate for consumption by children and pregnant women.”–Josh Axe, Ten Bentonite Clay Uses and Benefits³

 

“Some people use bentonite clay as relief for nausea and vomiting by pregnant women–Josh Axe, Ten Bentonite Clay Uses and Benefits³

So Bentonite clay expels toxins, except that it retains them when you’re pregnant (why only then?), so pregnant women shouldn’t use it, except that pregnant women should use it for nausea relief.  And what about the mercury and lead?

Oh God, just shoot me now. Josh Axe calls himself a doctor and he cranks out medical advice like this?

Dear reader, I humbly submit to you that (1) if you wish to eat mud it’s going to taste, well, muddy, but the trace amounts of metals found therein are not going to be of any health concern and, more importantly, (2) you can find far, far better sources of health information than chiropractors who falsely call themselves doctors and make their living selling you bone broth and mud for a living.

Live long and prosper.

References
(1) Axe-idental Poisoning (Bad Science Debunked)
https://badsciencedebunked.com/2015/12/08/axe-idental-poisoning-josh-axe-debunked/
Retrieved 20 Nov 2018

(2) Ten Detox Bath Recipes
Warning: Not a reputable/scientific article
https://draxe.com/detox-bath-recipes/
Retrieved 20 Nov 2018

(3) Ten Bentonite Clay Benefits and Uses
Warning: Not a reputable/scientific article
https://draxe.com/10-bentonite-clay-benefits-uses/
Retrieved 20 Nov 2018

Image Credits
Josh Axe, Redmond Clay, website screen snapshots are used in strict compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of United States copyright law (commonly known as “fair use law”). This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Forrest Gump meme used under parody provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of United States copyright law (commonly known as “fair use law”). This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Link to Rolling Stones/YouTube clip is done using tools provided by YouTube/Google, Inc.  Author does this in good faith, believing tools to link and embed are provided for this this purpose, and that videos available on YouTube are displayed legally, with the consent of the copyright owner. Author assumes, and makes no copyright claims to the linked/embedded video.

How to (Mostly) Block Donald Trump’s Emergency Text

On October 3, at around 2:00PM Eastern Time (and for up to 30 minutes after), every cell phone in the United States is set to light up with a test “presidential alert” message.¹  This intrusion, and the inability to opt out or block it, has upset enough people to kick off a #GoDark920 movement, encouraging Americans to turn off their phones for the entire day.  As I’ll explain shortly, the media is incorrectly calling this message a “text”–but let’s not get into the weeds yet.

If you’re considering turning off your phone, there is an alternative.  Not perfect, but still, I would argue, better than giving up the use of your precious iPhone or Samsung for a day.

You will need WiFi for this to work, but the steps are simple, as shown on my iPhone, below.

• Put your phone in airplane mode
• Turn on WiFi

Setting up an iPhone for WiFi-only text and voice (click/enlarge

Yeah, that’s it.  The steps will be similar on an Android device such as Samsung.  Admittedly, you’re going to lose cellular phone service during this time, but you need not be out of touch with your loved ones, especially in the Apple world.  As long as I’m in range of WiFi, I can both text and call (FaceTime!) other Apple aficionados who are friends and family.

Not into the iPhone?  Not to worry.  There are myriad free texting and calling apps, such as WhatsApp, that are solely internet-based.  No cell phone service required.  In theory, at least, having your phone in Airplane Mode should have cellular service disabled and block the incoming “presidential message.”  If not, we’ve learned something interesting about airplane mode on cell phones.

WhatsApp is a popular Internet-based application that allows text and voice without a cellular connection. Myriad such applications exist. (click/enlarge)

Note that the concept of “airplane mode” has been evolving, so I cannot guarantee success on October 3.  It used to be that even WiFi wasn’t allowed on flights, but this has changed; the FAA is toying with the idea of allowing cellular calls in the air, so there may well be phones out there that can receive but not transmit.  I’m going to find out on October 3.

Even the much-hated Facebook Messenger app can be used to communicate (over WiFi) until the presidential message passes.

