Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

re MISAO and impugnment of Yoshida Seiichi's work.

Expand Messages
  • kawai.sasami
    It has been opined to me that the fixation re MISAO specifically in terms of VSX might, especially as many a catalogue is iffy and could as readily be used as
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      It has been opined to me that the fixation re MISAO specifically in
      terms of VSX might, especially as many a catalogue is iffy and could
      as readily be used as example instead, simply be because my name is
      apparently all over that website.

      Now, let me make note of a Japanese ethos. It appears to be inherent
      within that ethos that credit should be fully given at all times and
      at all levels even if the actual conribution involved was minimal.
      Thus it was often to my surprise that Seiichi would stick my name on
      things as credit even after we'd merely had the most informal of chats
      on something. Often I had to say there was no such need (and indeed
      that it was potentially detrimental to have the name of someone like
      me even remotely associated with it).

      After having this above noted opinion made to me I went back to visit
      the MISAO website for the first time in ages and amongst other things
      noted a paper on 255 MISAO objects typed by amplitude and 2MASS colour
      that carries mine and Seiichi's name and seems to carry quite a few of
      the currently debated objects. I had forgotten all about this. I had
      described the concept to Seiichi at one point and said he could use it
      to approximately type some MISAO variables, especially LPVs, this
      being soon after 2MASS 2nd Incremental Catalogue became available via
      VizieR, or was it IRSA/IPAC, anyway via some manner such that he could
      batch interrogate the database via upping a list. For something not
      noted so far is that MISAO astrometry, in my experience, is pretty
      damn good, considering the source images. I've rarely seen anything
      but less than one arcsec out against later standards.

      Seiichi insisted that my name go on it coz I described the method, a
      method, incidentally, which you yourself have utilized to find and
      note red NSVS LPVs via OEJV, albeit in its later incarnations.

      I said "why bother mentioning me?", but it is of the ethos, it would
      ostensibly be impolite for him not to mention me.

      And I said "why bother?" for this methodology is not mine, it is a
      general simple principle, if I ever need to reference it I tend to use
      Bessell and Brett, which is a paper I found later, which applies the
      general principle to stars of known spectral type and standard
      photometry as a calibrative and transformational vehicle.

      Anyway, someone who's just about one of the only people whose
      judgement I see as nigh on always being objective has opined it might
      just be a get at MISAO coz John is part of MISAO thing that's going on
      here.

      If that is the case then get off of it. I ain't part of MISAO. To
      impugn the integrity and rigour that Yoshida Seiichi has dedicated to
      his searches by claiming empty problems, without independent proof of
      constancy, whilst you yourself have repeatedly shown lack of care in
      that area is... ...it's not good, put it that way.

      I found yesterday that I could readily show that six of your "very
      questionable" MISAO candidates can be readily shown as regular goodly
      amplitude Miras using readily available online photometry.

      FURTHER, BY USING VSX _itself_ I could show that 2 of the most
      supposedly questionable are contained in two independent, postMISAO,
      papers on OGLE II Bulge Miras discoveries. Yes, VSX carries already
      carries in some cases the confirmation you say is needed, if you'd looked.

      Leave MISAO alone or provide tacit evidence for incorrectness, not
      just postulations and what ifs.

      You've had plenty of advice from IBVS, Arne, AAVSO, other people
      who've told me they've emailed you privately with advice only to
      receive no response, and even from me, on what constitutes adequate
      evidence.

      It is a self evident matter. If a thing is variable, and readily
      variable, and typifiable, you can see that. If a thing is uncertain,
      it is uncertain. VSX has stated it's hope to preclude the latter from
      inclusion.

      An incorrect decision may or may not have been made re global
      inclusion of MISAO data, I believe incorrect even though I know many
      are variable and demonstrably variable (but not always via standard
      lightcurve routes), others believe it correct to include it, so even
      that issue is not clear, but you're flogging a dead horse now.


      What VSX strongly needs is an extra flag U to go with the V and S
      flag, V for Variable, U for untyped but evidently variable (incomplete
      lightcurve and/or uncertain variability), as well as "constant"
      objects to be split into C for constant stars and N for nonstars, as
      that is an area of potential problem.

      Then some leeway can be given. Most MISAO variables with little to no
      follow up are U, based on their most often (but not always) large
      amplitudes derived from the pixy2 system and their 2MASS colours.

      Incidentally, your two misao objects were pointed out to me at the
      time of their inclusion with comments that they were likely constant.
      I responded yes they are constant (near bright stars or something,
      can't quite remember) and I didn't know what Seiichi was playing at as
      he used to be more rigorous than that, but I didn't bother to contact
      him on the matter.

      Finally, I don't think I've had contact with Seiichi in two years, and
      certainly never did more than express my opinions, as I did at that
      time directly to more than one survey runner, including Bernhard,
      Pejcha and Tabur amongst others (to drop names), who equally took what
      advice they felt useful to their needs without my being in anyway
      connected with their surveys, and stuck my name on stuff to varying
      degrees. Paper trail is important, but only when essential.

      Accreditation causes more problems than enough, even at later dates,
      it seems.

      John Greaves
    • Martin Nicholson
      John wrote It has been opined to me that the fixation re MISAO specifically in terms of VSX might, especially as many a catalogue is iffy and could as readily
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        John wrote
         
        "It has been opined to me that the fixation re MISAO specifically in
        terms of VSX might, especially as many a catalogue is iffy and could
        as readily be used as example instead, simply be because my name is
        apparently all over that website."
         
        I think you are somewhat paranoid over this.
         
        My concerns over MISAO are in respect of the quantity and quality of the evidence supplied. I am also confused over the basis on which some of MISAO variables made it into GCVS while others that didn't seem significantly better or worse to me were not included.
         
        You are on record as having some concerns over the inclusion of the entire MISAO catalogue in VSX. When I echo your sentiments I am agreeing with you - not the reverse!!


        All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.