Kenneth Chang

1. Their own claim is error more than 10% half of the time,

2. They calibrated fudge factors to known asteroid sizes, so they should be close, right? Would really like someone to explain.

3. I would say an albedo of 1.0 would likely be “wildly wrong.” But can’t check independently.

3. Example of asteroid size measurement being wildly wrong, please. Or please admit that you do not have such an example. /1

If Dave Herald hadn’t posted, you wouldn’t have your example, either. I can’t report a story in reverse time.

The occultation data IS interesting and worth following up on. But one data point doesn’t refute everything by itself.

Nathan could be entirely wrong. But that’s not what people told me when I talked to them.

No one mentioned the occultation comparison. Not Amy. Not Lindley Johnson. Not the other scientists.