As mentioned in the introduction, the October 3 message is often incorrectly being called a “text” by the press (I intentionally stuck with that name in the title of my article to avoid confusion.)  The alerts sent at the behest of the president use a technology framework known as Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA).  Although WEAs may share some of the infrastructure we’re familiar with (e.g. cell towers, frequencies, our phones), they won’t arrive as standard voice, text, or SMS messages.  Simply put, they blanket all phones known to be in a geographical area with a specially formatted on-screen message accompanied by an audio signal and vibration.

So, to ease your mind, If the blocking hypothesis I describe here does indeed work, you need not fear having a text or voice mail from Donald Trump (OK, FEMA) waiting for you when you take your phone out of airplane mode on the evening of the 3rd.

This makes sense if you think about it.  My wife and I were once fortunate enough to be vacationing in Miami when a major winter storm hit our home state of Kentucky, triggering statewide wireless winter storm alerts.  Not only did we not receive those alerts while in Florida (it would make no sense, both the cellular service and emergency services know how to geo-track users and deliver warnings to the right places), we had no voice mails or texts waiting in our inboxes a week later when we flew back to chilly Kentucky.  In other words, the warning messages aren’t held for you to pick up at a later date.

But, Now That You Can, Should You?
Emergency alert systems exist for a reason–a good reason.  I always leave those for which I can opt-in enabled on my phone.  I would recommend that everyone do so.  A lot of dedicated scientists from myriad fields have worked very hard to put together a system to keep us safe.

So why am I writing about trying to bypass a test, and what the hell does this have to do with debunking bad science (the purpose of my blog?)

This is, in effect, my way of extending a large digital middle finger to Ajit Pai and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for their egregious act of bad science and public policy in rolling back net neutrality, the legal framework that forced Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in this country to treat all internet traffic equally. The Internet is now pay-for-play, meaning ISPs can charge (and receive) large fees to give priority to certain traffic (read: that from large corporations), leaving “unimportant” data (schools, libraries, scientific research, anything coming from your home and mine) to sit in the backwaters of a swamp that was supposed to be cleared.

And, to be honest, looking at what Trump and the FCC have done to botch the internet, I cannot help but have a knot in my stomach when I think of them holding the ability to “brick” every cell phone in the United States, at their whim, in one fell swoop. (WEA messages “brick,” or render your phones useless for communication, during their duration).

So, yes, accepting emergency broadcasts is a good thing.  A superfluous message from a vainglorious, demonstrably scientifically illiterate administration over an arguably redundant notification system, backed in part by an FCC that sold a free and fair internet to the highest bidder?

Yeah, I’m disabling my phone in protest.

Authors Notes
Updated 19 Sep 2018 to include descriptions of, and elaborate upon, the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) framework, how the data sent is not actually a text message, and propose the hypothesis that whatever’s sent between 2:00pm and 2:30pm won’t somehow show up in an inbox or stored as a “missed text.”

References
(1) Presidential Alert Test Postponed (NBC News)
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/mobile/fema-s-presidential-alert-test-postponed-some-americans-want-disconnect-n910406
Retrieved 18 Sep 2018

Image Credits
iPhone screen snapshots by the author.

Trump on phone parody by the author, used in strict accordance with provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of United States copyright law (commonly known as “fair use law”). This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Hurricane Florence Blows Mind of Conservative Talk Show Host

Hurricane Florence approaches the East Coast of the USA.  Image by the author, produced via RadarScope software.

Longtime readers of this blog know the practice here is to avoid politics and religion unless members of those institutions cross the line by bringing science into the fray. At that point the gloves come off.  Listening to a few hours of conservative radio talk show coverage of Hurricane Florence yesterday on the Sirius XM Radio “Patriot” channel, climate science was discussed with all the accuracy of two auto mechanics preparing for delicate brain surgery on a newborn infant.  I feel compelled to respond.

The Wilkow Majority
Let’s look at a quote from Andrew Wilkow of the Wilkow Majority, “explaining” why climate change doesn’t exist:¹

“[…] weather patterns are cyclical. […] our earth rotation is not perfectly circular, […] we come and go from different distances in relationship to the to the sun. […] tides, everything is affected by that.” ¹

There’s a lot to unpack here.

