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

(meteorobs) Re: 103P/Hartley 2 Meteor Outburst?

Dear Joe Rao (and others),

My comment was not meant as critique or something like that, but I feared 
that the story would get around that Peter had predicted a certain 
outburst and wanted to correct that before it would create problems. For the 
rest, I fully agree with what Mr. Rao has written about 
sending stimulus etc. I know the status of George Zay (whith whom I have 
a lively personal corrspondence) and never meant to chastice a particular 
person for sending around mailings on P/Hartley meteors. So if that is 
the idea that has come into the world, I hope people will realise that I 
did not mean that, it is a misunderstanding.

The story of P/hartley meteor activity has a peculiar history. Initially, 
Peter had made a mistake in his calculations, which then suggested good 
prospects. He had made an article about that, but before that went in 
print the mistake was discovered (by me, actually) and Peter retracted 
his paper: we all agreed that the 'new' insights after correction of the 
mistake showed that any outburst was not very likely (though not 
necessarily impossible). But from the 
last communications, I feared that some of the content lingered around, 
introducing misunderstandings. Before the story would come into the world 
that an outburst was predicted, I thought it wise to point out that Peter 
also didn't think it very likely, simply because that was not apparent 
from the communications. But that was not meant to chastice anyone 
for sending around mailings and replies (George was not responsible for 
the content of his mail: he was just a medium. And concerning the 
content of the mail itself, Rao was right in much of his response, though 
some 
minor divergence of opinion on some points are (of course) possible).

Hope to have corrected and clearified some things with this mail.

-Marco Langbroek
(Dutch Meteor Society)
Follow-Ups: References: