Martin Nicholson, the great mass debater
advicegiven
Nicholson always witters on about debate.
There is no debate, astronomy is a science, not a theology nor a
philosophy nor a slanging match.
People have to simply read his paper, something you would think he
would be glad of
"Identifying Previously Uncatalogued Red Variable Stars in the
Northern Sky Variability Survey"
http://www.aavso.org/publications/ejaavso/ej96.shtml
and look at all his claims in the past, all his attacks on people on
usenet for crackpot theories, and people just have to check how true
the statements in the paper are.
And if they are not even remotely into variable stars, then they just
have to read the English of the paper.
The excuses. Checked in 2007, not rechecked since. AAVSO VSX
checked, as if it was some gods appointed dispensor of justice with
firm official backing and remit in 2007. A very simple paper that
took a year to get published and needed two revisions and still says
nothing certain about many stars.
A list of stars kept on his own not an independent server so that the
published article becomes fluid as he has control over the only copy.
Of course since then AAVSO VSX can be batch searched by becoming
listed in VizieR so he will have to be more careful, but at one time
to check all 1223 objects all 1223 objects (or however many it is
supposed to be, I forget now) meant to look for each of them one by
one, and that was the case even a month or so ago.
The reasons and excuses used to only classify over a thousand of the
objects with the weakest general loosest classification code going,
despite the earlier part of the paper directly quoting lots of
variability types to look good. And then a lot of them having : for
"possibly".
Yet on these usenet lists for two years many hours of robotic
telescope time have been spent posting about all his wonderful GRAS
work.
Well, that's a repeat statement. We hope if we repeat things enough
he understands them.
But no, it'll be "shall I debate" this and "shall I debate" that.
He has been shown and taught and advised by several, including now an
AAVSO VSX moderator who helped him put his stuff up there, how to do
these things.
I'm afraid you on the list that think he is a variable star expert and/
or connoisseur (however it's spelt) need a reality check.
After four years from OEJV 12 to eJAAVSO 96, no change.
I like this one, I repeat it a lot
http://stupendous.rit.edu/tass/mailarchive/2003-06/msg00147.html
now of course he can soon claim to be the greatest variable star
discoverer since Cuno Hoffmeister too.
Nope, there are still other amateurs who've found nearly as many
stars, all of them well listed, in IBVS as well as no name journals,
vast majority truly new when stated new (the occasional error or
hidden old variable will occur when obscure and old nonEnglish papers
are not available on the net, unlike the easily found FASTT paper) all
of them solved for periods and with phase plots and epochs, and very
different sorts of classifications and types. Very diverse and well
researched lists of new variables, from several people.
Often sporting an acknowledgement to assistance from John Greaves,
just like Nicholson often references John Greaves' work as a major
part of his methodology in many of his variable and double star
papers. Except when he think's John is asleep and won't notice Martin
Nutterson forgetting where he got his ideas from inbetween OEJV 35 and
eJAAVSO 96.
Well, the AAVSO people may have forgotten, but they were told, and
they've been reminded.
If these comments were not capable of being made about Nicholson's
papers they could not be made. When Nicholson will secretly write to
MNRAS editors to complain that data is wrong in a paper there and get
it all wrong because Nicholson doesn't understand proper motion work
he has to withdraw the complaint. Ask Professor Feast.
When Greaves points out demonstrable points about Nicholson's work
that can be verified it is debates on usenet, noises about unfair
harrassment and attacks on blogs wherein Nicholson engages on the very
unfair harrassment and attacks himself, and no answer as to why when
his AAVSO VSX stars are checked against B/VSX only entries for objects
predating his work appear for some handful of FASTT stars, and things
like that. According to the very wording of his paper, this should
not have happened.
He's been seen to go through this same pattern so many times before
some of us can't even be bothered to double check it. He doesn't
care. He'll just complain about Greaves' agenda.
Greaves, whose helped people, including indirectly Nicholson, do their
research and get published, whereas Nicholson is all about how many
new discoveries of whatever he has made because stuff the science, his
heart is that of a stamp and postcard collector, not a scientist.
I wonder if Nicholson has edited his pages yet to remove the reference
that John Greaves old email to aavso discussion is what gave him the
idea and "rationale" for his NSVS red variable work?
Not that Greaves did anything particularly clever or inventive, basic
simple stuff.