Wilkow confused rotation with orbit, but I’ll cut him some slack.  Rotation occurs in place (think of a spinning top that doesn’t travel), which doesn’t alter our distance from the sun.  He’s clearly talking about our orbit, so that’s what we’ll concentrate on.  Out of kindness, I can say that this is by far the least of his mistakes.

The Earth does indeed orbit the sun in an elliptical, not circular, orbit.  Unfortunately, that’s the only thing Wilkow got right.  The implication that our distance from the sun affects our weather, our climate, and, risibly, our tides, is so wrong a that fifth grader could debunk it.  Not having a fifth grader on hand, I’ll do it myself, and start with the low hanging fruit: tides.

The Moon is responsible for our tides.²  As it orbits the planet, its gravitational tug on our home–and its oceans–causes a bulge that results in tides. Remember being taught this in grade school? Apparently Andrew Wilkow doesn’t.

Andrew Wilkow. See Image Credits for photo copyright/use information

But the most scientifically inaccurate claim in Wilkow’s polemic is that the distance of our planet from the sun has anything to do with weather and climate.  In fact, the separation of Earth and our host star has nothing at all to do with  climate, weather, or even our seasons.

For starters, the seasons are caused by the Earth being tilted 23½ degrees on its axis with respect to the plane in which it orbits the Sun.  During the Northern Hemisphere winter, it’s colder because that part of the planet is tilted away from the Sun, receiving less direct sunlight.  A fun science fact is that during this time of year, the Earth is actually closer to the Sun than in the northern summer. Yes, we’re closer to the Sun in January than in June.  Distance doesn’t matter.  Conversely, it’s summer in the Southern Hemisphere in January because that part of the planet is tilted more directly toward the Sun, receiving more direct sunlight.

In Phil Plait’s excellent book, Bad Astronomy,⁵ Mr. Plait points out that very simple math shows that our non-circular orbit counts for at most a 7°F (4°C) difference, summer or winter. That’s right: statistically, the elliptical shape of our orbit contributes nothing to weather or climate change.  Every year, we swing through a cycle where distance contributes no more than 7°F (4°C), plus or minus, and, a reminder to Mr. Wilkow… we’re  talking weather, not climate.

The Earth’s orbit is indeed elliptical, but it has nothing to do with climate. NASA/NOAA image. (click/enlarge)

This is a perfect segue into Andrew Wilkow’s cringe-worthy statement, “weather patterns are cyclical.”  As all who paid attention in science class know, weather isn’t climate.³   Weather concerns itself with immediate, short-term conditions; climate is the measure and average of weather over long periods of time.  For an example of someone who doesn’t understand the difference between weather and climate, look no further than a senator who brings a snowball (a weather event) to the floor of the senate to “prove” climate change doesn’t exist.⁴  Ach du lieber gott in himmel.

Full disclosure:  there are some possible considerations due to a phenomenon called precession (the Earth’s wobble on its axis), our orbit of the Sun, and the fact that the tilt of our axis will cause seasons in the hemispheres to eventually reverse.  But this happens on scales of tens of thousands of years.  You could start making climate change arguments for Sarasota and Sydney if you stuck around for 20,000 years, but that’s outside Wilkow’s bailiwick and lifespan.

Wilkow’s broadcast eventually segues from demonstrable scientific illiteracy to hurricane and other emergency preparedness and, wait for it: shilling for emergency food supplies. Yes, the conservative broadcaster just so happens to run an online emergency food store, and there’s nothing like a good natural disaster to drum up business.⁶

Why stop at using bad science to refute a natural disaster when you can make a little money at the same time? Fear sells, and Wilkow is a master of the art. (click/enlarge)

It has become all too typical in today’ environment to deny science and back up rhetoric with nonsense such as Wilkow’s (e.g., the oceans aren’t really warming, providing more fuel to make hurricanes more devastating.)  Unfortunately, listeners calling into his show readily agreed with him, despite the annoying reality that the facts don’t.  For example, as we’ve circled the sun time again, century after century, our planet has been warming by 1.3° to 1.6° Fahrenheit, on average, but with the rate nearly doubling since 1975.^7,8

Here’s what the climate has been doing as we elliptically orbit the sun these last few hundred years:

History of global surface temperatures since 1880, courtesy NOAA.⁸ (click/enlarge)

There you have it graphically:  climate change is a long-term affair.  After listening to conservative talk radio for several hours on Wednesday, I hope that the love affair with scientific illiteracy, as demonstrated by Andrew Wilkow and those calling into his show, doesn’t also prove to be a long term affair.

