This is a logic flaw I see everywhere. Making a proposition for what might have been there is not a useful scientific instrument. And especially not when unseen anomalies are an integral part of pushing your field forward. If you're inferring what might have been there you're explicitly filling in based only on what you already know.

I agree, but isn't filing in what you already know a common technique when presenting things for human consumption? I'm thinking scanning microscopy, SEM, STM, etc.

The image implies that all the data is from the same instant, when it's not. Normally that's OK, but it's not always.

SEM fills in data?

Unfortunately, the 'glow' is from the optics, not the CCD (you'd see streaks or 'boxing' that way). You can't statistically impute the optics, as these issues are based on physics. A good starter article here; http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys312/workshops/w10c/telescop...

Thanks, that was a fun read. I think I have a better grasp of why you can't impute this now.

Imputing makes little sense when you are trying to _measure_ though.