Quote:
Originally Posted by barx1963
I had a really great week last week. Managed to get 4, yes 4!, nights out with the scope and made some really nice catches. I have been fairly structured in my observing lately, focusing mainly on Messiers of which I now have recorded observations of 93 and as the reamining 7 are not visible at this time of year, I am engaging in doing something similar with objects within the Caldwell list, and last week was the serious start of that project. Anyways, I writes meself a little obs report (see here .... http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=52929 )
and I was pretty pleased with it. So I decided to venture into uncharted territory and posted said report on Cloudy Nights. Oddly I received only one comment and a then received a PM from that same person telling me that many many observers regard the Caldwell Objects list as an "Abomination" and people get "flamed" on CN for even mentioning it.
Has anyone else encountered this decidedly odd prejudice? As I understand it the list simply originated as an observing challenge, and I like the fact it honours in it's name Patrick Moore (whose middle name is Caldwell) who has done as much as anyone to popularise amateur astronomy and observational astronomy in the English speaking world. |
Yep. The Caldwell Objects is basically the
extended Messier Catalogue with some southern objects tacked on. (The same could be said for the South African, (Jack) Bennett Catalogue, which has 130 objects - all southern.)
Apparently, Moore-or-less hadn't observed many of the southern ones. The litany of complaints is that mostly that he is no deep-sky observer, and he ain't no Messier. Worst is that his claims and observations have been proven to be dubious or embellished.
Nepotism among astronomers - amateur an professional - have always been scorn like the proverbial
scarlet woman.
Patrick Moore has been very severely criticised over the years for his very poor research and sometime quite dubious claims — especially by the British and French commentators. I.e. Once when I prepared a paper on historical observations of Venus for formal publication, in which Moore is claimed to be an 'expert', I was told not to reference him else the paper would not be well received and would likely be rejected under peer review. Needless to say, I was a bit shocked at the time, until it was pointed out to me several dozen 'frauds' in his works. So I looked at all the "Moore-isms" and just removed them!
Great popularist, terrible researcher.
As for the Cadwell, he can't see south of −30-odd degrees from England, so what is his relationship to the southern skies, except tokenism and perhaps stamping his mark across the whole sky.
Personally, I think the listing is a good, if not great, one for the beginners. Like Bennett's, its mere existence is parochial at its best, however, Moore is an just additional unwarranted northern imposition.
Just my opinion, and from many observations of others commenting over the years. Cloudy Nights is just a reflection of this same sentiment.
As one wag said many years ago;
"Patrick should just stick observing the Moon, and publish fewer books that are better quality. Astronomy to him is like the pulp Mills and Boon novels. You know what happens in the end, and you know the basic storyline, as it is the same formula but a different rehash. Read one, you've read 'em all!"
Probably a bit harsh, but there you go…
