re John Greaves' agenda
advicegiven
This is strange, I thought John Greaves' agenda was to show that
Martin Nicholson in eJAAVSO number 96 was willing to publish a paper
containing unprovable statements with respect to the contents of the
paper, unprovable with respect to the status of the objects in the
list of "uncatalogued" objects in the spreadsheet file he points to in
the paper, unprovable with respect to the reality of the inclusion of
_all_ the objects in that paper within AAVSO VSX and in also his
claims to have devised the technique he used to find all these
objects.
No matter what John Greaves' agenda may or may not be, if Martin Piers
Nicholson publishes a paper in an AAVSO journal in July 2009 claiming
that he rigorously checked in January 2007 (and not since, and still
months before his submission of the paper in mid 2008, for I notice he
had to revise this paper twice before it was accepted) for catalogued
objects and yet he included roughly one percent of known objects,
objects ironically published well before January 2007 by the current
director of the organisation (AAVSO) that peer reviewed MPN's current
eJAAVSO and objects well catalogued at that time, and that further
when Martin Piers Nicholson's list of objects are matched against
AAVSO VSX via B/VSX at CDS VizieR server they doe not recover all
these objects as being present in AAVSO VSX, well...
...no matter what agenda exists some statements made within
http://www.aavso.org/publications/ejaavso/ej96.shtml
speak for themselves and reflect on Nicholson's claims about his AAVSO
VSX work, claims about his checks for uncatalogued objects, claims
about "his" discoveries and when he complaints and attacks bitterly
throughout usenet groups and wherever show in the manner of his
attacks and claims how he is not concerned by the problems with his
work but more with engaging in angry attacks for being outed. It
probably reflects on the peer review status of eJAAVSO as well. It
likely doesn't reflect on AAVSO VSX as the claims were made of AAVSO
VSX by an independent party, not made by AAVSO or AAVSO VSX itself.
Note that due to these objects now being "published" they may get
imported into AAVSO VSX afresh, but unlikely as this would double
entry many objects. If they do get so imported then they _will_ start
to appear in AAVSO VSX. At that time they will be dated to this
current paper, as date of submission, or later. Therefore even if
then in AAVSO VSX they are not the same as the claimed already extant
inclusion mentioned in the paper. That is, they will appear a
posteriori and not the a priori the paper attests.
He has been advised many times, by several, on how to check his work
more rigorously.
And yet the same thing happens today as happened way back in 2005
http://var.astro.cz/oejv/comments.php?lang=en&oejv=0012
Note that some of the commenters there include a chief editor of the
very journal he publishes that work in. His replies are the usual
weak excuses neglecting the factual points made by others, including
some more experienced and prolific authors, ones who do check their
work and engage in rigorous literature follow up.
OEJV was not a peer reviewed journal in those days. Today it uses an
electoral board with a majority voting system so what can be said
about publishing in OEJV then and what can be said about publishing in
OEJV today are different. In other words OEJV number 12 is not a peer
reviewed paper so possibly not directly equatable to the eJAAVSO 96,
ie OEJV 12 has an excuse.
How does pointing these facts out about someone who has bragged on his
web pages, often linked to from usenet posts, for years of all his
"peer reviewed" AAVSO VSX variables constitute an agenda as opposed to
a balancing with facts in order to neuter his self aggrandising
agenda. It is a case of Martin the Martyr bullying the nutters on
usenet and then crying foul himself when factual evidenced is
displayed that he owes more allegiance to these nutters than he does
to his claim of scientific researcher.
And now he will endlessly repeat the same thing again and again
without addressing the facts directly, just as he accuses many others
on usenet. Peer reviewed is it? In this instance that seems not to
have helped any.
All those many posts to usenet about his robotic telescope work and in
all that time he appears not to have thought to invest the time using
the scientific method to use the robotic telescopes to experimentally
test any of the predicted but uncertain variables in his paper.
Fossil livers on Mars or fossil brains in Daventry? Read his work
yourself and decide yourself. Opinions are opinions, his "science" is
another matter.
advicegiven
This post will no doubt get Martin N'son's usual one star vote.
His post will get five instead of the full minus twenty nine it likely
will deserve.
After all remember his old press release
http://stupendous.rit.edu/tass/mailarchive/2003-06/msg00147.html
all about himself by himself.
And then compare that with the many times he has posted to usenet, or
posted links to usenet about, or given links about in his usenet post
signatures, where he condemns USNO, WDS, and much else for allegedly
doing the exact same thing as he did for years. He got angry becuase
despite what he said in his press release WDS never accepted his work
because it was of the nature that he condemns them for not rejecting.
Confusing, isn't it?
Not really. Lump him with the conspiracy theorists and crackpot
theorists who post on these usenet groups and his wild claims about
inadequate professional organisations and professional astronomers who
aren't modern enough to understand his great works in double star
science sound very familiar.
Martin Nicholson (NMR)
vsnet hence posting here)
Should I debate issues with John Greaves - or answer his questions?
The short answer is NO! As many others have found before me writing
any detailed rebutal of John Greaves' fantasies is a waste of time. He
will refuse to accept any evidence that supports a viewpoint other
than his own and he will simply regard any reply as a justification to
repeat his abuse ad infinitum and ad nauseam. Any evidence you supply,
however overwhelming, is more than likely to be ignored.
The Greaves’ Apologists of which, quite amazingly, there are still a
handful are a curious bunch. Some say, “In view of John's mental
health issues (and hence his employment history and hence his lack of
money) we need to cut him a bit of slack and others claim, “Well he is
useful to me, so who cares a **** about the rest of the hobby!”
Look through the records for yourself or if you lack the time or
energy then have a look at this web site. http://www.geocities.com/badastrobuster//index.htm
wsne...@hotmail.com
<martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> advicegiven = John Greaves (freshly moderated into sullen silence in
> vsnet hence posting here)
>
> Should I debate issues with John Greaves - or answer his questions?
>
Debate it with him in private, via EMail, and not here.