Baade’s Window

Baade’s Window

Baade's Window is a small clearing in the dust clouds of Sagittarius,
near the globular cluster NGC 6522, through which it is possible to
see stars within 1,800 light-years of the galactic centre..

http://www.martin-nicholson.info/infrared/ngc6522.htm


Martin Nicholson, Daventry, England.

My website is at http://www.martin-nicholson.info/1/1a.htm
My informal Astronomical Blog is at http://ukastronomy.livejournal.com/

Mr selfstyled UKASTRONOMY blogged :-

"There is a strange situation developing involving the leading figures
in the AAVSO, VSX the variable star database they created"

What do you mean, the database they created, these leading figures?
Chris Watson wrote a database management engine, AAVSO host it, and
that's that. The database, which a moron like you probably doesn't
realise is the data itself, holds a bunch of catalogues created by
other people, all the groups and surveys and scientists and
researchers who did the actual work, with some few, less than 1%, of
the aavso vsx having new submissions from private individuals. AAVSO
VSX just imports these freely available catalogues into one place,
usually unrevised, just altered to fit their database management
engine's requirements, a mere reformatting (and that had been done
wrong several times and had to be reformatted, due to ignoring sound
advice, which people who know the facts are aware of).

They created nothing datawise. In fact, the person you're always
attacking is the person that advised and recommended and explained how
to import around 80% of the catalogues in the aavso vsx database.
Mike Simonsen's article in BAAVSS circular 36, freely available as a
pdf from baavss website (and containing statements he knows full well
are untrue re quality and completeness of VSX), states a number of
catalogues, most of which were so advised as inclusion catalogues, and
were imported via help and advice from the one UK amateur you complain
about, most of those catalogues wouldn't be there otherwise, as AAVSO
VSX had no idea what to do after importing GCVS and NSV, and Arne
Henden directly and specifically asked for the assistance of the UK
amateur you decry in order to import more data. And further, said
person also was highly instrumental in ensuring that most of the other
stuff that Mike Simonsen mentions, like up to date IBVS entries, were
made available for VSX by putting people in contact each other and
requesting they help VSX, and nagging the leading figures for two
years to pull their finger out and actually import the data into VSX
that people had taken time and effort to create for them, else it
would still be lying in Chris Watson's hard disk somewhere. But you
don't realise people can do things via private email and quietly
without bragging about it or needing their name stuck all over it,
because you find it impossible to think that way. VSX, VSP, VSD,
_all_ have had important advisory input that significantly affects
their usability as data sources, and were incomplete and/or in error
without that advisory input. VSX :- catalogue import. VSP :-
advising to ask Norbert Zacharias for a prelaunch copy of ucac3 to fix
the utter mess created by them using NOMAD, which they'd been strongly
advised against using for years, so they had no excuse, VSD :- use of
SDSS and CMC14/2MASS colour information to transform to V magnitudes.
All advised and shown how to or pointed towards for years. All in
private without blogging everywhere, so people like you can make up
their own garbage to spout without fear of contradicting evidence, it
seems, as not much else has come out of it.

But nope, you've got to start your editorializing again making it seem
like fact, but already weighted to make people think how they're
supposed to think by the wording you use, thus

"There is a strange situation developing involving the leading figures
in the AAVSO, VSX the variable star database they created"

What leading figures? What created database? The engine is one
thing, the data is another. What's strange? Statements of the lack
of incompleteness? They're true. Advising you that if your variables
have passed AAVSO VSX quality control that you should attempt to
publish them in JAAVSO yourself via a paper submission, instead of
your bleating every six months that AAVSO won't publish them for you?
What's strange about that, scared JAAVSO wouldn't take them because
the quality isn't good enough?

VSX is just an out of date collection of a bunch of other people's
work, with little to none of the data actually having been worked on
by Arne Henden, or Chris Watson, whom latter mostly imported data only
with the aid of the person you castigate, but who was also aided in
later times by Patrick Wils, else that database would be far, far
smaller even than it is now compared to what actually exists, probably
just a copy of GCVS, NSV and whatever private individuals upped. It
is certainly neither an authoritative nor wholescale critically
revised resource.