The planet just can’t afford it.

Authors note (16 Sep 2018):  this article originally reversed units of temperature regarding the earth-sun distance effect.  The correct values are 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit).  Thanks to astute readers for pointing out the error.

References
(1) The Wilkow Majority (Sirius XM Radio, Patriot Channel)
Excerpt beginning at 6:24 mark, climate change denial
Live Broadcast, 12 Sep 2018, also available via Sirius XM replay

(2) NOAA SciJLinks: What Causes Tides
https://scijinks.gov/tides/
Retrieved 12 Sep 2018

(3) NASA: What’s the Difference Between Weather and Climate?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
Retrieved 12 Sep 2018

(4) Senator James Inhofe (Republican) Brings Snowball to Floor (YouTube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8
Retrieved 12 Sep 2018

(5) Bad Astronomy, by Phil Plait
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Astronomy-Misconceptions-Revealed-Astrology/dp/0471409766/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536935776&sr=8-1&keywords=bad+astronomy+-+philip+plait
Retrieved 12 Sep 2018
Disclaimer:  I am not an Amazon affiliate marketer.  I receive no proceeds from the sales of Amazon products and have no association with the author of the linked book.

(6) Prepare With Wilkow (PreparedWith.com)
https://preparewith.com/wilkow
Warning: Not a reputable/scientifically accurate site
Retrieved 12 Sep 2018

(7) NOAA:  Climate Change: Global Temperature
Authors: Rebecca Lindsey and LuAnn Dahlman
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Retrieved 12 Sep 2018

(8) American Meteorological Society, State of the Climate Report
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/
Retrieved 12

 

Image Credits
Hurricane Florence cover image ©2018 Mark Alsip, all rights reserved.
Produced with the RadarScope app.

Andrew Wilkow image may be subject to copyright.  Used here in strict accordance with provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of United States copyright law (commonly known as “fair use law”). This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Earth/Sun orbit image courtesy NASA/NOAA. Used with kind permission and under provisions that image is in public domain because it was produced by a government agency.

NOAA climate change courtesy NASA/NOOA.  Used with kind permission and under provisions that image is in public domain because it was produced by a government agency.

Josh Axe’s Heavy Metal Toothpaste

Josh Axe brings heavy metal to the stage in an unexpected way with his homemade toothpaste recipe. Unfortunately, he himself calls the mix toxic.

Josh Axe, a chiropractor who fancies himself a doctor and makes a living selling unproven natural remedies for all that ails you, has a particular distaste for heavy metal.  No, not the likes of Metalilica, Iron Maiden, or Black Sabbath.  We’re talking heavy metal in the context of lead, mercury, and, of particular importance to today’s column, aluminum.

Just like the old school conservatives who associate satanic meanings with heavy metal music, Josh Axe seems to see the devil in aluminum, the most common metal in the crust of the planet.  He calls it a toxic poison,¹ links it to Alzheimer’s,² and even demonizes common aluminum foil, tying it to dementia.³

It’s rather shocking then that “Doctor” Axe has published an article in which he recommends an aluminum-based homemade toothpaste:⁴

“As an alternative to baking soda, you can use white kaolin clay.”–Josh Axe⁴

You see, according to the U.S. National Library of Medicine’s PubChem database, you can’t have kaolin without aluminum.  Don’t believe me?  Well, here:⁵

“Kaolin is the most common mineral of a group of hydrated aluminum silicates, approximately H2Al2Si2O8-H2O.”⁵ —-PubChem  (emphasis mine)

Here’s a pretty picture of kaolin.  I’ve highlighted the aluminum in yellow:

Kaolin, courtesy PubChem. Note the aluminum. When you brush your teeth with Josh Axe’s homemade remedy, this is what you put in your mouth.

