These responses are certainly encouraging, but I must agree with Glom that they could be more explicit on their website. Anecdotally I would say that we get one person per month come looking to see 'their' star. When 'their' star is 13th magnitude in the starfields of Sagittarius, then they are going to be sorely disappointed, and as the poor sap on the end of the telescope have to explain why their star is indistinguishable from the other 10,000 in the FOV. And now they are flogging 16th magnitude stars - heaven help us!! Suggesting that you can identify a 16th mag star with a telescope & a star chart is simply disingenuous:

Technically true, but it probably should be mentioned that the telescope needed is Keck! To me also, the comment that 'future generations may identify the star name in the directory' is also misleading - although they do specify 'in the directory', to the layperson who has no knowledge of how stars are catalogued, this to them may represent some form of official nomenclature. Certainly the reference to 'future generations' implies a permanence of the record.

Look, as I have stated before, I have no objection to the idea in principle, provided the punter is being given all of the facts. If the sales pitch is open & honest (and better still, educational) and the buyer still buys, then that is their informed choice and best of luck to all parties.

By the way - finally made post number 100! \/ \/ \/

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

So far, we've only seen one side of their telephone resonse. They were given to, and paraphrased by, a person who feels the company is not doing something wrong, and are not misleading people.

I'd like to hear someone who feels they are indeed doing something wrong call them, and transcribe their conversiation with the company as well, so we can hear how those of us who take the other point of view would interpret their response.

My guess is it would not be as encouraging as the response transcribed above.

Suppose I pay the fee and have a 13th magnitude star in Blatta the Cockroach named for my late brother-in-law. A century later that star is found to be a supernova easily observable from Earth. Do you think they'll check these records and honor that naming? Yeah, right!

After the Challenger disaster in 1986, some local Florida representative paid the fee to have a star named for the teacher-astronaut (he didn't spring for seven stars). I learned this when they played his floor speech on the radio newscast. He may have meant well, but you have to question his judgmnent.

__________________
Later . . .

I agree that the buyer must be responsible for investigating and otherwise testing the product. I also believe that the companies we have been discussing probably mean no harm, and are not intentionally misleading. Still, there are a couple of things that don't seem right.

The issue of an authority is an important one. John Stuart Mill wrote, “The tendency has always been strong to believe that whatever received a name must be an entity or being, having an independent existence of its own." If it is just a novelty, why list stars by "SAO number" (Star Wishing), or include them in the "International Star Registry" in a vault in Switzerland (International Star Registry)? Wouldn't just an alphabetized list be sufficient? Few people would be willing to pay to name a star if they thought the company would fold in ten years. It certainly sounds more impressive, legitimate, and most importantly, permanent if your star has a number, and is "officially registered."

Naming stars may be a novelty, but the websites don't exactly go out of their way to present them as such, using words like "timeless" and "unique," and, "lasting memories are written in the stars," to describe their service, and endowing them with official identities.

International Star Registry came clean when asked the right kinds of questions, but how many people know what to ask? The company is going to give me a map to show me the location of the star, so why should I expect it to be difficult to see? If you know a little something about visual magnitudes (and limiting visual magnitudes), it's easy to understand.

I don't think I would be so bothered by the star-hawking trade if it didn't include memorial gifts.

What "interpreting" do you think is going on here? Take a look at my posts. I have two issues here. First, I have stated that I think there is nothing wrong with a company doing this if it is done correctly. Second, I have not seen a compelling argument that these companies are misleading people. If you look carefully you will see that I specifically said I consider these two separate issues. Even if Star Registry turned out to be misleading people, I still feel a responsible company has the right to sell star names for their own company registry.

Why does that matter? Sure you don't know me, but honesty I take personally. If I was lied to or misled when I made that phone call you can bet I would have told you. I don't give a rats rear about Star Registry specifically. What I wrote above is paraphrased because I will not claim that the exact wording of each sentence is exactly how the conversation went - but the content of the responses is 100% accurate. It is not exaggerated or selectively presented.

I'm capable of giving you and did give you an unbiased account of my conversation with Laura (that was her name) and frankly I don't like your implication otherwise with your last sentence. YOU are implying that I am misleading the people on this bulletin board.

So by all means call them. And I suppose you have the ability to give an unbiased account that you suspect I lack? The more people that call the better. I'd genuinely like AGN fuel to call them because he has spoken with people that have been confused about these star naming services and he's shown a fair approach to this question.

Yes, and nobody has presented evidence to the contrary. I'm a little bothered here that scientifically minded people are willing to characterize these companies without doing the research and having specific evidence to back up their position.

This is the point that I really think people are missing. These companies have the RIGHT to do this. And if they think that putting it in a vault in Switzerland will make their product more marketable then so what? In all this I don't here anybody acknowledging that maybe some people get something positive out of buying these star names. Is it really that hard to grasp that there is a sentimental thing that goes with purchasing a star name? When they acknowledge it is a novelty they are pointing out that they are offering this to people that are not scientists. Why can't there be a "registry" of star names that has nothing to do with SCIENCE? And unless somebody makes a valid claim as to why they shouldn't exist, then ANYBODY that wants to can start one.

Yes and that is the only criticism I have of them, but if you call them you get the full scoop. And the phrases such as "timeless" is a sales pitch. Everybody that sells something tries to come up with these kinds of phrases or similar images.

