(meteorobs) Sort of apology to meteorobs

[MEM]

> Speculation is fine, as long as it is  so  labeled.
> 
> Wayne

Shouldn't you then label your opinions as "opinions"?  or are somethings just 
understood?

Sort of, perhaps, by way of showing your sincerity, Wayne, you can give us your 
assessment of this event?  It is one thing to armchair and another to lead by 
example.  You, after all, are an experienced fireball investigator.  To not 
participate in light of other folks "above and beyond effort" would speak 
volumes as to your sincerity and dedication.  Shouldn't you offer your sagely 
advice on how to organize and collect information?   Your criteria for 
determining a fall or non-fall needs to be shared, given your issue with others 
making an assessment.  


Please give us the benefit of the state of the art processing for sighting data. 
Have you done any followup interviews in accordance with the doctrine of the 
AMS?   What sources would you consult and what data have you personally 
processed in this fall that suggests it was not a meteorite producing event?  
What data --period-- have you assembled for consumption by others?  I'll help 
you out a bit (hint hint)  Did they have dash and security cams in your day, or 
would you not even attempt to find footage given the imprecise employment?

You've expressed the importance of the science and I'd like to see your progress 
in making a contribution.  If you can't or won't share that data can you at 
least list the significient components of this event?  How many branches of data 
do you see that need to be explored?

Please don't make us wait too long this event is getting stale. I am trying to 
validate if you still live up to your reputation and if you have kept abreast of 
the inventory of data sources.  I think it is valid to assess your ability to be 
the keeper of the science on this list given you've given me some reason to 
question your ability to fill the shoes.

I am not picking on you, I am just asking you to provide the 
data/opinion/assessment and your judgmentas to how to treat its non-standard 
data. I  especially am fascinated to hear your criteria for assessing the 
likelihood of a fireball producing a meteorite-- given your insistence on 
precise science and data. Please define the parameters of a data set  you might 
find acceptable?

Well?  are you up to putting your effort where your mouth is? This is not 
rhetorical  I really, really, want to hear from your vast experience and 
expertise what we can do to improve and refine the approach to documenting 
fireball events.  If you can't or won't them please do not stand in the way of 
those who are willing and keep your opinion to yourself.  Martardom is so passe` 
but fall on your sword if you must but please make it final.
 Whichever path you take to wiggle out of this challenge will be fun to watch.

Inquiring minds
Elton




----- Original Message ----
> From: Wayne Hally <meteoreye at comcast.net>
> To: meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> Sent: Sat, March 26, 2011 6:39:24 AM
> Subject: (meteorobs) Sort of apology to meteorobs
> 
> Look folks, I know I've been kind of a pain lately. But I just cannot  let
> unsupported/bad science/hype pass by unchallenged. If any post has  validity,
> there is real data to back it up. I always have that for anything I  write. I
> don't think it's wrong to ask for support of assertions.
> 
> Apparently some others on this maillist take offense at that. To them I  say
> tough. Science is based on real data and analysis. If you have nothing  to
> back up what you've said, you  retract it as being fact, or admit it  was
> just speculation.
> 
> Speculation is fine, as long as it is  so  labeled.
> 
> Wayne
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing  list meteorobs: meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email: owner-meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs
>