Ohio University Professor Believes Bugs Are on Mars, is a Conspiracy Trying to Silence Him?

Is this a tiny Martian?

Could there be life on Mars in the form of insects and could a government conspiracy be afoot to suppress it? At a November 19 meeting of the Entomological Society of America, William Romoser, emeritus professor of medical entomology at Ohio University, went so far to say that, based upon his findings, “there has been and still is life on Mars” based on pictures snapped from NASA's Mars rovers that seemed to show insect-like forms.

The overwhelming response, not surprisingly, was harsh and the official retraction quick, perhaps too quick. First, though, some background.

In science, reputation is no protection against criticism. Romoser's credentials are impressive. Having earned his doctorate in 1964, Romoser served at Ohio State University along with the Universities of Florida and Georgia for short stints before joining the Army's Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, where he worked for 20 years before joining Ohio University as an emeritus professor of medical entomology. In that time, he published dozens of peer-reviewed papers and even wrote a textbook (since updated several times) on the subject.

As for the criticism from his peers, there is a common thread: pareidolia. What is pareidolia? It is the act of perceiving things that don't really exist. Common examples include seeing a face in the Moon and shapes in clouds. Yes, we all know that there is no Man in the Moon and that there really isn't a tree (or whatever else) in the clouds but, as we all know, we sure do perceive these things as being there. The most famous case of Martian pareidolia (among many) is the 'Face' on Mars, which was first seen during the Viking missions in the mid 1970s but that was later shown via higher resolution photographs to be nothing more than just the average hill hit with a convenient angle of sunlight. As for Romoser, many critics think that what he is seeing on Mars is nothing more than bits of rock that look like insects, which would be easy for him to notice after 50+ years spent looking at insects here on Earth.

As for NASA, the space agency has issued its own rebuttal to Rosomer's claims but says that its upcoming rover, set to land in February, 2021, will be equipped to look for evidence of ancient Martian life. Others even went so far to say that Romoser's idea could damage the search for alien life.

While the criticism was to be expected, an unexpected development (according to some) has also followed: many references to the story have disappeared from the Internet.

Many web pages about this story are now gone. The web page on Ohio University's website detailing Romoser's presentation has been removed, with the University later adding through its media relations department that Romoser no longer wishes to engage with the press. Additionally, an announcement on Eureka Alert, a press release platform operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, was also deleted “at the request of the submitter.” Phys Org also removed a web page dealing with the topic. Now for the kicker: Romoser's own website is now offline and listed as private.

So, could a conspiracy be afoot to suppress the idea that there are insects on Mars? Hardly.

Retractions in the scientific community are nothing new. There is now even an online database of retracted scientific papers. So far, there are over 18,000 unpublished papers now online and counting. When considering this whole series of events, one must remember that, at its core, science is a process of asking questions and drawing conclusions, which may or may not be correct. This is how science has operated since Ancient Greece and is how it will continue to (hopefully) operate centuries into the future. The real difference now is the advent of the Internet and now social media, which has allowed anyone to post anything without review, instantaneously.

Romoser's claim was sensational, no doubt. As a result, once it was initially picked up online, it spread like wildfire around online media, where both career scientists and the general public read about it. The observation of 'insects' on Mars being almost certainly wrong but explainable by other means (pareidolia), criticism was sure to come, which it did from both. In years past, the criticism would have come as a trickle as (mostly) scientists would have written personally to Romoser, Ohio University, or even the Entomological Society of America in order to question the findings in a professional manner.

Come 2019, things couldn't be more different. Now, instead of picking up a paper and pen, hand-writing a letter at a table/desk, and then putting it in a stamped (the horror of having to buy a stamp!) envelope, anyone can pick up their phone, tap out a message, and send it to its intended target electronically and instantaneously. These messages can come by way of email, social media, and even the comments sections of news outlets that have the function. Not having access to associated parties' email accounts and wanting to stay out of the sewer that is social media, I can only view the public comments sections on online news sites, many of which were pretty ugly and often of personal, not professional, nature when it came to Romoser himself.

In the end, it probably wasn't some conspiracy by NASA/the government that caused Romoser and Ohio University to backtrack in surprising haste. In all probability it was the social media lynch mob, which in itself can be dangerous to the very concept of a free society, that probably caused the quick retraction as Romoser and Ohio University were probably deluged with a tsunami of hate mail that neither wanted to deal with. This is ironic because the internet was supposed to encourage, not suppress, the willingness to speak openly.

Like What You Read?

Why not check out other great stuff about photography, astronomy, associated gear, and how to use it.

Think someone else would find this informative (or at least entertaining)? Use the buttons below to share!

Black Friday Shopping Advice: Stay Home

In less than a week it will be Black Friday and millions upon millions of shoppers will be hitting the stores before dawn in order to try and score deep discounts offered only once per year on all sorts of merchandise. For many people, waiting in long lines and fighting crowds seems smart because of the massive price cuts. Well, not really.

For people in the market for cameras (or any other expensive electronic gear), going out so far ahead of time may not be the best idea. Why? Return policies. A single store may have different return policies for different types of merchandise. When it comes to restrictive policies, electronics (photo gear included) lead the pack.

No matter where you shop, there is a good chance that any electronic gear will be subject to a restocking fee if it has been opened (unless the item is broken and the store employee determines that the device broke on its own due to manufacturer defect). That in itself can work against you when it comes to getting your money back or exchanging the item.

Next is the return window itself. While many stores will allow up to 90 days between the date of purchase and return of most items, when it comes to electronics, the time frame is often much tighter, sometimes as short as 14 days. Now it doesn't take a mathematician to figure this out: Black Friday is the last Friday of November and Christmas is December 25, that's a month. So if the return policy states that items can only be returned for 14 days from the time of purchase, by the time Christmas rolls around, it's too late to return a defective gift bought on Black Friday.

That stinks because people buy on Black Friday and store things away for Christmas. High tech gear with all its complexities has a lot of room for bugs. Personally, I bought a Canon 85mm f1.8 USM lens a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, it only worked right on my then-current Canon 30D camera and not my older 300D/Digital Rebel. I had a similar experience with a mis-focusing but otherwise excellent Sigma 100-300 f4 DG HSM Apo. Fortunately, as I bought the lenses for myself, I caught the problem right away and returned them without trouble. Now, if this had been a gift someone else bought and stored away, problem unknown, and then given to me for Christmas, I (or the gifter) could  have been out of luck thanks to the short return window.

So if you're going to go out on Black Friday or in the next two weeks to buy someone a high tech toy, read the return policy. Can't find the answers you're looking for? Then call and ask for specifics. In some cases, it may just be better to wait until later, especially if you're planning to give a gift to yourself. After all, there is the Internet.

See Also: More Smart Shopping Tips



Like What You Read?

Why not check out other great stuff about photography, astronomy, associated gear, and how to use it.

Think someone else would find this informative (or at least entertaining)? Use the buttons below to share!

The Many Tokina 28-70 Lenses and How to Identify Them (With Pictures)

What version of the Tokina 28-70 is this? Read on to find out!

From the late 1980s to the mid 2000s, Tokina made a total of 4 constant f2.8 lenses with the 28-70mm focal range. Unfortunately, it can be hard for a would-be buyer to identify each version because many original sources were on paper (think photography magazines before the Internet) and are long gone and, being out of production for roughly 15 years, most contemporary online documentation has also disappeared.

That, plus adding online buy/sell websites like Ebay and Craigslist and now social media platforms, only adds to the confusion as many people do not know the variations of these lenses and will merely sell the lens along the lines of something like 'Tokina 28-70 f2.8.'

So, what are the variations and how to identify them?

1. Smooth finish. 2. Distance scale window. 3. Zoom ring wider than focus ring.

1^st Generation: Tokina 28-70 f2.8 AT-X (1988-1994)
The first generation of Tokina 28-70 f2.8 is the easiest to identify as it is the only one that features a recessed distance scale window rather than painted on markings. Another easy identifier is that this is also the only version that does not feature the now-standard Tokina AF/MF clutch mechanism that involves moving the focus ring back and forth, so there will be no AF/MF markings anywhere on the barrel. To switch mode, flip a switch on the lens (for versions with built-in motors) or flip the switch on your camera (versions with a mechanical drive linkage). On top of that, this is the only version that features a zoom ring that is wider than the focus ring and the only version that accepts a 72mm filter. Finish is smooth.

1. Zoom ring now wider than focus ring. 2. AF/MF on barrel. 3. Smooth finish.

2^nd Generation: Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 ATX-PRO (1994-1997)
The second generation was the first based off the optical design Tokina bought from the French company Angenieux that would serve as the basis for the rest of the 28-70 line. This was the first 28-70 version to feature the AF/MF clutch, so look for AF/MF markings on the barrel. Unfortunately, in its early incarnation, switching focus mode meant rotating the ring while pulling/pushing on it in order to find the window where the clutch engaged and the ring moved. On top of that, one needed to flip the AF/MF switch on either the camera or the lens itself (depending on whether the lens has a built-in motor or is focused via mechanical linkage powered by the camera), depending on your manufacturer. Also new was the flip in width of the focus/zoom ring as the focus ring is now the larger of the two as it would remain through the remainder of the run. This version (as do the later ones) uses 77mm filters. On the front of the lens by the filter threads, there also appears the word 'Tokina.' Finish is smooth. To make things difficult, thank Tokina's marketing department. This lens was marketed in some places as being f2.6-2.8 (even though no camera will recognize f2.6) and others as a constant f2.8. No matter, the lenses are the same no matter what the markings say.

See also: My Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 ATX-PRO I Review

The quickest way to tell a Tokina ATX-PRO "II" (left) from a PRO "I" (right) is the newer "II" lens' crinkle finish. The aperture ring is exclusive to Nikon versions.

Another way to tell the difference: the "II" (left) doesn't say 'Tokina' while the "I" (right) does.