You are such a provably lying twisting moron who thinks all is based
on your views and opinions, totally regardless of fact and reality.

You deserve all you don't get.

Mr selfstyled UKASTRONOMY blogged :-

"There is a strange situation developing involving the leading figures
in the AAVSO, VSX the variable star database they created"

What do you mean, the database they created, these leading figures?
Chris Watson wrote a database management engine, AAVSO host it, and
that's that. The database, which a moron like you probably doesn't
realise is the data itself, holds a bunch of catalogues created by
other people, all the groups and surveys and scientists and
researchers who did the actual work, with some few, less than 1%, of
the aavso vsx having new submissions from private individuals. AAVSO
VSX just imports these freely available catalogues into one place,
usually unrevised, just altered to fit their database management
engine's requirements, a mere reformatting (and that had been done
wrong several times and had to be reformatted, due to ignoring sound
advice, which people who know the facts are aware of).

They created nothing datawise. In fact, the person you're always
attacking is the person that advised and recommended and explained how
to import around 80% of the catalogues in the aavso vsx database.
Mike Simonsen's article in BAAVSS circular 36, freely available as a
pdf from baavss website (and containing statements he knows full well
are untrue re quality and completeness of VSX), states a number of
catalogues, most of which were so advised as inclusion catalogues, and
were imported via help and advice from the one UK amateur you complain
about, most of those catalogues wouldn't be there otherwise, as AAVSO
VSX had no idea what to do after importing GCVS and NSV, and Arne
Henden directly and specifically asked for the assistance of the UK
amateur you decry in order to import more data. And further, said
person also was highly instrumental in ensuring that most of the other
stuff that Mike Simonsen mentions, like up to date IBVS entries, were
made available for VSX by putting people in contact each other and
requesting they help VSX, and nagging the leading figures for two
years to pull their finger out and actually import the data into VSX
that people had taken time and effort to create for them, else it
would still be lying on Chris Watson's hard disk somewhere. But you
don't realise people can do things via private email and quietly
without bragging about it or needing their name stuck all over it,
because you find it impossible to think that way. VSX, VSP, VSD,
_all_ have had important advisory input that significantly affects
their usability as data sources, and were incomplete and/or in error
without that advisory input. VSX :- catalogue import. VSP :-
advising to ask Norbert Zacharias for a prelaunch copy of ucac3 to fix
the utter mess created by them using NOMAD, which they'd been strongly
advised against using for years, so they had no excuse, VSD :- use of
SDSS and CMC14/2MASS colour information to transform to V magnitudes.
All advised and shown how to or pointed towards for years. All in
private without blogging everywhere, so people like you can make up
their own garbage to spout without fear of contradicting evidence, it
seems, as not much else has come out of it.

But nope, you've got to start your editorializing again making it seem
like fact, but already weighted to make people think how they're
supposed to think by the wording you use, thus

"There is a strange situation developing involving the leading figures
in the AAVSO, VSX the variable star database they created"

What leading figures? What created database? The engine is one
thing, the data is another. What's strange? Statements of the lack
of completeness? They're true. Advising you that if your variables
have passed AAVSO VSX quality control that you should attempt to
publish them in JAAVSO yourself via a paper submission, instead of
your bleating every six months that AAVSO won't publish them for you?
What's strange about that, scared JAAVSO wouldn't take them because
the quality isn't good enough?

VSX is just an out of date collection of a bunch of other people's
work, with little to none of the data actually having been worked on
by Arne Henden, or Chris Watson, whom latter mostly imported data only
with the aid of the person you castigate, but CW was also aided in
later times by Patrick Wils, else that database would be far, far
smaller even than it is now compared to what actually exists, probably
just a copy of GCVS, NSV and whatever private individuals upped. It
is certainly neither an authoritative nor wholescale critically
revised resource.

