Extreme Observing

"Edward" wrote in
ink.net:

Because he was born with eyesight just a little bit better than most
of us?

When I saw this thread, SJO leaped to mind. I've always thought that
the praise was artificial, some S&T hype. Who's to say the guy
doesn't have a good memory of images of the objects in question. If
*you* can't see it, its simpley proves the point. An easy game to
play. Its interesting to have someone serious convinced its
real...I'll have to reconsider.

SJO has been "tested" several times with known objects at known distances
(thus eliminating the "good memory" effect. He really can see more detail
farther away than virtually any of us can.

Edward wrote:
When I saw this thread, SJO leaped to mind. I've always thought that the
praise was artificial, some S&T hype. Who's to say the guy doesn't have a
good memory of images of the objects in question. If *you* can't see it,
its simpley proves the point. An easy game to play. Its interesting to
have someone serious convinced its real...I'll have to reconsider.

How about his correct determination of Uranus's period of rotation by
visual observation, when people were giving numbers from 12 to 24 hours?
He gave the figure of 16 hours, which was later verified by Voyager.
Seems pretty convincing to me.

Look, whether or not he is the most talented observer is not interesting
to me. I'm not sure at all that one *can* define "most talented" in any
objective fashion. Some people will be better than others at seeing some
details, but perhaps not as good at seeing others. It seems unlikely to
me that one person will be able to see all details better than anyone
else.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

ook, whether or not he is the most talented observer is not interesting
to me. I'm not sure at all that one *can* define "most talented" in any
objective fashion. Some people will be better than others at seeing some
details, but perhaps not as good at seeing others. It seems unlikely to
me that one person will be able to see all details better than anyone
else.


Well maybe SJO should be considered like the decathlon winner at the Olympics.
The best all-around observer. :-)


Richard Navarrete

Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22

[insert any contemporary stargazer] is likely the most gifted observer of
our generation (if not ever).

these days reaching 'exceptional observer' status can be
reached
by merely claiming to see faint or otherwise difficult objects.

Nonsense. Observing skills are as important today as they ever were...And
there is no doubt whatsoever that some people have better skills (and better
eyes) than others...

pull your head out of your ass, cloudbait. nobody said observing skills weren't
important or that everyone's eyesight or skill level was the same.
i was addressing the audacious claims made by many in this hobby, made only to
exaggerate their prowess. we all know it happens.
of course there are amateurs who have more experience and skill than others.
it's the accomplishments they've made from their skills
that make them exceptional observers, regardless of whether they can see to the
8th magnitude or not.
the early major accomplishments made with little or no technological
aid are much more impressive to me.

On 28 Aug 2004 07:20:35 GMT, (SaberScorpX) wrote:

pull your head out of your ass, cloudbait. nobody said observing skills weren't
important or that everyone's eyesight or skill level was the same.
i was addressing the audacious claims made by many in this hobby, made only to
exaggerate their prowess. we all know it happens.
of course there are amateurs who have more experience and skill than others.
it's the accomplishments they've made from their skills
that make them exceptional observers, regardless of whether they can see to the
8th magnitude or not.
the early major accomplishments made with little or no technological
aid are much more impressive to me.

You have such a charming demeanor about yourself.

In fact, I still think that is what you said, and I don't think I'm alone in
that interpretation. You shoot this hostile crap off so fast your fingers are
running faster than your brain. Try thinking about what you want to say first,
and maybe your intent meaning will match your words.

BTW, Cloudbait is an observatory, lacking both head, and ass.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

pull your head out of your ass, cloudbait. nobody said observing skills
weren't
important or that everyone's eyesight or skill level was the same.

You have such a charming demeanor about yourself.
Try thinking about what you want to say
first,
and maybe your intent meaning will match your words.

lol @ cloudbait criticizing anyone else's demeanor in here.
my intent meaning is always clear and isn't the problem. it's your anal
interpretation and nitpicking (of everyone's posts).
but at least i've always given yours the benefit of the doubt, i.e.,
that you mean well. truce?

SaberScorpX

(SaberScorpX) wrote in
:

[insert any contemporary stargazer] is likely the most gifted
observer of
our generation (if not ever).

these days reaching 'exceptional observer' status can be
reached
by merely claiming to see faint or otherwise difficult objects.

