The Horsehead Project:

Updates and Late Developments in Our Research:
An Addendum

• Damned with Faint Praise:

My website articles in this Horsehead Project have been given their most extensive criticism to date by a very well respected amateur astronomer who is a frequent Internet contributor, having made thousands of posts to forums over the past several years. Generally, when attempts at scholarly work are criticized, it is normal for the author to respond, particularly in a case where analysis and conclusions must be defended, if no error has been documented.

My earlier reply "grew" over the course of a week or so into a long essay that I feared might make my readers' eyes glaze over. I felt that there were many broad issues involved in the criticism, and wanted to point out what I thought was a distinct pattern in my critic's prior attitudes and comments. I see that it is now necessary to organize this a little better or to risk having my opinions ignored, or at the very least to be judged as over-detailed and obscure. But, in concurrence with my astronomy-buff wife, Regina -- who agrees with me, since she's "been there" during the development of my work -- we share the conviction that some form of reply, no matter how flawed it might seem to some people, or how esoteric it and complicated it has become -- is entirely appropriate.

Despite the obvious fact that most amateur astronomers -- to judge from their posts and commentaries -- may find my attempts to argue with a sort of "Jesuitical thoroughness", and my Socratic reasoning, a bit odd and misplaced, I am university-trained to think and write that way. So, for me it's a natural style: apologies to those for whom it is off-putting and alien.

Main Topics:

My critic specializes, to judge from his reviews, posts, and his own large study, in using nebular filters in telescopes of medium to smallish aperture (he seems to have largely owned scopes of 10", 9.25", and 4" apertures), and he observes usually in the US midwest at a site that is much lower in altitude than author Waldee's locale on the Pacific coast. The reader of his former posts about viewing the Horsehead with small scopes might infer that Waldee and his associates in the 1989/90 Horsehead test had greater success with similar instruments. The critic suggests that the inclusion of the encouraging results of our Horshead test team and the primary author Waldee are inappropriate, and would cause "consternation" among certain people who would not be able to confirm these successful observations; furthermore he suggests that the thrust of the study's part that deals with visual observing is misguided, and that it should largely be eliminated, along with our critical comments about allegedly 'bad advice' given on the Internet.

My critic won't name me in his negative comments about this site, but that is not the reason I won't mention his identity specifically here. I don't appreciate the ease with which search engines attach all scraps of negative or questionable information to any particular individual. So I do not want THIS commentary to come up in a list of links associated with his name. His contribution to amateur astronomy has been overwhelmingly positive, and the personal opinions and replies -- here -- of one person do not negate that.

I perceive that my critic has, in his recent remarks complaining about the content of this website, merely fired the latest shot in a series of dismissive comments about me and my work, dating back at least two years. I explore why I feel that way, and explain what I've chosen to do about it, in light of his accepted position as an elite, well-informed astronomer.

Is the Horsehead Project aimed merely at ONE kind of reader: a hypothetical person, arguably defined by my critic, who uses a small telescope, with or without filters, to view faint nebulae? If so, who "speaks for that person" and defines what he or she can perceive? Is there only one way of expressing valid information about the process, and only one authority to whom we must look? Is narrowly-focused criticism -- which could be viewed as an intentional put-down, dismissal, and condescension -- overlooking the broad content, the historical panorama, and the objective facts covered by this investigation?

I argue that the hasty complaint first posted against this website by my critic back in 2005, which he follows with his more extensive demotion of its value now, illustrates that he is, essentially, oblivious to the total value of the research project. What positive effect has the Horsehead Project had on the astronomical community, professional and amateur? Is there any evidence of this? Furthermore, has any negative effect -- postulated by my critic -- come forth?

WHO will be caused the "consternation" that my critic ascribes as the result of my project? What is the nature of a "beginner"? What background and experience do I have in working with novices?

Can my critic's own work be subjected to analysis? It is appropriate to do so?

I am fascinated by underlying biases that are not always obvious, as one who studied and utilized findings about neurophysiology and neuropsychology in my professional work in acoustics, communications, and design; plus demographic analysis in producing radio programming and commercials. Starting with my university studies about propaganda via film, television, and advertising -- as well as polemics in literature -- I've looked for more than forty years at the nuances of the ways people express themselves, argue, and attempt to convince others. The more I investigate, the more I am convinced that the varieties of human cognitive processes are unappreciated by "reductionists".

These subjects will be dealt with, below, but not necessarily in exact order, as the themes are often interwoven and cross-coupled: bear with me. It is my hope to reply not in anger, or frustration, or with any feeling of affront: but with reason and analysis.

What this study is; how it came about; how it got on the net; and early reactions to it.

A few -- a very few -- criticisms of this website (complementing a few -- a very few -- citations that approved of it!) have appeared on the Net, mostly in forum discussions. I have decided to expand my reaction to the last one I found into a separate article, in order to explore some of the issues that have been brought up.

When the newsgroup sci.astro.amateur was first notified by me, as "AstroApp", on October 23, 2005, that my Horsehead Project website had now been posted on the Net -- one of the very few instances in which I have drawn attention to it, myself -- and later, in 2006, when my wife (with my assistance) cited my website in conjunction with an ASTRONOMY magazine article about the object -- we got some (to me) strange reactions. These website articles on the Horsehead are, to state the obvious, quite long. I estimate that it would take a diligent reader about two to three hours, or longer, to read through all of the essays; check the footnote citations and links to original Harvard documents; carefully absorb the details of the pictures, photos, and charts; and then perhaps a longer period of time to appreciate the nature of this content.

The essays were NOT written like those in a typical newpaper or popular article, with a very short, breezy, superficial summary at the top, followed by more detailed stuff buried at the end. They aren't flashy or fancy, and the pictures are poor, largely monochrome, and reconstructed from a bad photocopy of the one extant surviving original in my possession, augmented by some later material I've added in the last two years. This explains why, I suspect, that the counter data for the main index page signifies a rather high "one time" hit rate, and a very low return rate. The website is detail-intensive, and intellectual. It's not "fun" and not beautiful and modernistic.

These articles were based on a serious attempt, as an amateur science historian working under the supervision of Dr. Donald E. Osterbrock of Lick Observatory, to research the first sources of the published history of the Horsehead, and as such have presented much information that had not been reprinted since 1895. Along the way, it brought to light an important correction of virtually all subsequent "popular" astronomy articles and observing guides with respect to the actual historical discoverer of the object, on Harvard plates, and Harvard's OWN acknowledgment of this in their Annals. The first sources, and data provided to Dr. J. Dreyer, compiler of the Index Catalogue and earlier NGC, demonstrate that the Director of Harvard College Observatory honestly and completely identified the first observer -- Mrs. Williamina Fleming -- of numerous nebulae (including the identification of the Horsehead); but that Dr. Dreyer chose (for some reason) to CHANGE these attributions, awarding them instead to "Pickering" (which many subsequent readers assumed to mean E. C. or W. Pickering, depending on their taste or whim!) Furthermore, the Horsehead was not recognized by most astronomers until some years later, when its popular name arose; by then, Mrs. Fleming's identification of it, and William Pickering's very prescient suggestion that it was a dark nebula, had apparently been forgotten: thus, articles and books that appeared later in the 20th century either extrapolate that the object was discovered by Edward Pickering (or perhaps Isaac Roberts or Edward Barnard); or evade the issue altogether.

When I requested information about the original photographs, and brought the fact of Mrs. Fleming's discovery to the attention of Dr. Martha Hazen, the now-retired director of the historical photographic archives at Harvard College Observatory, she considered it to be VERY important. After confirming this and researching it further, Dr. Hazen then requested that I prepare for her a "slideshow talk" about the first photos of the Horsehead, including pictures from the Harvard archives, which she gave, on my behalf, at the Cambridge convention of the ASP in 1990. I cite links to this in the prior section of my "Update" page.

Yet, the amateurs who read sci.astro.amateur newsgroup seemed oblivious to this important, buried, historical fact; so when I put the page up and mentioned it on the group, I got bizarre reactions from some of them at this time, and later -- when I cited a mistake in an ASTRONOMY Magazine article about the discoverer of the nebula, in a post I made on 1 November 2006. At that time, a person identified only by an initial, and previously unknown to me, bloviated that while it would be important to know who invented a horse shoe nail, the discoverer of the Horsehead was not significant or "crucial." But, since I was not unfamiliar with the anarchistic behavior of usenet trolls, this did not annoy me very much (though I had to sigh...)

My "critic" first speaks out

However, one very early reaction to my first announcement, in 2005, came from a highly dedicated, superbly gifted, and tirelessly energetic amateur observer, one of the most frequently encountered contributors to astronomy forums, and a valued member of the community. His "critique" came 66 minutes after my announcement of the Horsehead Project site; it's a virtual certainty he had never seen it before, and made the very first comment about it. He opined that while it was "not a bad page" that it would cause "a lot of consternation from people who try it with the smaller scopes and fail." His entire "criticism" in fact centered around one small segment of the huge research project, just a few paragraphs, out of tens of thousands of words, which -- to me -- suggests that he might have skipped virtually ALL of the content of the website, zeroing in on only one tiny aspect of it; and then rushed to criticize it.

I do not mention his name here not out of disrespect for this admirable person (though I must say that he seems, now, rather coyly to skirt the issue of identifying ME specifically.) I refrain from giving his name here because I don't want this commentary "attached" to him via search engines. It would pain me to think that anything negative about him turns up in a list of links, since he's made such a positive contribution to amateur astronomy.

