Page Content (OCR)
Let us review Dr. Gould's statements. He had bad weather which handicapped him in seeing both comet and stars, and made all objects somewhat hazy. He made a comparison on June 10, but failed to find his companion star in any chart or star catalog. This item was overlooked by all correspondents in the controversy which followed, including the astute editors of the Astronomische Nachrichton, the Monthly Notices, and Nature. Do not forget it; for it is important to the Case for the mira. UFOs. A comet, or any other celestial body, moving under the natural forces of gravitation, traverses a smooth curve, and while its velocity may vary, it does so smoothly and gradually. Dr. Gould, a skilled observer whose Argentine Star Catalogues have been accurate reference material for eighty years, was deeply concerned because his observation of the comet indicated erratic motion. Later he was even more seriously troubled because he could neither identify his companion star nor relocate it. Nobody, much less an astronomer, likes to make a fool of himself, and to be frank this whole set of observations looks like mincemeat. It took courage to report this melee and a man of lesser standing than Dr. Gould would have been brushed off. DR. LD WOULD HAVE HADTO TAKE DR. PETER ATTITUDE IF HE WERE HANDED THE VERY REPORT THAT HIS PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY DEMANDED THAT HE SEND TO ASTRO-NACHRICHTEN AND TO OBSERVER MR. ELLERY. WOULDN'T HE! The observations speak for themselves. There is little change in RA but such as there is reverses itself in the fourth comparison. In declination there was rapid motion (too rapid for this comet), the outright reversal, then rapid motion again. Such a thing is unheard of and, as Dr. Gould indicates, it is enough to shake an observer's confidence in his own ability. It is very difficult to escape the conclusion that one of these objects was moving erratically, and since there is no reason to suspect the comet, and since the "star" could not be found at later times, the "comparison object" must have been moving rapidly and erratically.) An explanation occurs to us, but in 1881 such explanations were of such heretical nature that no one even thought of them, much less put them on paper.) Dr. Krueger, editor of the Astronomische Nachrichten, calculated the position of the comet for June 11, using orbital elements determined in the meanwhile, and analyzes the whole situation. His analysis was translated and published together with still further editorial discussion. Since Dr. Gould's position for the comet agrees well enough with the calculated position, the erratic motion is attributed to the star. After considerable mathematical deduction, the conclusion of the European astronomers was that a second comet had been mistaken for a star. This, however, did not account for the irregular motion. Normally, this would have closed the discussion. But they reckoned without the intrepid amateur from Australia, the active and competent Mr. John Tebbutt. He immediately took pen in hand to address the editor as follows: | have read the letter of Dr. Gould, dated June 16th, with much interest. It is quite obvious from the change in the relative declinations of the comet and the bright star of comparison, that the latter could not be a fixed star, and the only feasible conclusion is that it was a companion comet. But that this object had no existence a short time previously to Dr. Gould's observation is | think, shown by negative evidence in my journal: "The horizon being clear before sunrise yesterday morning | rose to observe the comet. The diffused twilight and full moon... prevented me seeing any stars near the comet for comparison. There was certainly no star of brighter than seventh magnitude...it will be found that (my) observation preceded the first comparison at Cordoba by only 1h 29m..." | feel confident that, at my last observation, no such object as that described by Dr. Gould could have been in the field with the comet...P.S.: Could Dr. Gould, by any possibility, have doserved the blurred images of the stars, BAC 1592 and 1597, and if so is the former a variable star? (The difference in position is about the same, and different magnitudes 156