 

When will the public catch on and stop buying from this man? I don’t know the answer. But you, dear reader, can help. Spread these stories. Check Axe’s product labels against his own words. I’ve provided the necessary links in the reference section below. Somewhere out there, I imagine a truly ill man or woman considering throwing out their meds and following one of Axe’s nonsensical, hypocritical wellness plans. They’ll be buying the same chemicals he claims will harm them.

Let’s not let that happen.

References
(1) Dangers of Heavy Metals and How to do a Heavy Metal Detox
Warning: Not a scholarly article. Contains false and/or misleading information.
https://draxe.com/heavy-metal-detox/
Retrieved 03 Apr 2018

(2) Five Gross Grilling Mistakes Damaging Your Health
Warning: Not a scholarly article. Contains false and/or misleading information.
https://draxe.com/grilling-mistakes/
Retrieved 03 Apr 2018

(3) Alzheimers Natural Treatment
Warning: Not a scholarly article. Contains false and/or misleading information.
https://draxe.com/alzheimers-natural-treatment/
Retrieved 03 Apr 2018

(4) Six Ways to Naturally Whiten your Teeth (Josh Axe)
Warning: Not a scholarly article. Contains false and/or misleading information.
https://draxe.com/6-ways-to-naturally-whiten-your-teeth/
Retrieved 03 Apr 2018

(5) Pubchem Kaolin Clay (CID 56841936)
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/56841936
Retrieved 03 Apr 2018

Image Credits
Intro image is a parody mashup using a base image of unknown copyright status; I believe ©2018 Wallup. Used here along with a cutout of Josh Axe under the parody provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of United States copyright law (commonly known as “fair use law”). This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Kaolin structure courtesy PubChem.

Thrive Market’s Little (“Carcinogenic”) Black Rain Cloud

I’ve been a Winnie the Pooh fan for as long as I can remember.  This isn’t always easy for a fifty-five year old man to admit, but there are a lot of important life lessons that come from this innocent, wise little yellow bear.  I remember the episode and quote that hooked me:

“I’m a little black rain cloud, of course”– W. Pooh, Esq.

 

In the cartoon, Pooh, covered in mud and hanging from a helium balloon, floats happily into the upper branches of a tree, where a honey-laden bee’s nest awaits.  Disguised as a little black rain cloud, Pooh naively sings a happy tune, certain that no one will be the wiser as he prepares to make off with a tasty treasure.  Of course, when Pooh arrives at the nest, the bees see through the plan, and disaster follows.

Pooh’s naiveté is shared by Thrive Market and their Lifestyle & Beauty editor, Dana Poblete, who, in “The 9 Worst Chemicals Hiding In Your Makeup”¹ writes that the compound carbon black is a possible carcinogen that “may increase risk of lung disease and cardiovascular disease.”  Like poor Pooh, Poblete’s article disguises a little secret that she and Thrive would rather the bees customers don’t catch onto until Thrive has made away with the honey customers’ hard earned cash.

Yes, unfortunately for Poblete and Thrive Market, there’s a little black rain cloud hanging over their online store.  It’s known as Dead Sea Mineral Soap (Lavender):²

One With Nature’s Dead Sea Mineral Soap, sold by Thrive Market, contains an additive the vendor links to cancer, lung & heart disease. (click/enlarge)

Remember the carbon black that Dana Poblete and Thrive Market link to cancer?  Unfortunately, just like Pooh’s arrival at the bee’s nest, Thrive’s balloon is burst when we read the ingredients of the above Dead Sea Mineral Soap and compare to Poblete’s list of carcinogenic compounds:^1,2

Sodium Palmate (Saponified Palm Oil), Sodium Palm Kernelate (Saponified Palm Kernel Oil), Water (Aqua), Lavandula Angustifolia (Lavender) Oil, Sodium Chloride (Salt), Glycerin (Vegetable Glycerin), Lavandula Angustifolia (Lavender Petals), Maris Sal (Dead Sea Salt), Butyrospermum Parkii (Shea Butter), Argania Spinosa (Argan Oil), Carbon Black CI 77266 (Plant Based Pigment), Ultramarine Blue (Mineral Pigment), Citric Acid, Tocopherol (Vitamin E)

Yes, carbon black.  In a fear-mongering article written by Poblete and published by Thrive, we’re warned to avoid skin contact with carbon black because:

“[It’s a] Possible carcinogen, may increase risk of lung disease and cardiovascular disease” ¹

and

“Your body absorbs 60 percent of what you put on your epidermis” ¹

Lather up compadres!

