Comment on “Detection of small comets with a ground‐based telescope” by L. A. Frank and J. B. Sigwarth

Abstract

Citation: Mutel, R. L., and J. D. Fix, Comment on ''Detection of small comets with a ground-based telescope'' by L. A. Frank and

Reply to comment on “Detection of small comets with a ground‐based telescope” by L. A. Frank and J. B. Sigwarth

“…[1] Our present purpose is to respond to the comment by Mutel and Fix [2003], which was based upon their ''visual inspection'' of some of the images of small comet trails which were previously reported by Frank and Sigwarth [2001a]. The visual inspection by Mutel and Fix provides no new search criteria relative to those applied previously by Frank and Sigwarth [2001a].…”

“…If the reader is principally interested in the errors and misinterpretations by Mutel and Fix [2003], these are to be found in our sections 3, 4, and 5.…”

“…However, the reader is advised that the verification of small comet trails by Frank and Sigwarth [2001a] was further supported by the necessary statistical analyses of the images. Mutel and Fix [2003] did not perform this required rigorous statistical analysis but based their conclusions on qualitative ''visual inspection'' of three images.…”

“…[7] The rejection of the small comet trails by Mutel and Fix [2003] is based upon a ''visual inspection'' of the above three images which provided qualitative impressions but no quantitative analysis. This inspection by Mutel and Fix was so coarse that they were unable to identify the other six small comet trails which were fully specified by Frank and Sigwarth [2001a] in their Table 3 as to the date and time of the image, the number of trail segments due to camera shuttering, the total trail length, the trail full width, the signal-to-noise for the trails and their standard deviations, and the average signal per pixel.…”

“…[9] The objections to the three trails by Mutel and Fix [2003] from their visual inspections were based upon features of the images of these trails which were already extensively investigated in the original paper by Frank and Sigwarth [2001a], as noted in our introduction and by the intensive reviews of the paper by the referees. The objections of Mutel and Fix are solidly and simply disposed of as follows.…”