You are such a provably lying twisting moron who thinks all is based
on your views and opinions, totally regardless of fact and reality.

You deserve all you don't get.

On 11 Jul, 14:49, advicegiven wrote:
Mr selfstyled UKASTRONOMY blogged :-

"There is a strange situation developing involving the leading figures
in the AAVSO, VSX the variable star database they created"


Very pleased you read my blog John - (advicegiven = John Greaves) -
shame that you didn't manage to quote from it correctly.

http://ukastronomy.livejournal.com/2008/07/07/

On Jul 11, 5:53 pm, ukastronomy
wrote:
On 11 Jul, 14:49, advicegiven wrote:

Mr selfstyled UKASTRONOMY blogged :-

"There is a strange situation developing involving the leading figures
in the AAVSO, VSX the variable star database they created"

Very pleased you read myblogJohn - (advicegiven = John Greaves) -
shame that you didn't manage to quote from it correctly.

http://ukastronomy.livejournal.com/2008/07/07/

Of course your blog wasn't quoted from correctly, you stupid little
tit, as it wasn't read. A google search on aavso vsx popped up your
latest blog entry heading, and a google search always includes the
first two lines of a webpage, and sometimes the last two or so lines.
Hell, I've only seen the line above whilst searching for something
else. Google really seems to like picking up your whinings, although
it also picks up your lies. You make a fuss about people not saying
who they are (because you can't attack them with spam then, or one of
your false names can't, as you are the one who pretends to be actually
different real people and talk to yourself on several lists,
justifying your thoughts, and rarely presenting facts.

You are such a naive moron though that as usual you believe what you
imagine over what is real.

You continually go around saying your variables are meaningful because
they've been passed by AAVSO VSX, which is meaningless, as it carries
no authority in such things, and is moderated by a bunch of volunteer
amateurs with no permission or remit for the IAU. Then you weep,
every six months, because AAVSO won't do for your what you are
incapable of doing, that is publishing your weak work.

If you spent more time trying to learn things than writing blogs and
to obscure mailling lists like these google groups then you could
optomise your spending and make efficient and practical, and
scientific, use of your money when you book time on your rentasopes,
which as several have said, do it all for you, likely often whilst you
sleep. And then you'd get your name known for respectability, not for
trying to get your name known's sake.

On Jul 11, 5:53 pm, ukastronomy
wrote:
On 11 Jul, 14:49, advicegiven wrote:

Mr selfstyled UKASTRONOMY blogged :-

"There is a strange situation developing involving the leading figures
in the AAVSO, VSX the variable star database they created"

Very pleased you read myblogJohn - (advicegiven = John Greaves) -
shame that you didn't manage to quote from it correctly.

http://ukastronomy.livejournal.com/2008/07/07/

Of course your blog wasn't quoted from correctly, you stupid little
tit, as it wasn't read. A google search on aavso vsx popped up your
latest blog entry heading, and a google search always includes the
first two lines of a webpage, and sometimes the last two or so lines.
Hell, I've only seen the line above whilst searching for something
else. Google really seems to like picking up your whinings, although
it also picks up your lies. You make a fuss about people not saying
who they are (because you can't attack them with spam then, or one of
your false names can't, as you are the one who pretends to be actually
different real people and talk to yourself on several lists,
justifying your thoughts, and rarely presenting facts.

You are such a naive moron though that as usual you believe what you
imagine over what is real.

You continually go around saying your variables are meaningful because
they've been passed by AAVSO VSX, which is meaningless, as it carries
no authority in such things, and is moderated by a bunch of volunteer
amateurs with no permission or remit for the IAU. Then you weep,
every six months, because AAVSO won't do for your what you are
incapable of doing, that is publishing your weak work.

If you spent more time trying to learn things than writing blogs and
to obscure mailling lists like these google groups then you could
optomise your spending and make efficient and practical, and
scientific, use of your money when you book time on your rentasopes,
which as several have said, do it all for you, likely often whilst you
sleep. And then you'd get your name known for respectability, not for
trying to get your name known's sake.

