Hi Enchilada & All,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enchilada
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…  |
I don't think that is necessarily an overly harsh criticism. I haven't been a huge fan of Moore's books and I really wonder whether he actually wrote most of them or just lent his name to them in return for payment because someone thought they'd sell better with his name on them. I get the same impression of same-old same-old. Compared to something like Burnham's opus magnum, many look amateurish and as Enchilada pointed out, there have been a litany of allegations that "... his claims and observations have been proven to be dubious or embellished" and "... Patrick Moore has been very severely criticised over the years for his very poor research and sometime quite dubious claims ..."
In fact there have been so many claims of this sort they are hard to ignore. Personally I'm not a fan of the Caldwell list mainly because I don't really see that it serves any important purpose. Everything in it is in another catalogue or several. Has Moore himself even observed them all -- no! Unless you travel the globe, you aren't going to be able to see it all so what is the point? I just see it as clutter. But, if you find his list useful, well ... use it. But personally, I wouldn't be in a hurry to "cite" it.
Without wanting to completely condemn Sir Patrick Moore who I believe is probably the greatest astronomy populariser of the current age (and for that we owe him a debt of gratitude), I think many amateurs (particularly advanced ones) saw his list as a transparent attempt at self-aggrandizement and perhaps self immortalization -- to hopefully place his own name up among the generations of amateur astronomers to come within the same league as Messier himself. Maybe even to supersede Messier's list? Whether that is or isn't true I guess only history will judge.
Messier, Mechain and guys like Dunlop, Herschel and Lacaille on the other hand were truly great visual observers (all things considered) and those who appreciate observing with a telescope will no doubt see that. Moore is not in the same league as these guys as an observer. Some cynics might say he's not even playing the same sport.
However, on the flip-side it is interesting that so many U.S based amateurs who leap to criticise the Caldwell list upon that very reasoning, are just as quick to claim ownership over and make motherhood statements about how they were the inventor of this or that "common name" for some obscure deep sky object -- and are thereby guilty of the same sin of which they accuse Moore.
Don't get me started on "common names" though ...
Best,
Les D