Nonsense. Observing skills are as important today as they ever
were...And there is no doubt whatsoever that some people have better
skills (and better eyes) than others...

pull your head out of your ass, cloudbait. nobody said observing
skills weren't important or that everyone's eyesight or skill level
was the same. i was addressing the audacious claims made by many in
this hobby, made only to exaggerate their prowess. we all know it
happens. of course there are amateurs who have more experience and
skill than others. it's the accomplishments they've made from their
skills that make them exceptional observers, regardless of whether
they can see to the 8th magnitude or not.
the early major accomplishments made with little or no technological
aid are much more impressive to me.

*plonk*

SaberScorpX wrote:
lol @ cloudbait criticizing anyone else's demeanor in here.
my intent meaning is always clear and isn't the problem. it's your anal
interpretation and nitpicking (of everyone's posts).
but at least i've always given yours the benefit of the doubt, i.e.,
that you mean well. truce?

I'm with "cloudbait" here -- you were simply whining about "today's
amateurs" in a general way, which is by nature a negative and cynical
thing to do. If you are going to complain about this sort of thing it
should be done specifically rather than painting everyone with the same
brush.

Of course there is no comparing past observers to those today; but it is
*you* who seems to be trying to do so...

Ok, now go ahead and call me names too if it makes you feel better!

Oh, and while we are at it why not have some of our usual witless chain
pulling trolls come along and try to yank my chain again. That would be
fun (not). Stephen? Pile on.

Clear skies,
Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply have a physician remove your spleen

Who's to say the guy doesn't have a
good memory of images of the objects in question. If *you* can't see it,
its simply proves the point. An easy game to play...

Look, whether or not he is the most talented observer is not interesting
to me. I'm not sure at all that one *can* define "most talented" in any
objective fashion...
It seems unlikely to
me that one person will be able to see all details better than anyone
else.

totally agree. but something else is going on at the same time.
dubious as some visual-acuity claims sound, they do have
one important benefit to our hobby: it makes us get out there
and look for ourselves. it challenges us. we strive to get the most out of our
eyesight and need a good
observing challenge now and then. i'm sure the magazines know it.
maybe having a few audacious observer claims out there is not
such a bad idea

SSX

'Observing Clubs We'd Really Like To See'
S.J. Saber

THE CRYOGENIC DEEP-SKY CLUB
Participants must observe any 100 NGC objects during the
months of December and January in temperature not exceeding
-5 F (wind chill optional). At least 25 of these observations must
be made with no sensation or feeling in your fingers or face.
Projects also include making snowangels with your Dob and
sketching a friend's tongue frozen to your optical tube. Pin a
note to your chest instructing paramedics not to revive you
with paddles- remember, no electronics are allowed.

THE ANT-BURNERS CLUB
Amaze neighborhood children with the true destructive powers
of your scope. Requirements include partially, annularly, and
totally frying 50 insects with your finder scope. At least 10 of
these should be from the arachnid order. Sketches should be
made in gory detail and include smoke plumes. Note the elapsed
time and solar angle of all annihilations.

THE AMAZING STORIES CLUB
The list of audacious claims is endless. To qualify for this
certificate you must visit a minimum of ten starparties and
collect the top 3 Amazing Stories from each. Note the date, time,
sky conditions, and expressions of disbelief from those listening.
Don't leave the party without interjecting your own fantasy
observation, each time adding a couple tenths of magnitude to
your LVMs.

THE GO-TO CLUB
No observations required. Participants need only mail the purchase
receipt of their Go-To scope or accessory to the program
coordinator to receive this certificate. Congratulations! You can
now proudly show everyone that you have no idea how to aim a
scope. Projects for those wishing to receive the certificate and pin
include shooting fish in a barrel and walking on the Earth's surface.

THE IDA VIGILANTE CLUB
Using rocks, slingshots, or automatic weapons, amateurs are
encouraged to extinguish a minimum of 25 pesky streetlights in
their neighborhood. With each conquest, make sure to note the
location, time, weapon of choice, and police activity in your area.
A commemorative pin is available for those eliminating 100 or
more stray light sources or an entire Wal-Mart parking lot.
If arrested, hold strong to your belief that you were only acting in
self-defense against the harmful, misdirected photons.

(reprinted from The Reflector Newsletter
PAC, Rock Island, IL)