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

Re: (meteorobs) Re: Shower Rates



Howdy, Mark. I think we're arguing because we agree, rather than because we disagree. (My favorite kind of scrap :>)

Anyhow, I generally agree with everything you said. The only point I intended to make was that IMO doesn't focus on educating the GENERAL public about meteors: the already-an-amateur-astronomer or might-be-a-good-meteor-observer-someday public yes, but the general public no. This latter task is usually left to who ever happens to be stumble along at the particular moment when the press (including S&T and Astronomy :<) wants to know about meteors.

It'd be nice if the media always directed it's questions to the IMO, or to some professional organization (if there was such a thing), but they don't. And I think the reason for this is shown up well in our discussion on the list: the IMO attitude is that it's more important to get the facts "right" in a scientific sense, than to get the facts "out" in a media sense.

Now I can already hear the screams of "But what's the point of getting the facts out if their WRONG!!" I guess the real question is, "What is right?"! If you want to do rate analysis, then ZHR is right (or at least as close as we've got so far, I guess). But if you want to get ma and pop out on the darkened porch on August 11, then the answer isn't quite that clear...

Anyway, that's just the view from this end of the wire.  :)

Lew