I've had my own frustrations about the same phenomenon, regarding searches for information about me. There are some posts on usenet about ME that are false, exaggerated, and frankly scurrilous: done years ago by disaffected rivals and competitors of mine in the broadcast industry, as an attempt to embarrass me. I know who these people are, and have contacted at least one of them, correcting him, and he promised to see that the post would be withdrawn. But he never did that. In the newsgroup sci.astro.amateur I was once "exposed" (allegedly) by a certain person who became upset during an exchange we had about the differences between refractors and reflectors. He took trouble to identify me by name, and posted that I was a "fraud who never owned a telescope." Another person -- a professor at a midwestern university -- posted unfair and totally incorrect criticism of my program "Eyepiece"; he claimed I misrepresented information about nebular filters. According to a service representative at Lumicon, he called that company shortly after "exposing the mistake" on usenet; but Lumicon told him that HE was wrong, not Waldee. Lumicon backed me up: indeed, they would, because the information in my program, and the data used, were supplied to me by my friend Dr. Jack Marling, FOUNDER of Lumicon! This professor never posted an apology or correction nor an acknowledgment that he had accused me of this egregious mistake in error.

So, with this background under my belt, I do NOT wish to have any (even the mildest) objections to my worthy and respectable critic picked up by search engines and attached to his name, to show up in a list of links about and by him. By following the link I give below to his remarks, you can ascertain his identity. I would like, here, to extend my personal statement of respect to him; he has a right to his opinions. His huge, worthwhile contribution to amateur astronomy warrants this.

That being said, I believe he should be answered; and I have done my best to do so.

I seem to perceive an arguable pattern of behavior by my critic, of repeatedly dismissing my ideas and discouraging others from considering or accepting them.

As background information, I believe it is important to mention "my side" of an account of our previous history. When this gentleman criticized various posts of mine, I attempted to contact him, collegially, to strike up a correspondence friendship and mutually beneficial dialogue, off the Net. He never replied to at least four emails I sent him. (One reply did come, to my shock and surprise, some 16 months later to one of my messages, and it was very friendly, collegial, and satisfying.) So, for a period of a year and a half, I had an impression -- since my personal messages to him seemed to be ignored -- that he was only willing to address me impersonally on the Net, as a critic of my comments.

And criticize me he did! When I posted to the Cloudy Nights forum about computerized telescopes what I thought was a helpful reply to someone who was having trouble with the accuracy of his GOTO instrument, I offered the URL to my article on how I had mastered and fine-tuned my setup, and some comments about the inaccuracies I discovered. This seemed, arguably, not appreciated at all by my 'critic' who commented that, in effect, the problems I was having were unlikely and not representative of him or other users of such telescopes: it was a non-problem. Yet, I subsequently found a similar, though much understated, comment he made on another forum, in which he talked tangentially about the inaccuracies of the pointing of his own GOTO scope with certain objects, when used with his laptop: and that at least one object attempted was positioned at the edge of a low power field -- which surprised him as actually being successfully visible (if I am doing him justice and summarizing his remarks correctly.) This suggested to me that we were not as far apart as his prior criticism of me had implied. Then, at last, I found that in the early months of 2008 he posted a study of his own GOTO scope's pointing errors: and actually cited his experiences of errors that corroborated the ones I'd complained about, and which he'd dismissed as being inconsequential, back in 2006! Yet, he made no reference whatsoever to the older post, and my online article, that corroborated HIS measurements.

When my wife posted notification to sci.astro.amateur that I had written an article discussing the difficulties of getting adequate long-term power for my C-11 telescope and laptop, many of the comments disagreed with me strongly (though no one apparently took the trouble to read my article.) My 'critic' seemed to be among those, as he remarked -- along with many other people who disagreed with my expression of problems with the capacity of small batteries -- that like them, he had no trouble with his (unspecified) 18AH battery (which turned out to be functionally almost identical to ones I'd tried, and that would not last through my observing sessions.) I immediately wrote him a friendly letter, asking if he would provide the exact make of battery, so that I could try one...and got absolutely no answer. None came -- for sixteen months. Finally he did reply, with the information, and confirmed that (a) I had a battery that was exactly equivalent in rating and cost, and it did not last through MY long sessions; and (b) his typical observing sessions are about half as long as mine when I take the trouble to set up my C-11. Furthermore (c) he confirmed that he does have to use a separate battery for his computer. In effect, he illustrated that, once again, he had no real difference of opinion, expressed privately, though I felt that he'd implied otherwise, publicly.

So, why 'warn' people in effect that my remarks are out of line? Giving him the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he is being absolutely sincere, honest, and helpful, I believe it could be because he fears that, in my words, 'beginners might be misled'. I tend to write for my own peers: people who have long experience with scopes, and are well beyond the tyro level in using star charts and resources, and doing deep sky observing. I don't focus or limit myself to 'beginners' and try to instruct them, at the expense of ignoring the thousands of amateurs who have been at this hobby for years and decades. I believe, in examining his posts to at least one prominent forum, that he specializes in beginner-level instruction and advice: and that's admirable.

The difficulty I have with this is, in respect to MY occasional contributions to such forums, I wonder if it is appropriate, constructive, and necessary to -- in effect, my word -- 'warn' people away from my opinions? Is it desirable for every dedicated, experienced, intensely involved amateur to write ONLY to absolute beginners and never talk about techniques that are 'over their heads'? I do not believe so; and I don't intend to do that.

My critic may indeed NOT feel that way. I don't say that I know he does. I don't have any way to claim to know what's in his mind; what his private, personal motivations and attitudes are; and to judge them in any way. I speak here of my personal impressions of the effect of his criticisms on MY contributions, and how I reacted to them. Frankly: I do not appreciate these inevitable warnings and caveats, because I am primarily of an academic, experimental turn of mind, and am interested in original work, cutting-edge stuff, and pushing the limits.

For example: in my own case, I demand a GOTO scope that places itself no further away than a window of about 6 to 8 arcminutes from the center of an object I am looking for: because I bought such a scope, based on the authority of an experienced salesman I trusted, in order to DO JUST THAT. I look for faint planetary nebulae that are maybe a few arcseconds to 1 arcminute in diameter, around 14-16th magnitude. If the telescope places itself twenty or thirty minutes away from the center of that nebula, I probably can't find it. I researched the issue, consulted the experts, and determined that my telescope, for instance, has a theoretical positional resolution of 2 minutes. By fine tuning my setup, optimizing my scope interface and drivers, and finessing my star alignment, I can often achieve accuracy of 4 minutes -- or better! But, no one on the Net had organized a systematic explanation of how to do that; I had to piece together cryptic and unrelated facts, and figure out the total solution myself. My critic was utterly unmoved by my efforts -- presumably (I suspect; putting words into his head!) because it was 'out of place in a reply to a beginner'.

He argued that such errors were "normal" and "OK" and that "things are very probably working about as they should" and that "it is what most people will see" as a permissible, largest acceptable error. He spoke for OTHERS, but without offering any evidence of his assertions, providing no surveys; no industry findings; no magazine reviews, studies, or metastudies: NO independent sources to back up his opinion of what is expected by purchasers of such telescopes.

Now, the utility of an astronomy forum is that EVERYBODY CAN READ EVERY THREAD, no matter what their skill level might be. So I -- a fairly experienced amateur -- often consult "beginner threads" because they frequently contain interesting and even unique information due to what has been commonly called "thread creep": the comments that accrue meander around the strict topic. I can't begin to recall all of the times I have benefitted from a beginner thread, as a much more advanced observer.

So, 'warning' people -- and me -- that my comments are out of context, inappropriate, irrelevant, over the head of the OP (original poster) or somehow far-out, is really, for all practical purposes, an attempt at censorship and discouragement, when all is said and done: especially when the negative comments are given in a magisterial tone, as if from 'the qualified judge' who makes universally applicable rulings on such matters (the tone that -- in my opinion -- this writer arguably employs from time to time.) I took my critic's remarks as such -- and did not post any more on those forums. I decided that since my contributions would be taken apart and criticized as being, somehow, irrelevant by such an august, distinguished person, I'd "save him the trouble" and not draw attention to myself this way. I figured that it was better (and certainly easier on my psyche and state of mind!) to keep them here, on my website, and not mention them elsewhere.

My one deviation in the past several years from self-imposed restriction has occurred recently, in June 2008, on a Cloudy Nights forum, when I came to the defense of my friend and research colleague Lt. Col. J. Saloranta of Finland. (Please bear with me; this is a very detailed and complex series of events.)

In a thread titled "What's the faintest star you've ever seen?" on the Cloudy Nights deep sky observing forum, Saloranta explained that on a recent trip to the world-class high altitude observing site of the Norwegian Optical Telescope at La Palma, Spain, he had detected a 15th magnitude star near M-97, with a 4.7 inch aperture refractor scope; there was in fact a drawing of this observation on his website (found here.)

My adversary insisted repeatedly that Jake DID NOT and could not see a faint 15th magnitude star using a 120 mm aperture scope. First: he asserted that Saloranta did not use a proper star catalogue to determine its value; and second, it was allegedly impossible to accomplish: the star was too faint. My critic had TESTED IT: using a 91 mm scope aperture stop on a 10 inch reflector scope, and 'scaling' the figures derived; he stated categorically that it was IMPOSSIBLE. Note that he did not use a fully-coated refractor objective; he passed the light through an aperture of 91 mm across two mirrors of unknown efficiency: a telescope with a smaller aperture than Jake's, and a different optical design (and therefore, likely a different efficiency.)

Evidence was given by me, following advice I received specifically from an editor and authority at Sky & Telescope magazine for determining from the NOMAD survey the best photometric measurement and derived visual magnitude value of that star's brightness. Using the Aladin applet, I employed the POSS-II plate and superimposed the NOMAD survey data, and isolated and identified Jake's faint star, and made a screen "dump" that showed the Vmag: yes, the star was 15.03 magnitude. You may see this image by clicking here. My critic dismissed that; furthermore he made a much larger objection, asserting that the entire NOMAD survey wasn't useful, suitable, or appropriate, and that its data weren't acceptable. The physicist at Sky & Telescope disagreed, privately supplying me with NOMAD's own explanation, which states that "The primary aim of NOMAD is to help users retrieve the best currently available astrometric data for any star in the sky by providing these data in one place" (my emphasis added in bold.) At least this one S&T editor regards its visual magnitude ratings as reliable.

In that forum discussion of my friend's claim, the survey measurement that backed up Jake Saloranta was also accepted by an extremely authoritative Arizona astronomer who once worked at Lowell Observatory on a professional survey program. Yet, my "critic" continued to reject those data.

An observer from Spain said he'd also seen a star that faint through HIS own 4.5" scope; and another user cited research of professional astronomers Bradley Schaeffer and Roger Clark that shows that a star that faint HAS in fact been observed with an even smaller telescope aperture; but my critic (in my view) stubbornly refused to acknowledge these citations.

The Arizona astronomer (formerly with Lowell Observatory) found that the star's magnitude was confirmed using the Sloan photometric survey: Saloranta was essentially right. My "critic" was unmoved. Finally, I attempted to summarize thoroughly all of these step-by-step developments, and to ask my "critic" to explain how exactly HE had done his non-comparable and vaguely described test with a DIFFERENT TYPE AND APERTURE of telescope. I also asked him to describe his bona fides in relation to his qualification to criticize and dismiss an important professional sky survey data-collection program like the U. S. Naval Observatory's NOMAD, and to list his CV. (As far as I have been able to determine, he is an amateur astronomer who lives in a small town in Nebraska; but in the community of amateur observers he has outstanding capabilities and has posted many accepted observations and articles. But these were not published in professional peer-reviewed journals of astronomy; nor does he appear to have a postgraduate degree in astronomy, nor to have been employed professionally at any major institution's observatory -- aside from his contributions as an amateur to his astronomy club's all-volunteer Hyde Observatory, which is sited near a gold course in Lincoln, Nebraska, and utilizes a 14 inch scope. I am sure this is a fine institution, but it is NOT equivalent (say) to the U. S. Naval Observatory, or Palomar and the Carnegie Institution, or the Hubble Space Science Telescope Institute, not to mention Lick Observatory (where my wife and I have both been volunteers for years, and where I've given lectures to guests on Mt. Hamilton and in the astronomy department of UC/Santa Cruz.)

What happened when I attempted to pin him down and to try to make a factual determination, based not on "opinion" or "assertions" or only vaguely-described, dissimilar tests?

MY POST ASKING FOR A RESPONSE FROM MY CRITIC WAS IMMEDIATELY CENSORED AND DELETED, and another one I made in the discussion thread was removed, too!  I was told by the forum moderator that I must drop the entire subject and not make any further contributions to that discussion thread. Perhaps you might be interested in seeing that post, which may be found here.

On that forum, I (and my Horsehead website and research) can be criticized, and objections can be made to almost anything that I say; but I cannot respond and ask for facts and qualifications and details to explain and back up a critic's opinions.

Update, 6.18.08:  I was surprised to see that after MY attempt to rebut my Horsehead critic's dismissal of Saloranta was censored, the critic HIMSELF seems to have backed off. Above, I describe how (in my opinion) he argued, presented very little in the way of comparable facts, and cast broadsides against Mr. Saloranta and most attempts by me and others to present corroborative analysis. But now he posts, a few days later, THIS amazing statement (the original URL is here on the Yahoo technical group "Amastro" for amateur astronomers):

...It can be difficult to conclusively prove an observation is "impossible". I almost patently dismissed a recent observation on Cloudynights claiming to see a 15th magnitude star near M97 in a 4.7 inch aperture, yet after some discussion, such a limit (while probably not routinely possible) may not be quite as unreasonable as one might think. Oh, I am fairly sure I can't do it from my local dark sky site with my 50+ year old eyes (I doubt I would pass magnitude 14.1 with such an aperture), but perhaps someone at a higher altitude in pristine skies with very sensitive eyes might possibly do it. ...

For a long time I've had an attitude of "live and let live" and not to try to rebut everything I disagree with, as comments of mine like those I mention above have drawn intense objections from two or three people. I always have a reply or explanation in mind which probably can successfully rebut them -- or at the very least give a friendly rejoinder and explanation -- but I've learned that today's Usenet and forum contributors tend to be pretty much wound up and deeply invested in their points of view (and the argument about Saloranta's competence and veracity illustrates this fact.) Since my attempts over the last decade -- in classical music and astronomy newsgroups -- have illustrated forcefully to me that sometimes I am somewhat on the edge of a given continuum of contributors, maybe taking a position that few have espoused or that is slightly unorthodox, I have learned that I am not very "mainstream". This, I'd suggest (perhaps unfairly ascribing a motive to my critic -- but one that I've intuited strongly) is the reason he is highly dubious about my contributions and discussions. I believe he is probably more comfortable with a mainstream approach, or one that is quite close to his wisely intelligent and (usually) thoroughly reliable points of view.

Unfortunately, in my case, this has an enormously discouraging effect. If an "expert" who is so tireless in his extending a helping hand to beginners, warns people away from my ideas, I take note of this and definitely respond to it by adjusting my behavior. Maybe I am a bit 'extreme' or unorthodox. Perhaps I do take unpopular positions. It may be entirely appropriate to point this out and put it into context; but by doing so in what I perceive as an unconstructive, unappreciative, hypercritical fashion, I find myself feeling justifiably frustrated and thwarted and discouraged.

And, over what issues? Over the very ones that I have tried hardest to explore, and about which to determine as carefully as possible the facts and experiences as accurately as possible, from my point of view.

Then, if I am discouraged, dismissed, condescended to, and warned away, it's not possible for other dedicated, careful investigators -- who encroach on the "territory" of the helpful experts with their more mainstream approach -- to express themselves without running a gauntlet of what, to them, seems like pathological criticism.

There is another possibility, though I consider it conjectural or merely speculative rather than proved: that these efforts at discouragement and dismissal (which I have begun to suspect are consistent) are not necessarily sincere, being based entirely on disagreements about specifics. There could be something submerged, and personal, that I dearly hope that I haven't had a direct part in influencing or engendering.

While searching for explanations of the alleged animus toward me that I have tended to perceive, I thought of an analogous situation; at the risk of having some skeptical and unsympathetic readers feel that I am now acting like a "victim" or asserting I've been persecuted -- not so; many of us avid forum and newsgroup users have been subjected to similar treatments at the hands of angry people -- I offer the following anecdote and example.

I used to be the webmaster for a famous classical music record producer, who specialized in restoring old records of famous artists. I tried on his website, and also in some posts to the newsgroup <rec.music.classical.recordings>, to explain my own point of view about how to deal with old, deficient records made nearly a century ago: how creative use of equalization, noise reduction, and even ambience enhancement -- supervised by a skilled musician who understood the art form as a participant -- could make these sometimes unpleasant sounding records palatable to the younger audience, or to non-specialists, who had not imprinted on the sounds of scratchy 78s.

But, I was denounced by a famous east coast record producer, who -- himself -- also did such work, as an occasional "competitor" to the friend whose website I supervised. On the newsgroup the "competitor" engineer called me a "manure spreader" and in effect a liar and fraud: because I allegedly had bad ideas, similar to those of my close associate. When I pointed out that I had never criticized his "competitive" colleague's work but had, in fact, complimented it extensively -- even on my friend's (his competitor's) website in numerous articles and reviews -- the stunning reply was given, addressed to OTHERS, not to me, that I was in fact so ignorant that praise for the 'competing' engineer/producer could only be incompetent, inappropriate, and insincere!  If I had offered praise for the "competitor", it was utterly ignorant and worthless.

Finally, I wrote this well-known gentleman a long personal letter (I had just about as much trouble contacting him directly as I've had in trying to exchange emails with my astronomical critic), in which I tried to be conciliatory and assure him that I'd look for, and correct, ANY errors of fact he found in my websites and posts. I conveyed my own appreciation for his outstanding work. I received no answer. I then had a musicological expert help me look through my websites, and we found four specific errors, including one wrong listing of a radio station call letter, and probably a mistaken date. That was the extent of my "manure spreading".

Not surprisingly, this same producer did almost the same pattern of attack on yet ANOTHER person, a well known author and critic who had written a scholarly book about a famous conductor: dismissing his entire work because a pair of concert dates had been tranposed in one list at the end. After this grotesque experience, I gave up posting on RMCR. Is this situation regarding my 'consternation-causing' Horsehead website in any way a parallel?

Who are the beginners or Horsehead novices that I would mislead? What qualifications and experience do I have that makes my work appropriate, or inappropriate, for novices?

My critic has focused almost entirely in his negative reactions to me on the 'effect' my ideas would have on unidentified, allegedly hypothetical persons: presumably novices. Such persons might be misled by my team's evidence on the visibility of the Horsehead in a small scope; or by my opinions about the accuracy of GOTO instruments; or my ideas about scope and laptop batteries. These allegedly deficient and arguably non-universal and uncorroborated, far out, notions have to be "corrected" lest people be misled by them. But: is there general truth to this; and who, specifically, is harmed?

Obviously, I do not harm MY CRITIC. He has his own skills and abilities to see faint nebulae and to use filters; he is not misled. He has his own definite practical ideas about GOTO scopes and power supplies, and I don't suggest that they are wrong, or even need to be critiqued or related to any spurious claims of absolute truth, irrespective of individual need.

I do not have any evidence -- at present -- that any person has honestly published a post that says, "Boy, that Waldee guy has sure wasted my time: he is making all kinds of claims for the Horsehead that I can't verify!" Even if such a statement had ever been given anywhere -- and isn't now 'manufactured' in response, by a troll -- one could safely take it as merely one data point, one personal reaction, and nothing deeply significant. It must, if credible, be figured in context with the many reports by observers who have succeeded, and which I document in this and the previous Update page. ONE person and her eyes and perceptions does not PROVE anything with certainty, with respect to what can be seen by a larger group of people. If that person's test is thoroughly documented -- along with every aspect of her prior skills, as well as the sky conditions and optics, date and time, and comparable experience with other similar objects -- then it has somewhat greater anecdotal weight. If many more do the same diligent, accurate, well-documented report in the negative, the weight of argument against my team's (and other observers') successful reports starts to accumulate. So far, I don't see any evidence of this, aside from the arguably HYPOTHETICAL speculations of my critic.

My work does not come out of a complete vacuum from somebody who hasn't striven, before, to help novices. My computer program "Eyepiece" was conceived, at first, to help novice telescope customers (as I explain in my "FAQ" article on the Eyepiece website.) My wife and I have both been volunteers for public outreach programs by Lick Observatory (she supervised the "Music of the Spheres" concerts for years), and Regina has assisted me in putting together our Beginners' Pages for amateur astronomers. We both operate a home business teaching piano to beginners, largely children; and my wife is a recognized expert on pedagogy that specializes in the instruction of children. I would claim that it is NOT an "argument by authority" fallacy to explain that she has indeed studied widely and published her own work related to this educational specialty, and that her informed position has assisted me greatly in crafting my own articles. Some of our own husband-wife astronomy activities have, over the years, been related to the introduction of astronomy to children.

Furthermore, ASTRONOMICAL NOVICES ARE NOT NECESSARILY CHILDREN OR YOUNG PERSONS; and they are not necessarily unsophisticated. As a long-time telescope and astro products salesman, I recognize that many adults 'come back' to astronomy in their later years, after a long hiatus in which their childhood fascination has gone dormant. A surprisingly large number of the ones I've met have been scientists or engineers. Thus, we frequently find 'beginner astro-imaging websites' and 'beginner astro observing blogs' that (frankly) astonish and amaze some old-timers. I'd assert that a significant number of readers of astronomy forums, among the obviously non-elite dedicated lifelong telescope observers, are very well versed in science and technology, and exercise their own critical eye in taking in, and using, information and suggestions. They aren't ALL just wide-eyed naifs who haven't a clue about anything. An adult who has been exposed deeply to the Internet for a decade must, by now, have learned how to sift information.

How fair is it for me to analyze and point out what I believe are weaknesses of my critic's own work?

The gentleman who has taken me to task, repeatedly but subtly, has done his OWN large and personal research project. He has publicized it, and sent it to a number of websites for their inclusion as a resource. I read it with very heightened interest and fascination, and was initially very pleased with it. It seemed to me to be an admirable accomplishment.

But, after about six re-readings, and discussion with one of my deep sky observing correspondents, I had second thoughts and reservations. I became troubled by the arguable generalizations; and especially by the use of the individual findings as recommendations to beginners. You see, years ago I tried to do the same thing, to help beginners and answer their specific questions, on s.a.a., using the calculations of my (then-new) program "Eyepiece". But I was taken to task by some advanced observers who asserted that my program's findings and recommendations were overly simplistic. A few vocal and very "commercially protective" contributors to that forum objected when I mentioned (in any way) my amazingly cheap and affordable software -- free in the versions I publicized on the forum -- and accused me ot "abusing" the newsgroup. Unlike many regular and voluminous contributors, who market star chart programs costing $150 (and even offer no trial versions), I was giving away a shareware edition with NO time restrictions and no need to register; yet I was accused of abuse by mentioning it, and using its calculations to answer questions about object visibility, and eyepiece specs. So I stopped doing that. Now that I give away the program, there can be no cause of objections if I mention it on s.a.a.; but I refrain from doing so, in order not to "annoy" some people.

Now my 'critic' has no commercial interest in anything related to his project; has done it as a labor of love; and has generously offered it as a resource that all can use at no obligation. He cannot in any way be criticized for this. What I DO feel uncomforable about -- very slightly -- comes from my own "at the edge" perspective, as a person who, working as a consultant to an astronomy manufacturer and distributor, did his own complicated double-blind test, more than fifteen years ago, in the same area of investigation. And, sadly, I collected a very different set of data, and drew greatly different conclusions from it than has my 'critic' via his own project. The test that my team (consisting of myself; an industrial manager; and a trained amateur science historian and advanced observer) devised used double-blind techniques and limited controls, with a total of four observers. We didn't come up with anything like the unanimity of results that have been reported in this later, well-known and widely publicized amateur study. When I tried to analyze the differences, I found that I could not "falsify" his results because very little specific technical information was given that could be related to each data point, in order to duplicate the environment of the test. There were so many other disparities that, as an intellectual exercise, and to help me recall the work I had done earlier, I fashioned a very thorough analysis of what I thought about his work, compared to our earlier study. I did this out of respect for his total commitment and dynamic energy as a motivated amateur observer, in order to learn from it myself, and to help me to quantify and articulate the differences that two entirely separate individual amateur observers might consider essential, or trivial, in controlling and documenting visual observations.

Rather than post this to the same media as a "peer review" of his paper (an option available on the main site at which it was published), or as a personal challenge -- giving my analysis undo importance -- I held it to myself, lest it be considered "pathological, negative criticism" or a "personal attack". Finally, after much worry, I decided to share it very quietly. I made it accessible by means of one tiny footnote link in one article on my website, adding my own sincere compliments and thanks to my 'critic' for stimulating me to do the investigation, and with an appreciation of his wonderful contributions to amateur reportage. To give you an idea of how that was expressed, in addition to many other statements of praise throughout the article, I added at the end:

I would like to express my personal appreciation to ... for the quality of his observing reports, and his informative posts and articles. He has very significantly raised the bar and, in recent years, has greatly improved the discussions of amateur astronomy's many issues.

Furthermore, I included many qualifications with respect to my judgments, as well as acknowledgment of the shortcomings of my own extant documentation -- incomplete now, years after I had done my own private, unpublished work for an astronomy products company -- and an admission that the 'character' and significance of his study, vis-a-vis a true falsifiable scientific test, could only be intuited via some inferences from the author's own posted forum remarks. In other words, I allowed that his study was not necessarily intended to be the type of research project that mine had been. I also analyzed what I perceived as differences between a falsifiable scientific, controlled study, and accounts of anecdotal personal tests, without weighing the former's relevance to amateurs too heavily or moralizing about the comparative scientific weakness of the latter.

I put a 'hidden' counter on the page, and determined that it had been accessed perhaps only about a half-dozen times, aside from my viewing it with my own computers. I finally decided, in light of this entire contretemps about MY website, to take it away entirely, spurred on because my Horsehead website was twice "knocked off the Net" this winter and early spring, due to exceeding the limits for downloads of personal webpages imposed by my ISP, Earthlink.

Note please that I did not POST this analysis to an interactive forum, draw attention to it, or link to it in any other manner. I was torn between my own desire to explore the subject, and to avoid appearing to be a "pathological critic" of another, worthy, respectable amateur astronomy contributor. But I thought that since I had clarified in my own mind our many divergences of opinion and judgment about observing, that it was possible -- and not disrespectful-- to articulate them fairly (if done in the very lowest-key manner I could manage, bearing in mind his dedication while appreciating the approval his work had received.)

For several months, because of the circumstances just mentioned, I had decided to take it down and probably NOT ever to release it again, anywhere; I vacillated, and once reposted it for a few weeks: so it's been on and off my website, mentioned only by means of one rather obscure link. To my surprise, recently in June of 2008 I found that my critic's article about filter comparisons has been revised and improved, satisfying many of my former criticisms in large part (though some of my secondary objections might still stand); the result however is comparatively exemplary and I applaud the improvements. At present, I find no point in continuing to offer my long and arguably very boring analytical essay on the limitations of various ways of testing nebular filters, so I have taken it off to free up space for more of my observing articles.

Despite having done a comparative analysis that satisfied my own intellectual curiosity, and in my opinion quite exhaustively examined the differences that 'my critic' and I have with respect to hermeneutics, I realize that his work has been appreciated, and greatly praised (one user saying he deserved an award for it), and is very well accepted. It surely is now much more influential than any analysis and objections I might have -- from my "far out" point of view.

Note also that I did not do this analysis in haste or anger, and did not post that commentary (even so quietly) until a long period of time elapsed after I had recovered from the feelings of having been suppressed and censored by my critic, and certain others, who have made it very clear that they 'don't approve' of my general orientation to the hobby, or my specific points of view. It was, then, a "last attempt to understand and then explain the differences" and to articulate my own perspective. But, since it is very definitely "over the head" of beginning observers and dilettantes, it is almost entirely irrelevant to the world of typical amateur astronomers. Therefore, I don't want what I first put together last year to be viewed -- mistakenly -- as a recent venting or harsh, personal, and entirely negative and unprecedented attack on a remarkably skilled, articulate amateur astronomer: as it might be perceived by certain persons who did not appreciate the nuances, or know my long-standing ideas, or indeed understand very much about me as a person.

Evidence about the practical results of my Horsehead Project findings

My critic found in his arguably very hasty (and I'd argue incomplete and ill-considered) finding that while my website was "not a bad page" that it could cause much "consternation" among certain hypothetical persons, who would therefore be wasting their time in a futile attempt to corroborate my team's observing results. I'd argue that this is a way to dismiss the project, inappropriately, narrowly, and without regard to the value it might have to OTHER persons. The website's large scope goes way beyond merely using a certain filter or small telescope to view the nebula by eye. My critic never apparently revised that opinion, which he repeats and embellishes in 2008. But, what do others think?

I have received compliments and endorsements that occasionally pop up in unexpected places, even from other amateur astronomers who might be forgiven for sometimes being a bit "competitive" (as visual astronomy is really more of an astronomical sport than a science, all in all.) And, some persons are more interested in the history and astrophysics of the Horsehead, rather than testing its view with a filter. I have documented a few instances of this in my related Update page, citing the recommendations of the advanced amateur astronomer and observing authority Dave Mitsky. The west coast amateur astronomer Matthew Ota (observer, astrophotographer, and contributor to the Mt. Wilson Observatory Telescopes In Education program), has called it "A very extensive web page and research project" and has added his appreciation for our historical work giving Mrs. Fleming her due credit: "The female contribution to astronomy cannot be ignored and is most important. Half of the astronomers that I work with are female".

Computer scientist and educator Brian Tung has said "...the site looks awesome. I just started browsing it, but it looks to be chock full of astro goodness. My commendations on a most useful resource. It might just inspire me to take the 10-inch out on my next dark-sky foray and hunt down B33." Jaakko Saloranta a remarkably skilled observer who has posted thousands of accurate drawings of celestial objects, includes the link to it via my main webpage portal in his list of "The Best Deep Sky Sites on the Internet", above -- I blush to add! -- that of the famed astrophotographer Robert Gendler, and in company with such outstanding services as Messier45.com, the NGC/IC Project, and The STScI Digitized Sky Survey; and he has offered me, personally, great assistance in answering queries I've had about many obscure objects; I've recently come to regard him as a reliable collaborator and advisor, and I know that he and his viewing associate Iiro Sairanen have had their own interest in the Horsehead somewhat heightened by my investigations.

There can be no greater evidence of approval than the cooperation I've received from the distinguished American astrophotographer Chuck Vaughn, who has seen my talk on the Horsehead nebula and has graciously permitted me to include his masterwork as the cover page image of this site; he says "I think it's well known that experienced observers are able to see more than non experienced observers. It's a learned and practiced skill like anything else. Good luck with your quest to see these very faint nebulae."

The distinguished Sky & Telescope monthly columnist (writer of "Deep Sky Wonders"), Sue French, has recently written to bring to my attention the fact that my Horsehead research has been mentioned in the Yahoo technical group "Amastro" for advanced observers. Brian Skiff, a professonal astronomer from Lowell Observatory, notified the group (two years before this Horsehead website was on the Net) that my work has been included as a citation in a professional paper by Pound, Reipurth, and Bally (discussed in detail in this Update page section). Brian was interested indeed to find that "...This seems to be another well-known deep-sky object usually attributed to a man that was in fact discovered...by a woman". Sue also discovered that the very dedicated and experienced amateur observer Kent Wallace has mentioned it, too; and cited me by name, along with Dr. Martha Hazen. It was, in fact, the encouragement of Dr. Hazen to put the original 1990 papers onto the net that ultimately yielded "The Horsehead Project" website.

I haven't been given permission to quote a personal letter -- nor have I specifically sought it -- but I can safely paraphrase that a prominent astronomy professor has complimented me on this website, and uses parts of it in some of his lectures. And, the daughter of the late famed astrophysicist, researcher, and writer Dr. Donald Osterbrock -- my mentor in the development of the Horsehead Project -- has conveyed her family's deepest appreciation for the biographical reminiscences I've presented here about this renowned astronomer.

Needless to say: none of these citations includes any specific objections that confirm the complaints of my critic.

As to the alleged irrelevance and 'weakening effect' of my partial focus of interest on observing the nebula with a small scope, it is apparent that Sue French might tend not to agree with that, for she also wrote that she has taken the trouble to try it in a small scope, too:

Yes, I've seen the Horsehead in my [4.1" aperture Astro Physics] Traveler at the Winter Star Party (13mm & 9mm Naglers + Hβ). It was just a little, dark bump sticking into the emission nebula. Joe Bergeron was set up next to me, and saw it as well. He had in in a 10-inch Newt, and even without a filter it was a beautiful horse's head. That's the only time I pursued it in a small aperture.

Tomm Lorenzin and Phil Harrington saw it at the Winter Star Party in 1991 using 10x70 and 11x80 binoculars with H-beta filters taped to the eyepieces. I think there might have been a third person in on the observation, but I don't remember for sure – perhaps Steve O'Meara. The pursuit was instigated by Tomm Lorenzin.

Clear skies, Sue (3/15/08)

Is my critic possibly suggesting that the discussion of this nebula, with narrowband emission line filters, be reserved to him -- a "specialist" -- and not addressed by me, or other investigators, lest he be impelled to "judge" our subjective opinions? If there is any chance that this is a bias or underlying attitude, then I'd argue it is egocentric, and certainly denies others the chance fairly to make up their own minds, without having been "forewarned" that the ideas herein are allegedly faulty.

How "proportional" is it to negate only one tiny aspect of a huge, multi-dimensional research project, based on one person's narrow focus and arguably small differences of opinion?

These statements, then, are the explanatory prelude to the following rebuttal that I wrote on 3/12/08, in response to what I felt -- with considerable discouragement and annoyance -- was yet again another instance of discouraging, unconstructive, out-of-proportion criticism that (in my view) acutely focuses on only ONE small aspect of my larger investigation: the very one that is so important to my critic, i. e., using a small aperture amateur telescope and nebular filters. I am not a "filter specialist" -- though I acted as a tester, consultant, and writer for one company who introduced and marketed them, and wrote software for using filters that was sold by a different such company. I don't fixate on filters, but use them as tools in my observing. I don't follow all the filter comments on the Net, and try to "integrate" them into my own life, and to decide if each one is right or wrong -- by my standards. I don't give a lot of specific step-by-step advice to others about the hows and whys of using any one filter on any one object: because, as a very experienced telescope and astronomy accessory salesman, privy to research and product sales records, I know something about the diversity of opinions, and complex issues of user difficulties or successes, that exist when one tries to satisfy a customer need. But, as an amateur observer of nebulae I have acquired a great deal of practical experience in using all forms of nebular filters -- especially in viewing the Horsehead. I applied some of the same techiques to our four-person Horsehead test that we'd used on our filter work; and some of the results are summarized and presented in my Horsehead Project website.

I do not feel that these need to be removed or altered to satisfy ONE person's opinion; nor that my article about 'Horsehead misinformation' needs to be censored by him. Period. I am writing here to MY READERS, and to those persons who can accomodate my intellectual level, my documentation, and my data. I am not focusing this website on raw beginners, who probably couldn't get the Horsehead successfully on their own with ANY scope whatsoever. I frankly don't care about that very much. The purpose of these articles is to set forth the historical facts with respect to the 'story' of the Horsehead, and to establish a baseline of what is known and credibly reported to be possible, in various techniques and circumstances of viewing the object.

It would be delightful if all my readers, including my serious critic, could appreciate that. In his case, I feel that he has erected a sort of straw-man argument: that the website should be SOMETHING ELSE -- because he says so -- and that it fails, by his measure of what that might be, to equal it. Thus, he objects to this or that, and informs people dismissively that it's only "fairly good" and should be changed. That is his PERSONAL opinion; and no doubt he would not do it my way. He has a right to his opinion; has a right to express it; and has a right to have any attitude at all about me -- and say so.

Lest he feel upset or perturbed by anything I've said, above, let me remind him -- and my other readers -- that it is the power of his perceptions and understanding that gives his opinion weight. That I respect, and admire.

Let me also explain that because my websites are 'bursting at the seams' and filling up nearly the entirety of the server space given to me by Earthlink, to be used for both email and webpages, that I have -- of necessity -- had to turn off email reception on these accounts, lest they cause my websites to go down, exceeding my usage quota! I don't intentionally ignore email; I just don't publish a public, working email address that is shared space with one of my sites. So, if I fail to reply to somebody, it is not necessarily out of disrespect, nor because I am stone-walling. However, this is not typical of most people -- especially those who don't have their own home pages -- who publish publicly, in their forum posts, their own email address (as my critic has done.) Usually when an email address is published, one can use it to establish contact. Sadly, in this dangerous time, when cyberstalkers and spammers tend to flood any public email box, it's now becoming more and more likely that unsolicited mail won't be answered.

And, before the text of my earlier reaction is included, I should add that you may notice that this article might change in some ways, over the first week or two that it appears here. That is not because I'm reading and following, line by line, any and all remarks made by other people, but because I'm an inveterate "tinkerer" and can't resist editing and modifying or (allegedly) improving points that I'd like to try to make. I don't believe in doing exhaustive point-for-point rebuttals, because human individuals are very complicated, and they're unique. We don't all think exactly alike; there should never be a demand that subjective opinions have to be in precise agreement.

Previous First Response by me, posted here on the Horsehead Project Update page on 3/12/08.

A correspondent of mine who follows Internet discussions of difficult nebulae and galaxies notified me in early March 2008 that he found what at first seemed an almost amusing swipe at my articles and opinions: odd, since its author has corresponded with me privately on at least one occasion in a perfectly friendly, collegial fashion. This particular observer -- one of the true elites in today's amateur astronomy scene -- has however consistently criticized some of my articles, posts, and essays -- especially those related to the Horsehead nebula -- and has apparently been offended by my recent article Horsehead Nonsense--and Sense; for he reiterates his objection to my proselytization about the Horsehead and my encouragement of those who would try to see it with small telescopes. He makes the following statement, damning this website with his faint praise, in a Cloudy Nights forum thread:

There is a guy with an extensive web page on the Horsehead which actually is fairly good except for some of the things he says about a few people who just try to cast a little realism on those searching for this illusive [sic] object for the first time. Yes, it has been seen in some fairly small apertures under the right conditions, but for many observers, the Horsehead often remains a somewhat difficult challenge object.

Gee, it's SO reassuring to know that my Horsehead Project website is "fairly good"! Presumably it would be better if I did not give my opinion -- which differs from his. Well: no thanks; I'm satisfied with 'fairly good'.

Several other issues are suggested by this critical commentary. First: the world "illusive" is surely mis-used. It means "based on or having the nature of an illusion... illusory...unreal - lacking in reality or substance". The Horsehead nebula (a very real, substantial dark cloud) therefore, is NOT an "illusive" object. This isn't entirely a pedantic reaction of mine, as so many difficult objects can be illusions, if the observer does not take proper care, and has hopes and expectations that are overly suggestive. Since the Horsehead is a dark, optically opaque, cloud, it's hard to discern. The way to be able to see it successfully is to maximize the contrast, so that it appears somewhat darker than the immediate environs. Generally I've found that one's "illusions", when looking for faint objects, tend to be in the nature of "seeing something that isn't there": mistaking faint stars, optical reflections, or 'background grain' for a sought-after object that is really too dim to be detected. Since the Horsehead is relatively dark -- while at the same time being actually brighter than the absolute background of the night sky -- it's not particularly prone to generate an illusion of being detected. It seems to take greater effort and discernment to be able to see a dark patch than a light patch.

Elusive -- yes, the Horsehead often may be that. It might be missed for any number of reasons: among them, unfavorable or downright bad sky conditions, poor visual contrast caused by light scatter in the optics, a dirty mirror, or a poor ocular. We deal with these issues exhaustively in the various articles on this website.

Update, 3/12/08:  Now my critic has edited his posted comment about my website, possibly in reaction to this rebuttal of mine, above. In a change logged as having been "Edited ...(03/12/08 05:14 PM)", the word "illusive" (in the original post) has been 'corrected' and now, as of this moment, stands as "ellusive": a non-word, and obviously a misspelling of "elusive". Will that error be corrected in short order, now that I have identified it? -- srw, 3/12/08, 3:37 pm PDT. [Please note: this phenomenon opens up another topic that I think needs to be addressed, so I am moving that discussion below, following these present comments.]

Second, a direct parsing of his statement leads me to conclude that the statement "the webpage...is fairly good except for some of the things he says about a few people who just try to cast a little realism" means, susbstantially, that 'the website is unrealistic and thus is only fairly good'. 'Realism' here would be presumably the attitudes and opinions that the critic agrees with. Apparently, my website about the Horsehead, then, is unrealistic, and unfairly criticizes the "realists". But, does it?

The writer who calls our research only 'fairly good' has said almost exactly the same things in his own words, here and here, as we have stated about trying to see the Horsehead in small telescopes: that the object is challenging; that it is best seen with certain specific magnifications, and with certain filters; and under some specific kinds of favorable conditions. So far, so good: we are in agreement.

So, what's wrong? Indeed, the writer who has criticized me, here, has -- from the moment my website was announced on sci.astro.amateur -- objected to things that I've written. At first, he grumbled that "you will probably get a lot of consternation from people who try it with the smaller scopes and fail", adding that "It is probably one of the most difficult objects which the amateur may try and go after" (posted only one hour after I notified the amateur astronomy community that my site was on the Net.) This is a matter of opinion, and is easily refuted if you consult the comments of the famed columnist of Sky & Telescope, Walter Scott Houston, who wrote, "During the last two decades amateurs have demolished other traditional 'test' objects like the Horsehead and turned them over to the rosters at star parties. Of course, the list of test objects has been updated with new, more difficult targets. But at one time the Horsehead was a prize worth claiming" (p. 51 of the book compiling many of his columns, Deep-Sky Wonders.) Many other observers agree with Scotty -- and me -- that the Horsehead is no longer a nearly-impossible challenge object, as I show in the various examples given above in this present web page.

Thus, my critic's particular opinion of the Horsehead's challenge level is not universal. Not everyone, from the late Walter Scott Houston on down to many dedicated amateurs of today, thinks that the Horsehead is "one of the most difficult objects which the amateur may try and go after". If you'd like to see a list of some objects that ARE, indeed, challenges that far exceed the Horsehead in difficulty, consult this website: "Adventures in Deep Space: Challenging Observing Projects for Amateur Astronomers", by Jim Shields. I don't see the Horsehead included here on the index page. Instead, I find faint Abell planetary nebulae; Palomar globular clusters; quasars; Sharpless HII regions; supernova remnants; and many other extremely difficult items (some not even plotted on well known star charts.) No Horsehead.

The thing that puzzles me, in fact, about the arguably hostile attitude of my critic, is that not only does he AGREE with me about the level of difficulty of the Horsehead, judging from his latest posts, but also he says things that I could have written here, such as this statement: "...if you can see the glow [of IC-434] but not the dark nebula, change the power a bit. You may be surprised as to how well you do." But at the same time, he contradicts this, in effect, by emphasizing the "huge number of reports of failures by so many observers": we're back to the same tired old mantra that it is hard, so very, very hard. Has he taken care to study and quantify the reported experience, skill level, accuracy, care, and degree of preparation of those who report their failures? How do the attributes of the "failed observers" match those of the "successful observers"? Are there any common factors; can we in fact infer that "those who fail, do so because they don't know how to see it; haven't the right circumstances; and lack the proper locale and gear"? I don't know for certain, but I can suggest that this will probably be a fair description of the category of observers who fail, compared to those who succeed.

You can't have it both ways. It can't be 'one of the greatest challenges', objectively, if other extremely advanced and experienced observers don't agree with that. It can't be virtually invisible in a small telescope, if the critic HIMSELF writes that in his 4-inch refractor that he "could just barely catch a glimpse of the dark gap of the Horsehead occasionally..." and that there was a definite "sweet spot" of magnification where it could be seen -- and that in a 9.25 inch telescope it elicited a "WOW!" reaction, as the "view was surprisingly close to what I see in my 10 inch on a really good night" and could even be detected without a filter. Again: these are statements that are extremely close to MY WORDS in the various articles on this website.

The third issue that seems to me to be relevant, in relation to my critic's objection to "some of the things he says about a few people who just try to cast a little realism on those searching for [the Horsehead] for the first time" is that, indeed, my own critical remarks were addressed to correct unrealistic warnings and caveats that had been offered, in my opinion, in error, discouraging other potential observers. What is 'realistic' about describing the size of the Horsehead to be nearly an order of magnitude TOO LARGE, compared to the actual view in a small (i. e., 8 inch or under) aperture scope? Is it shining the 'cold, harsh light of realism' on the subject to assert that one isn't likely to be able to see the Horsehead with reflector scopes employing standard coatings (when in fact no study or test exists that proves this to be the case, while -- on the other hand -- a test exists that does disprove this erroneous claim)? Is it 'realistic' to instruct a beginner that it would be necessary to obtain a special eyepiece costing $1300 in order to detect the Horsehead, when -- in fact -- tests exist that demonstrate that it likely might require something only better than the cheapest ocular with poorest coatings? How 'realistic' is it to assert that one can only see the Horsehead nebula when the naked-eye stellar magnification limit is close to 7th magnitude? All of these arguably unrealistic claims -- readily disproved by examining the successful reports of Horsehead observers -- are the over-statements and Cassandra-like "warnings" that I objected to in my article Horsehead Nonsense--and Sense. This constant 'mantra of discouragement', offered up by a certain crowd of elite amateurs, serves -- in my view -- not so much 'realistically' to help others, as to assert the 'supremacy of experts' and to set the bar too high. It may indeed be, at times, merely a projection of the experiences of individuals and their unique circumstances, rather than a truly accurate statement of the known possibilities whose 'realities' have been established by collecting and analyzing genuine social data of the achievement of a large body of observers. And, as you can see from the criticism given of my work, there is not one concrete example offered to prove a mistake in my recitation of facts, nor any specific statement rebutted; it's merely an expression of vague feelings and implications. This sort of alleged criticism is, in my view, arguably weak, egocentric, and unconstructive.

Of course, my critic observes in the US midwest, at an altitude that is only about 41% as high, above sea level, as mine; but it's also much closer to average terrain: whereas my site is a mountaintop precipice, with a sheer drop on all sides, down thousands of feet, close to the Pacific ocean. The humidity at my site, even in the winter, can drop to 25% or lower. Fog can come in, 2000 feet below me, to cut off artificial light pollution; and my seeing tends to be very steady. Yet, there will be 'good nights' almost anywhere, at least occasionally: it would seem that his last report of the Horsehead was one such occasion. And, not surprisingly, his experiences match mine. So, once again: what's the problem?

Update, 3/12/08:  Dave Mitsky, an advanced amateur astronomer from the east coast of the USA, has had some nice things to say about my Horsehead Project website, and he responded to my critic's vague references to the "fairly good" website to clarify which one was meant, citing the URL to my articles. My critic confirmed that he indeed meant these pages of mine, and (in my opinion) then back-tracks considerably, especially in light of his first uttered complaint, on s.a.a., about the comments I've made about observing the object, in which he asserted that my articles would generate "a lot of consternation from people who try it with the smaller scopes and fail". But, sadly, my critic fails to comprehend the exact nature of my responses to this, claiming that (in his opinion) I am interpreting objections as "a personal attack." I am not. (Indeed, if you look at the way my critic, himself, has responded to someone who had a difference of opinion -- here, 'yelling' in caps, "*HOW DARE YOU*?!!!...you have absolutely no right to make such a blatantly insulting statement!", and here, where he angrily scolds, "You have lost more than you know. You have lost the respect I once had for you and your opinions..." -- I would argue it is evident from the very different tone of my reply that at least one of us is trying calmly to reason this out.) I can't think that I have erupted like that on the Net in at least the last decade (if I indeed ever rose to such expressions of indignation and affront -- certainly I don't do so now, either because of age and maturity, or possibly just fatigue and senility!)

But, what I am objecting to is the arguable hyper-focus of ONE individual -- who has every right to his own opinions, based on HIS personal experiences -- on small differences of opinion (barely discernible nuances!) he has with my findings. In fact, what he does object to seems to be only the personal opinions I bring to this work; I haven't perceived any objections to the historical account. He can't criticize my PERSONAL material (findings, observations, opinions, and extrapolations; as well as the focus of my recent work and analysis) and expect me to take it as being criticism of "objective stuff -- just the facts": because it isn't that. It is indeed, as I have shown, criticism of what I, as an individual personality, bring to this project. He doesn't like it -- and that's entirely his right. I merely reply with the reason it has evolved that way, and what my motivations are. If he does not care for those things, that's also his right.

From the outset, one hour after my website was announced -- a body of work which would take hours to absorb -- my critic was posting his caveats that it would cause "consternation". This alleged consternation would, I presume, not be caused by my historical research, but only something I had experienced and asserted, as an observer. And consternation felt by whom? By persons who could do qualified, carefully informed experiments? No. Rather, by persons who obviously had little experience; poor conditions and/or equipment; and very rudimentary and basic knowledge of the sky -- or perhaps complete ignorance of it. No matter WHAT I say about the Horsehead, such tyros cannot benefit from my instructions, if they do not systematically learn the methods of effective deep sky observation of difficult objects. To insist, repeatedly, that this website is -- in effect -- a source of misinformation and consternation to SOME people -- unknown, undefined, unquantified -- is just plain useless. We might as well take the whole discussion off the Net, for fear of causing "consternation" to such hypothetical persons. But, rather than take his words out of context, let me quote them verbatim, which he has posted on 03/12/08 at 5:56 PM, after my first response to his initial criticism:

Yup, that's the one. It has a lot of good information, especially the historical end, which is often not well covered in amateur circles. It also has some good advice about how to observe the Horsehead including some diagrams and a few drawings which can help people get an idea of what they might be looking for. He does present the fact that seeing the object in some rather modest apertures is *not* impossible as is sometimes claimed, but here he kind of falls down a bit by going on a bit too long about it. I just wish he had left out some of his slightly distorted references to certain statements made by others (he seems to interpret the statements as criticism or a personal attack). That kind of hurts the page a bit. We are not at all being "elitist" when we caution people about how difficult it may be to see the Horsehead. In a nutshell, what I say is that, "It isn't impossible, but it often isn't exactly easy either".

Here's the problem: my entire Horsehead Project website could undermine the misinformed opinions and biases of persons who have unfortunately not done their own careful experiments, and who have not examined historical first-source documents. I originally posted some research, done in 1989-90, that indicated that small telescopes and binoculars COULD render a visual perception of the Horsehead under certain conditions, as appended to a historical research paper which had its own small 'heresy' (that not E. C. Pickering, but W. Fleming, discovered the object.) This finding of our team, confirming earlier reports by Jay Freeman and a few others -- who had seen the Horsehead with scopes as small as 4 inches of aperture -- is still disputed, hotly, by some amateurs (mostly persons who don't appear to have been able to do it themselves: the "Not in My Telescope Syndrome" as defined by my old mentor, the late Dr. Donald Osterbrock.) The reason my articles give further corroborative evidence, gathered by me and from a variety of credible Net posts, is not because I am "fall[ing] down a bit by going on a bit too long about it", but because a certain stubborn percentage of observers can't, or won't, view the Horsehead with small telescopes; then, they claim generalities about this, without respect to the experiences of other successful observers: the very ones I quote, and link to, in previous sections of this webpage article, above. It is my critic's personal opinion, not scientific or objective fact, that I am "going on a bit too long" -- and he's entitled to it. I explain carefully in my article about Horsehead misinformation that I have paraphrased some bad Horsehead advice -- which my critic pejoratively and caustically refers to as giving "slightly distorted references" -- because I did not want to embarrass anybody, and wanted to evoke a general discussion of commonly-encountered mistakes, rather than pillory some perfectly respectable individuals. My critic's opinions about these alleged shortcomings of my website are, I think, unrelated to the facts of the Horsehead's visibility or invisibility, and the history of the object; and I believe his opinions about me are utterly unimportant and irrelevant to the historical and sociological study of the discovery, photography, viewing, and analysis of the object.

My critic might as well take our articles apart, looking for typographical errors, mistakes of parallel structure, or clumsy phrases, so that the articles could be improved. But, he does not; he objects to my defense related to his objections regarding my own opinions; my critical focus of interest as a visual amateur astronomer; and to my desire that beginners receive accurate, corroborated, factual, objective facts -- or information as close to that as possible, rather than off-the-cuff factoids posted without much careful thought, research, and checking. I argue that this allegedly poor advice is easily refuted (as I did in Horsehead Nonsense--and Sense.) My own response to this critic can be summed up as this:  if you cannot bring forth concrete corrections to mistakes, errors, misquotes, scientific inaccuracies, frauds, or lies, in my Horsehead Project articles, then your reactions -- which you are entitled to feel -- are arguably no more significant than the passing thoughts of anybody, since no two people, including two amateur astronomers, ever think alike, agree on everything, and have the same exact knowledge, life experience, and sense perceptions. (And, in this instance, it's obvious that two specific people have VERY different conceptions of logic and precision in expression.)

In fact, no magazine editor, or professional scientist (including several astronomers and a NASA investigator) has ever suggested that it was inappropriate to discuss -- in any proportion -- observation of the object with small telescopes; and never before has any amateur astronomer suggested this, including persons who had not yet seen the Horsehead with their own eyes. That ONE person alone has done so -- and thus demotes the value of the project -- illustrates, I believe, the unreasonable narrowness of his objections. There could be no greater contrast between his arch disapproval, and the heartfelt thanks I had just previously received, shortly before reading his criticism, from the daughter of the late Don Osterbrock, who wrote on behalf of her family to thank me for the personal reminiscences about Don that are part of this website. I feel that it is possible to infer that my critic is saying (in a roundabout fashion) to Drs. Osterbrock, Hazen, Sandage, Herbig, Tielens, Klemola, Jones, Sadler, and other professional astronomers; and to Richard Berry, Dorothy Schaumberg, Ron Brashear, Jack Marling, and many other contributors: you shouldn't have bothered. The results are mediocre. I would also think, in fact, that persons who appreciate my website (such as the University of Maryland professor and professional astronomer who wrote to me that he has copied material from it to be used in his own lectures) and who have derived instruction from it, might possibly wonder if my critic has the detachment and judgment to gauge properly the work of other amateur astronomers.

There indeed HAS been criticism of this project, in its earliest stages; and before other investigators had confirmed our findings, rendering that criticism moot. When I first prepared my research back in 1990 for publication, I found that several editors refused to print it, as-is, because, in essence, my findings that Mrs. Fleming had discovered the details visible in IC-434 (credited by Dreyer to "Pickering") were 'not acceptably documented' and that my revelation of Dreyer's blundering in denying her credit for the discovery of many objects was 'controversial, offensive, argumentative, and unlikely'. Previous articles had stated otherwise; how could my work be correct? (By now, all of this has been corroborated and published on the Net in the work of Corwin and Steinicke; and that it WAS correct was quite obvious back in 1990 to Dr. Donald Osterbrock and other Lick astronomers, and to Dr. Martha Hazen of Harvard College Observatory.) Finally, after a professional astronomer -- Dr. Hazen -- presented my findings in a public talk, they were accepted, and now have been acknowledged in a scientific paper, cited above. Then, years later when the historical facts were becoming known, the amateur community was still divided between what I'd call the "ultra-orthodox ultraconservatives" who are extremely understated, discouraging, and sober in their "warnings" to the unwashed public about the difficulty of viewing the object, and those of us on the other side who HAVE seen the Horsehead numerous times, with small aperture scopes. The fact that this attitude still exists, today -- in a hobby environment when people are doing cutting-edge work with small high quality refractors, spotting Abell planetaries, local group galaxies, and faint supernova remnants that hardly ANYONE had ever seen before, in any scope -- is surprising to me; so I have undertaken to confirm my 1989-90 sightings (in order to find out if my aging eyes could still do it!) and to collect the corroborative, complementary experiences of other observers. But, to at least (maybe only!) one person this is merely "going on a bit too long about it" -- and he has his own personal value system, and orientation to the hobby, and more power to him! I simply will not change this website, removing or editing or "toning down" carefully worked out material, to satisfy his personal taste; the issues seem to me to be far bigger than the reactions of one individual, since I care to study the broader social picture, amassing the experiences of a body of observers.-- 3/12/08, 4:50 pm, with later additions on 3/15/08.

Supplement, 3/14/08: In the above rebuttal, I pointed out my perception of the alleged mis-use of the term "illusive" as a descriptor of the Horsehead, posted by my critic as part of his negative comments about my website, and which I had "cut and pasted" into my reply directly from his post; and then happened to notice that soon it was changed: to "ellusive" (a non-word.) I made a screen dump of this in order to show the alteration, since I hoped he would eventually correct that, too:

This may seem harsh of me. But, arguably, my critic is at times, in my opinion, not only very strict, but very harsh, in judging and objecting to things in his reviews. I won't put in the links because -- no doubt -- by the time you get to them, they may be altered. But after being the butt of his criticism (which I sometimes felt was unfair, overstated, and abnormally focused on minutiae or subjectivities) I naturally paid a bit closer attention than usual to his articles and commentaries. And, this was beneficial in a number of ways, since they are generally OUTSTANDING and very informative. I have, in fact, learned from his extensive report on various nebulae in which his eye can detect color -- mine almost never can do so! -- and especially about NGC 4361. As I wrote to a fellow observer recently:

Now, I cannot see some aspect of certain nebulae that he can see, particularly the colors. NGC 4361, the "Lawn Sprinkler Nebula" (as he calls it) was something I took great pains to work on, several sessions in a row, after I read his and other observations. He saw a very distinct pattern that I could NOT detect, no matter how long I looked, at varying magnifications, and with diverse filters. Finally I believe on my last try, I got a fleeting glimpse of something like his pattern for about a quarter of a second. So I finally had his experience and imagine that if my eyes had better mesopic sensitivity, it might be much more obvious to me.

But the first thing that came to my mind about this very subtle effect that I could barely perceive was NOT that "he goes on about this too long, it weakens his work, and he shouldn't talk about that; it will mislead people." It did not mislead me to read that he could see something that, initially, I missed. It actually was something I wanted to VERIFY, and I finally managed to get my conditions to work well enough for me to do it. His article HELPED me and by his unusual description of a phenomenon which did not leap out at one when you just come on the object, I was motivated to try to work to get it, if possible; and I did. It was, all in all, a very helpful report, and I learned something from it.

If I resented him, I'd have written this up in my Faint Fuzzy article by saying that "one amateur makes a CLAIM that an obvious pattern is visible, like a lawn sprinkler. This is not verified nor consistently seen, so such exaggerations or unconfirmed personal nuances are really more hurtful and misleading, than helpful..." Needless to say, I made no such statement and, in truth, it did not occur to me to do so; I did not have to resist the impulse!

And along the way, as I found interesting things that I could learn from in his posts and reviews, I must admit that some grammatical errors and styles of expresson, and certain statements, bothered me. For instance: in his analysis of an observing guide that contains nearly a thousand pages in two volumes, he points out a small error in the perception of ONE galaxy, out of an extremely large number of objects. Just ONE. These volumes were collated by two respected, creative observers from amateur reports and -- yes -- he did find one error, presumably: someone seemed to see a detail in the galaxy that wasn't verified from photos or other experiences, probably either a misperception, or an editing mistake made by the original observer or the compilers. I think one might be forgiven for thinking that this was an out-of-proportion criticism that tends, at most, to call attention to the critic's erudition. Virtually any popular work on astronomy has such borderline subjective mistakes or mis-statements -- call them what you will -- along with factual errors that any specialist might perceive. Almost any publication has typographical errors. Every writer commits grammatical errors, and occasionally demonstrates faulty spelling (I found two mis-spelled words yesterday in the present webpage, and one instance in which I had mis-typed "that that" instead of "that" for some odd reason. I fixed them in a few moments.) These mistakes, as I have said in my Jottings Essay collection, are mere trivial human errors, blunders that we all make from time to time. Anyone should be glad to have them pointed out so that they may be corrected. When I first put together the OCR work on my old Horsehead paper, I overlooked quite a few of them in my intense (and somewhat hasty) attempt to edit the articles into webpages. I tend to find at least ONE tiny mistake -- an extra space, a missing comma, a mis-typed single character -- every time I look at my long essay on the Horsehead in the 19th century. Usually they were not present in the original document, but were caused during the machine-read conversion process.

But, human typographical, style, or grammatical errors MAY be perceived differently, by different readers. An English major notes them and shudders, and given enough of them, starts to lose faith in the work, wondering how well educated the writer might be. An engineering major, who grudgingly took the most basic English classes just to accomodate scholastic requirements, might be oblivious to them, and looks -- instead -- for mis-placed decimal points. We ALL have a unique standard of judgment about what we read: which makes the job of the critic very difficult. Some critics decide to be known for their waspish wit, skeptical eye, and superior erudition; others might try to focus on only what almost all of her general readers might object to: and I'd argue that the former type of critic is largely self-centered, impractical, and inconsiderate.

So: is it fair for me to bring attention to "illusion" or "ellusion" in this reply to my critic? He might argue that it is not; that these are trivial problems, subordinate to his important points. I'd reply that we amateurs -- who self-publish our findings and opinions on blogs, forums, and personal webpages -- are all very vulnerable. Even an English major can overlook problems in his own writing (in my case, my brain REFUSES to recognize them, often, when I read my stuff back!) It generally requires an editor to perceive, in detached fashion, such blunders. But, most of our work does not benefit from an external editor: so the public becomes the surrogate for one. And, I am sad to say that my critic -- like me and everyone -- "lives in a glass house", as it were. In one of his long, very informative, and thoroughly fascinating observing logs, he repeatedly transposed two numbers of a well-known NGC galaxy, referring instead to an object in a different constellation and obviously not the one he so carefully and accuratedly described. It may be fixed by now -- or soon will be! -- so I won't provide the link. I have made nearly this same kind of error in my own Faint Fuzzies articles (accidentally giving an NGC object a five-number designation, adding a totally spurious "1" for some unknown reason.) I suppose some of these typographical flaws still exist, somewhere, in my body of material. While it's always helpful to point them out, constructively, so that they may be corrected, I generally feel that it is important for any reader to have a distinct sense of a threshold of desirability in relation to exposing such flaws (especially if they are merely subjective differences and not objective mistakes.) One can't make 6000 posts to a forum with a 100% perfect track record of absolute accuracy in every single word and character.

In the case of my Horsehead website, as viewed by my critic, I personally feel that 'his threshold of suitability is too low'. I wonder, for instance, if he has actually read, word for word, all the historical material, and then checked the links, and referred to the online Harvard documents? Has he gone to the websites of the skilled photographers and imagers that I have included? Has he put his subjective opinion about whether I am 'going on too long' or shouldn't say this-or-that about using a 4-inch telescope, into correct and practical context, in relation to the total body of work that my Horsehead site represents? Or, has he done exactly what he did in his review of the 900+ page observing guide: found ONE thing he could pounce on (his slight, nuanced, fine distinction of opinion with respect to mine about using a small scope and filter to see the object)? I would argue that he indeed HAS done the latter thing; and one might be forgiven for feeling that it is unfair -- especially since his proposed "corrections" involve only his subjective opinions about content, style, and the focus of my experiments and inclusion of other observers' tests with small optics, not the actual facts contained in my articles.

Up to now, I had set my "threshold of action in response" rather high, in relation to my critic's continual dismissals of my opinions and ideas. Because he is a valued contributor, without which all of us amateur astronomers would be at a distinct loss, I had previously decided that his arguably severely narrow reductionism was the 'price' one has to pay in order to receive his extraordinary contributions. Even if it discouraged ME, it was a reasonable price. But, here, we have an instance where arguably, in effect, he objects more to the inclusion of the work of OTHER PERSONS that I document and describe, than to myself (though he still faults me for the choices I've made, and the subject matter I have emphasized.) He asserts that this material goes on too long, and weakens my website. I can only state, as I have earlier, that I disagree in the strongest possible manner.

Since my website is not limited in scope by the needs of a printed publication, nor the constraints of the protocols of a strict scholarly thesis, to suggest -- even with what seems to me to be a studied mock-mildness or faux-judiciousness, urging in effect the exercise of 'good taste', or that it might cause "consternation" -- that its arguments are weakened by some particular content, and that, therefore, it must be changed in order to conform to somebody's personal gestalt, seems to me to propel us all down the slippery slope. First, we castigate something, and criticise or dismiss those who hold such ideas. Then, we censor it...and so forth. Does not my critic -- who specializes in the narrow topic (with respect to my entire study) of using filters for observing, in which he holds forth exhaustively, airing his opinions all over web forums -- concede that there is room for more than one individual point of view?

Furthermore, my Horsehead Project website contains research articles that were largely supervised and guided, read and critiqued -- and even contributed to! -- by one of the world's greatest astrophysicists, and involve the participation of numerous professional astronomers from Hawaii to Massachusetts. Dr. Osterbrock's remaining, unresolved criticism, back in 1990 just before the advent of the world wide web, was that 'it is still too long for a magazine article'. The fact that the result was useful to professional astronomers was illustrated when Lick Observatory asked me to present it in a talk at UC/Santa Cruz, and a Harvard astronomer requested that I prepare part of it as a slideshow talk to be delivered in Cambridge. But, "the heavenly length" (any Schubertians will know what I mean by this) is not negatively significant when the work is considered to be not merely "a popular article" but a collection of related research papers, published on the Internet. Oddly, in this day and time when bytes are cheap, my critic still seems to think in terms of limiting the scope and content (to merely what he would prefer): presumably as if the utility of the research was not academic and objective and thorough, but allegedly and merely 'to entertain certain telescope users'. If I did not respond to what might appear, at least to me, to be unfair, superficial, and narrow criticism, my inaction might be perceived as being pusillanimous. So a response has been fashioned by me, in a style and magnitude that some might consider over the top and overly detailed. But, as I see it, there are so many important related themes (about criticism per se, Netiquette, objectivity versus subjectivity, and proportionality) raised in considering this criticism that, in my usual manner, I have allowed my mind to survey the larger perspective. -- srw, 3/14/08, plus small addition on 3/28/08

I can't see any benefit in trying to 'answer' this critic further; you can't please all the people, all the time. These reactions of mine are based on discussions posted in the second week of March, 2008, and I no longer have any intention of following closely and rebutting any later specific remarks, as my position should be clear. But, I reserve the right to expand my analysis and to discuss, broadly, related issues in future. -- srw, 3/11, 14, 17/08

And, indeed, I have enlarged this discussion to take on the issues of how to relate advice to varying levels of amateur astronomers; how to preserve collegiality in discussion forums; and how to strive to present context: read my recent essay "The 'Rulemaker' for Amateur Astronomers", posted on my website on March 22, 2008.

Stephen R. Waldee, amateur astronomer
Manager and partner, ROPER PIANO STUDIO
Developer with Ron Wood of Eyepiece 2.0 Software Program
San Jose, California