There is, of course, nothing dangerous about the goods sold by Thrive.  The problem is that the vendor and its authors, in conjunction with astroturf “research” groups such as the Environmental Working Group (EWG), engage in a feedback loop that uses EWG-produced materials to fear-monger consumers into buying Thrive products, with a portion of the proceeds going back to fund the astroturf research and organic food industry.⁴

As an added bonus (?) customers at organic markets such as Thrive pay higher prices for organic products that are have no demonstrable health benefits compared to their conventional counterparts.  Two for the price of three!

Thrive market is loaded with products that contain the very same ingredients that their lifestyle articles claim can kill you.  Type their name into the search box at BadScienceDebunked.com and do a little light reading.

So please: if you’re into the hippy lifestyle, buy a bar of One With Nature Dead Sea Soap in complete confidence. It’s totally safe.  Shower outside in fresh rainwater, aux naturale, with one or more friends and a unicorn.  Carbon black isn’t going to hurt you (though the unicorn might, if the horn gets misplaced during the shower).

Just don’t buy from Thrive Market.

 

References
(1) The 9 Worst Chemicals Hiding In Your Makeup
Warning: Not a scholarly link.  Contains false/misleading information
https://thrivemarket.com/blog/noxious-chemicals-in-makeup
Retrieved 02 Apr 2018

(2) One With Nature Dead Sea Mineral Soap, Lavender
https://thrivemarket.com/p/one-with-nature-dead-sea-mineral-soap-lavender
Retrieved 02 Apr 2018

(3) Thrive’s Plethora of Poisonous Powders (Bad Science Debunked)
https://badsciencedebunked.com/2016/08/25/thrives-plethora-of-poisonous-powders/
Retrieved 02 Apr 2018

(4) The Thrive/EWG Connection (Bad Science Debunked)
https://badsciencedebunked.com/2016/08/23/the-thrive-marketenvironmental-working-group-connection/
Retrieved 02 Apr 2018

Image Credits
Thrive Market screen snapshots, One With Nature product images are used in strict accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Winnie the Pooh cartoon © Walt Disney Corporation. Author assumes/makes no copyright claims by linking to YouTube video. Linked under fair use/parody provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Winnie the Pooh/Thrive Market mashup intro graphic by the author.  Produced and used under the parody provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Naturally Nicole’s Elderberry Flu Treatment Debunked (Part 2)

What the heck is “evidence based” proof? Is there another kind?

In part one of this series,¹ we began the arduous task of tearing apart an internet snake oil saleswoman going by the moniker “Naturally Nicole.”  Nicole’s claim to fame is selling an unproven Elderberry syrup as a flu medication.²  This alone would be cause for eye rolls and muffled giggles from anyone who’s worked in a pharmacy, but things take a darker turn as Ms. Au Naturale goes on to lambast the safe, #1 recommended preventative for a disease that has so far claimed nearly 100 lives at this writing:³ the flu shot.

Just a quick recap of part one, where we looked at two of three Elderberry fantasy claims:  First, Nicole lied to her audience, saying that a study was performed on human–when it was actually done in test tubes and petri dishes.  She also references a junk science paper whose abstract claimed results that actually came from another study–not the one described.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire, Nicole’s second claim was that the flu vaccine was dangerous and ineffective, when in fact the very study she referenced said vaccination was the most effective way to combat influenza.  While the efficacy of the flu vaccine does vary from year to year, 2018’s rate of 36% is better than Nicole’s elderberry rate of 0%.  You do the math.

So now, without further ado, we move on to the conclusion of this series, taking on the third of Nicole’s perjurious claims:

Claim #3
A 93.3% improvement in symptoms in 2 days for elderberry-treated patients vs 91.7% in the control group, and a complete cure rate of nearly 90% in 2 days vs. 6 days in the control group.

Rule #1 for citing a paper as evidence would seem to be: read the damn paper.  I can’t prove the Duchess of Elderberry skipped her reading assignment, but I strongly suspect it, based on the fact the study she quoted is hidden behind a $51/copy pay wall, and she claims the paper looked at patients suffering from a flu outbreak on a kibbutz in the country of Panama.

In reality, the patients studied were in Israel, and the strain of flu virus under investigation was a strain of Influenza B named B. Panama. Nicole’s first clue should have been that kibbutzim are technically unique to Israel.

From Nicole’s article.  No. Just no.  The outbreak occurred in Israel. The virus was named Influenza B. Panama. Read the damn paper Nicole!

When you don’t even bother to read the abstract Nicole, you’re off to a bad start.  However, I dropped $51 on this pay-per-view Elderberry Extravaganza, and Naturally Nicole would have done herself a great service had she done the same.

You’re welcome:

The paper that Nicole didn’t read. When research is hidden behind paywalls, it’s easy to cherry-pick and misquote, even when it disagrees with you.

Most conspicuous in the paper cited by Naturally Nicole is what it doesn’t say.  Presented are nine pages of details on a study that produced a 40% two day “total cure” rate, complete with graphs and exquisite detail on methodology.  However, in the abstract, we find a “significant improvement in symptoms (93.3%)”.  Where did this number come from?  Not from the science described in the nine pages!  Buried on page 367 (this comes from an alternative health journal with many articles) are two small paragraphs mentioning, almost as an afterthought, a separate study involving twenty-seven patients.  Our 93.3% number comes from a different study.   Deus ex machina.⁵

Meanwhile, Back on the Kibbutz…
Meanwhile, back in the medical literature Naturally Nicole never laid eyes upon, on page 363 of Vol 1, #4, 1995 of the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, the authors discuss a double-blind study involving 40 individuals living on a kibbutz in Southern Israel. They had fevers, runny noses, body aches, and coughs. Blood was drawn and statistical analysis performed using influenza antigens provided by the World Health Organization to decide whether these 40 patients actually had the flu.

Time went by. Corn grew higher and the wind came sweeping down the plain. Patients were treated with elderberry extract. Then something not so incredible happened…

Forty percent of the patients were determined “completely cured” within two days.

“Complete cure was observed after 2 days in 40% of patients treated with SAM and 16.7% treated with placebo.” — J Altern Complement Med. 1995 Winter;1(4)p.366 (emphasis mine)

But wait! Incredibly, even though a “complete cure” was claimed within two days, page 365 reports that fever persisted for four days in the group being treated with elderberry syrup. Explain to me, please, how you’re completely cured in two days if your fever runs for four?

And, very important: how long had the flu sufferers already been infected before they presented themselves for the study?  It’s easy to claim a total cure in two days if you’ve already been sick for five to twelve before you present yourself for the study (the flu normally runs its course in one two two weeks).

Oh, By the Way…
It’s interesting to note (but doesn’t affect the results of the study) that the lead author of the paper reviewed here is the pro-vaccine author of Nicole’s second study: Professor Zichria Zakay-Rones. He’s the Chief Science officer of Theravir Management Ltd., a biotech startup company that develops vaccines.⁶ I mention this only to point out that the scientists who wrote the papers enshrined by Nicole are not as vehemently anti-vaccine as she is.

So we’re left with three papers whose bodies don’t at all support what’s claimed in the abstract, and, in one case, openly lie about it. They’re presented by a fervent anti-vaccination advocate who somehow didn’t notice (or care) that the lead author of two of the papers is the chief science officer of a company that produces vaccines, and openly advocates vaccines as the best defense against the flu in one of the studies she uses to sell her products.

The last paper cited by our saleswoman came out nearly fifteen years ago. As serious a problem as influenza is, are we to believe major pharmaceutical companies are looking a gift horse cure in the mouth and rejecting it?  Sorry, I’m a bit skeptical.