3^rd Generation: Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 ATX-PRO II (1997-1999)
The third generation is optically unchanged from the previous 'PRO' version except for that the “II” got a 'high refraction low dispersion' (HLD) element designed to combat chromatic aberration. All other changes were cosmetic. The easiest way to spot the “II” from a “I” version is that the “II” now has a crinkle finish instead of the smooth one seen on the previous version. Another easy way to distinguish a “I” from a “II” is that that “II” version now features a bayonet mount for the hood (versus the screw-on versions for earlier lenses). As for markings, 'Tokina' has now disappeared from by where the filter threads on but, irritatingly, there is no mention of “II” anywhere on the lens even though it was marketed as such. Like the “I” version, the “II” was marketed in some places as being f2.6-2.8 and in others as a constant f2.8. No matter, the lenses are the same no matter what the markings say. The clunky 2-step mode to change AF/MF was, unfortunately, also unchanged.

Oh yes, the lens at the top of the page is the ATX-PRO II thanks to the crinkle finish.

The Tokina 28-80 f2.8 ATX-PRO.

The 28-80's internal configuration.

End of the Line

In 2000, Tokina launched its direct successor to the “II” version above in the form of a 28-80 f2.8 ATX-PRO. Keeping the low dispersion element, which it now marketed as a 'super low dispersion' (SD) element, Tokina now added a pair of aspherical elements to the new design, which remained in production into 2006. This lens also saw the return of a distance scale window rather than the cheap looking painted markings. As an innovation sure to be appreciated by many, Tokina reworked its system for switching focus mode. This lens now features the “One Touch” focus clutch, which allows for switching from AF/MF simply by pulling/pushing the ring anywhere while eliminating the need to flip any switches on the camera. It is for this ease of focus mode transition that this lens typically sells for more than the 28-70s on the used market.

Aperture ring (Nikon models only) aside, the Tokina 28-70 f2.8 ATX-PRO SV (left) is virtually identical to the 28-70 f2.6-2.8 ATX-PRO "I" (right).

 

Visually, the only way to tell these two lenses apart is to look at the lettering by the filter threads as the SV version will always identify itself as such.

 

The 28-70 f2.8 ATX-PRO internal configuration.

4^th Generation: Tokina 28-70 f2.8 PRO SV (2002-2006)
Looking to tap into a lower price-point market, Tokina resurrected its 28-70 offering in 2002 as the Tokina 28-70 f2.8 ATX-PRO SV, with the 'SV' designating 'Special/Super Value' (I've seen it referred to as both). In appearance, this is most like the ATX-PRO “I” version as it abandons the crinkle finish of the “II” (and 28-80 f2.8 for that matter) in favor of the smooth used from 1988-1997. The easiest way to identify this one? The lettering by the filter threads will note the “SV” designation. As for what constituted a “special value,” it involved cost cutting. The SD and aspherical elements seen on the contemporary 28-80 f2.8 version were gone as was the “one touch” clutch as Tokina opted to resurrect its clunky 2-step version seen on the older 28-70 “I” and “II” PRO versions. Build quality also took a hit, with Tokina incorporating more composites (a fancy word for plastic) into the lens. Hey, you usually get what you pay for! Of the 4 versions of the 28-70, this is the least desirable.

It's Official: Canon Announces EOS Ra Astrophotography Camera

The EOS Ra.

Canon has just officially unveiled the new EOS Ra, its first mirrorless interchangeable lens camera designed specifically for astrophotography. This news comes on the heels of a flurry of rumors coming from various tech websites, including Canonrumors, Tech Radar, and Digital Camera World.

Like its previous dSLR models made specifically for astrophotography, the EOS 20Da and EOS 60Da (along with Nikon's D810A), the EOS Ra is largely the same as the model upon which it is based: the full-frame EOS R. However, Canon was very careful to include some tweaks that will be sure to make any serious astrophotographer very, very happy.

First up: there's the sensor or, more specifically, the infrared (IR) cut filter that is in front of it. According to Canon, the EOS Ra’s IR cutting filter is modified to permit approximately 4x as much transmission of hydrogen alpha rays at the 656nm wavelength as compared to a standard EOS R. This will allow for deep red infrared rays emitted by nebulae to be recorded on the camera's sensor. Without this modification, reds from deep sky objects would appear as various shades of pink or even light purple.

Another modification sure to get people excited is the live view mode of the EOS Ra, which allows the user to zoom in up to 30x magnification on the LCD or in the viewfinder in order to ensure easy focusing on stars. This is a dramatic boost of the 10x magnification offered with the standard EOS R, which may not always be sufficient to ensure perfectly focused stars. Needless to say, the days of dragging a laptop out to the telescope and using focus assist software are numbered for anyone using the EOS Ra.

Other than these two changes, the EOS Ra is essentially the same as its standard cousin.

Want one? Well, they're available for preorder at Adorama, as a body-only kit priced at $2,499 (a $700 price premium over the standard EOS R). Unfortunately, no availability has yet been announced but my advice is to preorder yours now as the line is sure to be a long one and the Ebay profiteers are sure to be ordering already so they can gouge you when the camera sells out at reputable dealers.

Like What You Read?

Why not check out other great stuff about photography, astronomy, associated gear, and how to use it.

Think someone else would find this informative (or at least entertaining)? Use the buttons below to share!