| |
|
Article: <5fagm8$fkm@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: IN SYMPATHY to the Hale-Bopp Cooperative
Date: 2 Mar 1997 00:12:56 GMT
In article <5f7n57$grq@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti
writes:
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> Occasionally? Marsden stated he reduced the available
>> data by a factor of 10, taking only 10% of it, in order
to
>> make McNaughts 1993 image fit. It was a predetermined
>> orbit, and only the data that would support that
>> predetermination was allowed to be included!
>
> Ah, now I know where you got this factor of 10! What
> Marsden said was that in order for him to include the 1993
> position and fit both it and the current day observations,
he
> had to reduce the relative weight of the individual
observations
> by about a factor of 10 since the 1993 observation was all
by
> itself while there were hundreds or thousands of positions
> obtained more recently. He didn't have to literally throw
> out 90% of the positions, but the weight of the current
> observations (at that time - over a year ago) did not allow
> the 1993 position to fit the orbit.
> jscotti@LPL.Arizona.EDU (Jim Scotti)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
What changed? We said he tossed 90% of the data as he was
determined that the 1993 McNaught image orbit WAS GOING TO FIT.
The predetermination ruled! The data did not! This is
SCIENCE!!??!!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])