Last but not least: Nicole, B. Panama is a virus, not the country Israel where a medical study was performed.  Please, the next time you quote a study to prop up your product sales, please and least read the abstract–and consult Google Maps first!

Image Credits
Map courtesy of and ©2018 Google Maps.  Used under terms of service provided via link attached to map.

Naturally Nicole screen snapshots and product image captures are used in strict compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of United States copyright law (commonly known as “fair use law”). This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Photograph of partially visible pages of “Inhibition of several strains of influenza virus in vitro and reduction of symptoms by an elderberry extract (Sambucus nigra L.) during an outbreak of influenza B Panama” is presented as proof the author actually purchased the article.  As provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of United States copyright law, small portions or extracts of a copyrighted work may be used for purposes of citation and review.

References
(1) Naturally Nicole’s Elderberry Flu Treatment Debunked (Part 1)
https://badsciencedebunked.com/2015/10/21/naturally-nicoles-elderberry-flu-treatment-debunked-part-1/
Retrieved 18 Feb 2018

(2) Evidence Based Proof, Elderberry Syrup Is Better Than The Flu Shot
From Internet Archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20160205185840/http://naturallynicolexo.com/evidence-based-proof-elderberry-syrup-is-better-than-the-flu-shot/
(Author has moved/deleted post)  Archived 02 Oct 2015
Retrieved 20 Feb 2018

(3) Weekly U.S. Influenza Surveillance Report (CDC)
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm
Retrieved 20 Feb 2018

(4) Interim Estimates of 2017–18 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness — United States, February 2018
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6706a2.htm
Retrieved 20 Feb 2018

(5) Deus ex machine (Merriam-Webster Definition)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deus%20ex%20machina
Retrieved 19 Feb 2018

(6)  Inhibition of several strains of influenza virus in vitro and reduction of symptoms by an elderberry extract (Sambucus nigra L.) during an outbreak of influenza B Panama.
J Altern Complement Med. 1995 Winter;1(4):361-9.
Zakay-Rones Z1, Varsano N, Zlotnik M, Manor O, Regev L, Schlesinger M, Mumcuoglu M.
Article hidden behind paywall.  Purchased October, 2015.

(6) Zakay-Rones Profile (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=30559942&privcapId=6085242&previousCapId=6085242&previousTitle=Theravir%20Management%20Ltd.

Rocket Man Flies in the Wrong Direction

Mike “the Rocket Man” Hughes (no relation to Rocket Man Kim Jung Un) made dubious history on Saturday, March 24, launching himself nearly 4⁄10 of a mile vertically, toward outer space, in search of evidence to support his flat earth theory.¹

The problem is, Mike flew the wrong way.

Mike Hughes goes the wrong way. Photo ©2018 Mike Hartman/Associated Press. Please see Image Credits section at end of article for disclosure on use.

Hughes took off vertically.  Even had he seen the curvature of the planet, he would have been subjected to the endless conspiracy theories flat earthers apply to NASA footage showing said curvature, where lens distortion or other photo trickery is blamed.

No, a better approach would have been to simply board an airplane and fly horizontally until the edge was reached.  A bevy of photos of the alleged disk-shaped planet hanging there in space would have surely earned Hughes a Nobel Prize in physics.

To help Hughes in his next attempt, and/or as a challenge to any other flat earthers out there, I’ve laid out a highly detailed scientific diagram of the proposed process below, presented free to the flat earth scientific community to help them in their efforts.

You’re welcome.

If the earth is flat, it should be a simple matter to fly HORIZONTALLY to the edge and snap a photo. Why the obsession with flying straight up? (click/enlarge)

 

References
(1) Mike Hughes Blasts Off in Self Built Rocket (via USA Today)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/03/26/mad-mike-hughes-who-believes-earth-flat-blasts-off-self-built-rocket/457780002/
Retrieved 26 Mar 2018

Image Credits
Rocket takeoff ©2018 Mike Hartman/Associated Press. Used under provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge; specifically cases where no publicly available image of the event being discussed is available.

Mike Hughes headshot and flat earth graphic used under parody provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge; specifically cases where no publicly available image of the event being discussed is available.  Airplane photo by the author.