Didn’t I already reply to you weeks ago about a similar comment? Now you can read the actual papers which explain in detail why your comment is incorrect.
Thanks for calling them out (again). Honestly people in this forum are too eager to upvote contrarian opinions. I hold a PhD in physics, and I wouldn't feel qualified to challenge ETH's work.
Science is not religion and contrarian opinions strengthen science results. I think it's healthy to always have a dose of skepticism, and is not uncommon for astrophysics papers to be retracted or refuted.
Absolutely, but those retractions are led by other astronomers/astrophysicists, not lay people presenting straw men.
I think people's priors here are out of whack -- perhaps the truth does lie somewhere in the middle, but if so, it will be much closer to ETH's version than the OP's.
There we go again...If you had a photo you not would need to make the merge of the four different images achieved by the four different teams.
Now the you have published the data from 2017, If I publish my own "photo", and I chose blue with spots of white, using the same library you used and the same color maps:
A picture of a black hole would be always artificial, for color don't really exist as it's only the brain interpretation of a part of the EM spectrum heavily averaged, that's why we don't see green stars even if there are many stars whose strongest light is green, like our own sun.
Taking a real picture of a black hole like with a cellphone camera would likely be just like a bright white star.
