Your response it to me, but you are addressing Bill, so I'm not sure whether you were actually addressing me. I don't recall saying or even hinting that you misrepresented anything in that post. I'm pretty sure I understood your original post clearly, as well as both NASA responses.
I don't think I spun anything. I made what I think are reasonable inferences. I think if someone really would like an explanation that they would contact the critic and the lab that produced the photo to ask them if there is a miscommunication (or to determine if there was something going on that was missed).
You asked:
"How NASA has an image of a 140 year old supernova remnant that is 25,000 light years away? X-ray, radio, and infrared are faster than the speed of light?"
We infer the supernova occurred approximately 25,140 years ago. That is, the image does not represent the instant that the star went supernova, but 140 years after the fact.
"Wouldn't it have been better to explain what the 2008 picture really was instead of claiming that it was a bad fake being circulated by CT's?"
Assuming he was talking about that photo (and I think he was), then, yes. OTOH, it seems reasonable to me that he did not realize this was a legit NASA image - and he might have been responding to claims that incorrectly identified it as a photo. Of course, the easiest way to find out is to contact him. (I frequently contact experts, if I'm sufficiently interested - though I'm not in this case.)