Actually, I dunno bother why I'm attempting to write this, oh yeah,
Nicholson uses these things to flood channels and uses "keywords" so
the google group archives pick it all up and then google searches pick
up his posts more frequently and higher ranked than the real
legitimate posts or the original posts carrying the facts and
information about his paper.
Hmmmm, excuse me a second
http://www.aavso.org/publications/ejaavso/ej96.shtml
eJAAVSO 96 by Martin Piers Nicholson
AAVSO VSX, entries claimed but not in AAVSO VSX, peer review.
I can't be bothered to just keep repeating the same keywords and full
names in every other paragraph like he does to try and disguise the
obvious tactic.
Nicholson's agenda? The praise and adulation of work Nicholsonian.
Closing question. Who posts to numerous mail lists and usenet groups
etc their papers and talks about them and links to them all the time
and who doesn't?
Should we link up tons of Greaves' papers and say they are great and
need reading? Hell no.
One or two might be of interest to give clues and ideas of how to go
about doing things, although not necessarily perfect tutorials on
said. That's how one or two get cited in the literature anyway, those
that do get cited.
But most of them are about specific stars, and will only ever likely
be read if someone doing some literature work searches online for
those stars for whatever reason comes across them, and at that time
those people will only give a shit about what is said about those
stars and whether it is any use to them and whether there are any
extra references to other papers about the star in the paper that they
may have missed, none of them will give a shit as to who wrote the
damn paper.
Finally, a comment to the Sierra Stars Observatory Network People, you
had better check dartcoventry is a real person and really exists. I
notice the MPC indices and MPECs only carry Martin Nicholson from
DART, not this mysterious Richard H who claims to be a dart member.
He's run groups he's set up before where some of the claimed members
were demonstrated to be him, or at least having their names used by
him, ask the folk at USNO or AAVSO or BAA, or join the Binary Stars
Uncensored group with a YAHOO ID and check their archives for people
like Eric Whiting or Varely or Scottish or Ian Hill Smith making posts
and comments on them. A couple of years ago now to be sure, but he's
cloned once.
Designed to Fail? Yes, isn't he.
Always strange he attacks others and damns them for doing things that
he himself used to regularly do several years ago, and in some
instances still does. He doesn't seem to understand that if it is
wrong for others to do things, according to him, then he condemns
himself too.
That's why some of us do to him what he has done to others nowadays,
but only some of it. None of us have tried to convince groups or
teams of anywhere official that we are multiple people.
Actually, most of us keep quiet and live a life of back stabbing
peace, it's me who cops all the shit and who he always thinks is
resonsible when something doesn't go his way.
But according to him I'm a useless nothing, so I don't know where I
get all this marvellous power from.
Oh, yes, I forgot. Him. His work is marvellous feed material for
showing he's a pseudoscientist, he can't even copycat properly most of
the time.
Oooops, I forget to sift in some keywords into that lot, let's see
http://www.aavso.org/publications/ejaavso/ej96.shtml
debate, Nicholson, Greaves, Uncatalogued Red Variables, eJAAVSO 96,
Martin Piers Nicholson. agenda. Did I miss any, Martin? Is this how
you do it?
You can try and act as reasonable sounding as you want, but when you
attack anybody you always get personal, and you always try your
damnedest to draw attention from the fact that your much vaunted works
have sodding gimongous holes in 'em. If they didn't none of us could
claim a damn thing about them.
Oops, forgot two, consecutive eclipses in cataclysmic variables OY
Carinae and Z Chamelaeontis, eJAAVSO 87 and eJAAVSO 92, must reads for
anyone capable of seeing if a paper actually says anything, let alone
shows what it claims.
Not even wrong.
http://www.aavso.org/publications/ejaavso/ej87.shtml
http://www.aavso.org/publications/ejaavso/ej92.shtml
There ya go, I'm getting people to read your papers, I'll likely be
more successful than you are at that. Didn't point a link to anyone's
papers but yours. I suppose you'll start complaining about that now.
To quote Wallace "One for the archives, eh, lad?"
badastrobuster
<Anonymous post but actually from John Greaves deleted>
Could this be the John Greaves who called hundreds of his own results
"totally spurious". Well yes it can. I'm surprised he has the time to
post anything with so many corrections to publish!
Why is he posting here? He is banned from virtually the entire on-line
hobby, that is why.