Re: flare/mapblast/gps

From: Brad (
Date: Sun Sep 02 2001 - 18:17:11 EDT

Just my $.02 worth about this.  I, too, have seen more than enough of
Chris' off-topic posts.  None of these posts have ever mentioned visual
satellite observing, except as a segue to his rants about geodetic
datums (data?).  I suspect that Chris has been unable to find a
newsgroup about his favorite subject, so he decided to invade ours.

Chris, you've already expressed yourself more than adequately about this
off-topic subject.  Please move it to alt.geodetic.datum (I just made
that up!), or acquire an interest in satellite observing and try to keep
your posts on-topic.

Only my opinion, of course.  Others may feel differently.


Michael McCants wrote:
> Chris Olsson spouts yet another off-topic message:
> >There is an excellent web-page which describes and quantifies the effect of
> This list is for discussion of visual satellite observations.
> Discussion of GPS coordinates is off-topic.
> >Whatever precision is obtained, I would urge anyone who lists their terrestrial
> >co-ordinates to also mention the geodetic basis of those co-ords.
> And, of course, I urge you to ignore the urging of Chris Olsson because
> such specification is quite irrelevant to visual satellite observing.
> >For celestial co-ordinates, there is only one reference point.  It is
> >sufficient to list an RA/Dec without declaring any reference.
> This, of course, is false.  It gives you a good idea of the ignorance
> of the one who states it.
> >Not so for terrestrial co-ordinates.   Blah, blah, blah.
> Irrevelvant to visual satellite observing.  Specification of such
> accuracy in coordinates is "pretentious" in my opinion and shows
> a lack of understanding of the inaccuracies inherent in visual
> satellite observing.
> >57 02' 30.9"N   3 10' 25.9"W  314m (WGS84)
> Pretentious coordinates from someone who has never claimed that
> he has ever visually observed a satellite from these coordinates.
> And if he observed ISS "high in the east" from somewhere in Scotland,
> we hardly need to know his location that accurately.
> And if he does not know about the two commonly used astronomical epochs,
> it is very unlikely that he is going to make a useful positional
> observation.
> So Lat 57N, Long 3W would be quite accurate enough for his posts if and
> when he ever actually makes and reports on a visual satellite observation.
> I have to wonder if he is deliberately trying to stir up trouble.
> Signed,
>        One is who is very tired of his off-topic posts.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe'
> in the SUBJECT to

Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe'
in the SUBJECT to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 20 2001 - 17:55:52 EDT