Hi Darryl, just to put your mind at rest, I wanted to make sure you understood how we aligned the data...
Phil already had the camera rotation set to be "equatorial", ie with RA left/right and DEC up/down, but as this was set by eye it's not surprising to find a 7 degree offset.
To be clear, let me repeat that we used the moons as our alignment reference when doing this, not Uranus. Otherwise we would not know the correct scale or accurate orientation.
No-one with any nous has any doubts about the process of using the moons to align either PDS or WinJupos simulations with their own captures..!
I clearly explained this in my examples above but removed Ariel to stop its distracting appearance/motion...
If you bother to look at any single posting of ours here on CN or elsewhere re Uranus or Neptune you will see this re-orientation legend in all the images, complete with estimated amount in degrees.
Please, perhaps it is just your measured way of thought-processing but it really does seem like 2 people speaking different languages at times...I know I can be a bit quick as well as obtuse at times, but nothing you have said above has added anything to the facts...my own suggestion would have been putting the images etc out with your own conclusions & exposing them to public rigour where awkward questions are more likely to arise imo...I frequently "speculate" in our own images/postings re the Ice Giants but always add some very sceptical riders to those comments.
As I have just said here https://www.facebook...04436579601722/
there is nothing stopping either of you from using Phil's image "out of the can" so to speak & then re-orientating it to conform to the PDS simulation instead of vice-versa...you then have 2 orientations of Phil's image to animate & provide extra viewing appraisals (ie, as per my first image in Post #7)...of course this approach will only highlight whatever is there & not add any more proof - but nobody would be in any doubt as to what is being referred to in your image/s by creating said animation. (see additional comment re this in my response to Marc in this post further down...)
I think that animation demonstrates better at least a very fortunate coincidence of having the bottom part of the simulated ring overlap the feature on the Uranus image :
Marc, speaking of language difficulties I should first state that my French is pathetic at best, whereas your English is in comparison far superior..!
Notwithstanding this, it seems that you fail to appreciate the intent of the 2nd small image I have included in my first post further up (#7) nor any of my comments therein when you posted this blink animation above!
Your animation using Phil & Anthony's data plus the PDS simulation only serves (apart from the dangers I articulated for my own image in Post #7) to highlight the fact that that "detail" at the 7 o'clock position is markedly shifted to the right in their image - & does not conform with either the inner or outer edges of the ring ansae...
I've refrained from posting an animation I could make myself from the data because I do not consider it my prerogative to utilise their images, which is why I've asked them to do so themselves...
Incidentally, as I said in the Astronomy Planetary Imaging Forum there is really no comparison whatsoever with the Pic du Midi images of 24-10-02 you posted there...quite understandably!
I'm sorry if I'm ruffling any feathers here because that is not my intent: as I said on the API forum "the more I look the less I see" - or perhaps better said as "the more dubious I become."
Mutual back-slapping does not constitute proof, especially when there are obvious flaws in the evidence presented...it might well be some aspects of light & optics come into play here as I believe Grant suggested in the other forum...Phil & Anthony might well have laid an important foundation stone in this search to detect the rings of Uranus with this data & I'm sure will be more rigorous in areas that patently require it the next time...such as camera re-orientation between captures...
This is nearly always the case where the investigator/s see aspects of their endeavours that require further refining to achieve their objectives...& they should be applauded regardless of whether any or all are convinced about these results...I for one am not but that should take nothing away from their efforts..!