On 14 Jul, 19:34, advicegiven wrote:


John Greaves = advicegiven has a long history of publishing attacks on
individuals or organisations and I believe that most of his paranoia
and whining is the fruit of his own jealousy and spite. He lacks the
resources to make any astronomical observations of his own and his
data mining activities have been rather unsuccessful with, to use his
own words, many of his claimed discoveries being “totally spurious”.

As many others have found before me writing any detailed rebutal of
all John Greaves' many fantasies is a waste of time. He will refuse to
accept any evidence that supports a viewpoint other than his own and
will simply regard any reply as a justification to repeat his abuse ad
infinitum and ad nauseam.

On Jul 11, 7:07 am, ukastronomy
wrote:
Baade’s Window

Baade's Window is a small clearing in the dust clouds of Sagittarius,
near the globular cluster NGC 6522, through which it is possible to
see stars within 1,800 light-years of the galactic centre..

http://www.martin-nicholson.info/infrared/ngc6522.htm

Martin Nicholson, Daventry, England.

My website is athttp://www.martin-nicholson.info/1/1a.htm
My informal AstronomicalBlogis athttp://ukastronomy.livejournal.com/

Wow. I've just been reading many of the topic headings, and a few of
the posts, on this usenet thing.

You certainly post where you belong don't you? Flat earthers,
religious zealots, conspiracty theorists (you'll especially no doubt
like the latter group, or probably you think they all gang together
and keep you held back by sabotaging you and decrying your great
works?), and they just post day after day, and when someone disagrees
with them, or asks them to show the science to give evidence of their
point, they just regurgitate what they already said, or just get nasty
and rude.

Now we all know why you're here.

What's the matter, Martin, still crying because Uncle Arne won't
answer your AAVSO VSX post and publish your wrongly classified
variables? He'll not do it you know, he needs to show a quality paper
to get to try to talk people into letting VSX replace GCVS when he
attends Rio de Janeiro next year.

Personally I wish he would, the lack of meaningful support they've
given VSX means they deserve most of their new variables to be
something like you've provided. Mostly wrongly classified, or rather
loosely classified, as I told him a few months ago when I checked a
sample of 40 out of the thousands. Two or three were constant because
you still have no idea it seems about the difference between noise and
signal, data scatter and true physical variation, most were logged
type L when if you had used the methodology you say you've used they
should've all been Lb if only by definition (ie you were searching for
red variables!), some had errors, some had corrections that made
errors out of what may well have been not so erroneous in the first
place, and some evident Miras were logged as L, because you didn't
recognise them.

I told him he'd need to check them all, all of them, rather than just
blindly importing them into some paper, if he wanted to make a good
impression at IAU2009 and make a bid for being in charge of variable
star logging.

Although some people tell me he's busy journeying and painting rooms
at the new AAVSO HQ over the past few months and nowadays, so many
that's why he hasn't published it. Of course, if VSX and your
variables were so great, anyone there could publish it. Including
yourself. Write a JAAVSO, let's see if it gets past there referee
process. That'll be a nice experiment. Testable, scientific. You
can even generate a hypothesis as to why, or why not, it should be
published, predict if it will, and then test that prediction by
submitting it and seeing if it is accepted. And if it is accepted,
you can generate your own electronic table, in the official standard
format, and supply it to CDS for archiving. But you have to do it,
you don't just randomly send them your data all mixed up, like you
used to do with the USNO, and expect them to sort it out for you. If
you are the one doing the analysis, and wanting to publish, then you
have to do the work. Otherwise the other people get the credit, not
you, as they did the work.

And try to make sure they are all new this time, unlike 50% of the
things you sent to OEJV. Most of the things you sent to OEJV I've
been told were constant, and about 50% of the remainder I tested were
already published, usually by the NSVS themselves, whose data you were
using.

On 14 Jul, 20:59, advicegiven wrote:

As I said John continues to prove how he is motivated by jealousy and
spite.

Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK