[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

(meteorobs) AMS

Jim,

A very elegantly written story about the AMS.  I agree with you about the
work of Dr. Olivier from the 50's till he passed the baton to Meisel.  Even
then there probably was some momemtum to carry it thru the 70's and perhaps
early 80's...but beyond this point, the AMS became an organization that has
basically relied upon it's past efforts rather than what it's doing today.

Jim, you mentioned that AMS does not have a "mission".  I was told directly
by Meisel that visual observing is secondary to the automated radio meteor
work program he is trying to establish. although I believe there are only 3
radio stations set up with AMS blessing, this certainly sounds like a
"mission" statement to me...even if it's contrary to what I always thought
it's suppose to be.  I seen the 1993 AMS annual report (which is the last one
that I'm aware of), and took note of the activity within the organization.
 There were probably fewer than 50 hours Teff if you subtract mine and
Lunsfords efforts and others who don't reside in the U.S..  I know I'm not a
member of the AMS, but I was included.  I told Meisel that I was a frequent
IMO observer and that would he be interested in receiving my data.  His
response was in such a way that it sounded like an ultimatum of me having to
choose between AMS or IMO.  The choice was easy for me to make...an
organization that was serious about visual work or an organization that tells
me that visual work is secondary.  Natually I chose IMO.

You said that "the AMS is in existence to do meteor science work, but our
membership is more important than any research, not the other way around".
 Why bother to have an AMS if research is not important?  How can you do
Meteor Science work if your membership has no motivation? If the AMS is
afraid to tell someone that their observing methods is wrong or needs
improvement, how does this help your membership? There's no pride in doing
things half way.  I wouldn't want to be a member once I've discovered that
less than mediocre is all that's needed to have your work accepted.  I relate
AMS's membership to quantity of people rather than quality. NAMN has a lot of
members that don't observe as well...I think this is the nature of the
beast...but it's not because they aren't being told how or instructed.  I
definitely want their membership so that they can be exposed to the observing
techniques on a constant basis. But if a member repeatedly does it wrong, he
will be told that his work isn't acceptable and what to do to correct it.  If
he doesn't change, I won't come down to the individuals level to make him fit
in, but rather keep the NAMN standard in place and let the individual decide
to stay in or get out. I won't miss any former NAMN member who is determine
to not do it right. If a NAMN member learns the hard way, I bet he will have
pride in his newly learned abilities over the individual who just blindly
does it wrong over and over simply because the organization is afraid to
upset a member. 

I have seen very little effort being made to help teach others how to record
their data.  I get Meteor News and read essentially about results that
filters in...which is okay, but it's obviously not a training means.  I
interpret the data gathering efforts of the AMS in recent years as nothing
more than a namesake of the past...in other words..."dead and stagnant".
 NAMN was basically formed due to the lack of AMS interest to the serious
Meteor Observer. 
George Zay