John J.
Senior Member.
I don't know. Maybe others do, but I don't remember Beatrix Villarroel suggesting this (which doesn't mean she hasn't).
I guess many other astronomers have done work based on/ informed by DSS and/or SSS, and probably the earlier glass POSS1 copies (perhaps more so pre-digitisation). If this is the case, it might be argued that those astronomers were not obliged to refer back to the original material (conjecture, maybe some were, I don't know). But I feel B.V. et al.'s transient papers are perhaps different; their findings are extraordinary and if accepted their implications are far-reaching. Hambly and Blair have raised what might be plausible concerns about reprographic artefacts, which might be tested by examining the POSS1 plates. Maybe other relevant insights would be made while examining the originals.
I don't know anything about access to the POSS1 plates. Even if allowed, a re-examination of those physical artefacts (presumably "in situ") might be a much more time-consuming, inconvenient and in effect expensive process than the study of the digitised material.
Last edited:
