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
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
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
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,