That certainly must happen, but that is not the fault of the company selling the name and it has nothing to do with the right of these companies to offer a star naming registry. I remember in 6th grade being taught about techniques advertisers use to sell their products. Its not the fault of the ISR if many people lack the common sense to realize that.

And again - most of the people who purchase or receive these star names are getting the sentimental and "ooh that's really neat" benefit. It doesn't matter that its not officially sanctioned by the IAU. It doesn't have to be.

Sorry if I'm not remaining calm :wink: here. But I really think people need to realize that for the average non-scientist this is simply something that is NEAT.

Being smarter than those punters does not mean you are right. Authority only counts to those willing to recognize it. If the unruly masses have the right of franchise in this country (USA) then the people are the over-ruling legal authority. At least that's the principle inheirent in the American Declaration of Independence.

Consider this: Put 100 astronomers in a field with 1000 punters and then you'll see who is "right." I hate to seemingly resort to violence, but that's the unvarnished truth.

What does a 400 lbs gorilla call the pole-star? Anything it wants to.

JPax

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

Done - I rang posing as a complete astronomical novice requesting information on what services their company provides. The gentleman who took my call was certainly well versed in his subject and clearly had a well-rehearsed spiel, but by the same token he did not tell me anything that was strictly factually incorrect (although he skated close to the edge a couple of times).

Without being prompted, he indicated that the stars in question were below naked eye visibility, but could be seen through a 'domestic' 4" telescope. He said that the stars were from the Hubble Guide Catalogue and as such were unnamed, and represented "the 17,000,000 stars known to man". He indicated that the ISR was the only registry of the names of stars (I'm not sure this is correct...) and that my name (or the name of a loved one) would be recorded 'for posterity'. With the certificate, I would receive a detailed map so I could locate it and scientific details of the star, including type, brightness, etc. He confirmed that I would not be buying the star itself, but buying the naming rights to be included in their registry, so becoming "a gift that's there forever, protected by copyright".

On specific questioning, he stated categorically that astronomers would not use my star's name, explaining that 'astronomers do not use the names of stars, they use the catalogue numbers. The catalogue number does not change when you give your star a name'. I pressed my concerns regarding the brightness of the star and how easy it would be for a novice to find, so he gave me a quick lesson in magnitudes. He stated that the stars sold by the registry are usually magnitude 11-12 (although he stated that there is only about a 10% difference in brightness in the all stars that they sell - that is not correct). He warned that some stars would be harder to find than others, but that with the map, anyone with a telescope should be able to point it out for me (that is probably stretching things a bit).

Rather embarrassingly, when I told him where I lived, he excitedly recommended the observatory where I work as having helped a number of his clients find their stars in the past and he put me on hold for a minute or two so that he could get the telephone number for me! ops:

The cost of the service floored me - $220.00 unframed or $275.00 framed certificate, add another $20 if you want it special delivery.

What I would like to do (probably next week, so as not to arouse suspicion!) is ring again as an astronomer complaining about having to find a 13th mag star in Sagittarius for an elderly lady & see what the response is. However, I must say that the gentleman was helpful, enthusiastic, keen to make a sale (and made a number of references to 'gift that's there forever', 'posterity' and my decendants), but he did not indicate that the name would be in common usage, nor did he make any pretence that I would be able to see the star just by walking out into the backyard.

Bottom line I suppose, is that I am still not convinced that anyone need pay $275.00 for a parchment certificate and your name in a book (my name is already in the White Pages, with about the same level of detail!) and I challenge any city dweller to make out a 12th magnitude star in a dense starfield with a 4" department store telescope, but there was no overt deception.

Your point is taken dgruss23 and I do feel a little kinder towards them than I did an hour ago - however, I would still prefer that they were a bit clearer up front about the validity of the 'name' and that it would not be used by astronomers (it appears on their FAQ, but so does the "falling from the sky" query - I can't believe that hasn't been removed yet after BA's book came out!). $275 also seems outrageously expensive given the name has absolutely no validity outside of their own registry.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

Maybe you could tell him you were thinking of registering stars yourself for less money that Star Registry charges and ask if they have any kind of patent or copyright that would prevent you from doing so. Maybe they'd lie to protect their business and threaten you with a lawsuit.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

Characterize, yes. Outright condemn, no. That's what this board is all about-dialogue, discussion, and I hope, the freedom to change one's mind when new evidence is found or arises.

Nowhere did I state that there was no benefit to be gotten from those services. Who has denied the sentimental value? If it makes any difference, I freely admit that people can and do get satisfaction from purchasing a star name. But I think you too are missing the point. It's not about science at all, but like so much in business, it's about appearances. What am I really buying for $200? Maybe most customers don't care where their star is registered, or whether they can actually see it, as long as they get the goods. It remains a question as to whether they're getting what they expect for their money. Why bother paying $200 for a simple certificate when you can make your own on MS Word or Photo Shop?

I agree completely, and have nothing against creating an independent list or registry. So why do these companies go to such lengths to make the lists look scientific? As I already mentioned, why wouldn't an alphabetized list alone suffice?

Good point, and after reading both your and AGN Fuel's experiences of talking on the phone with company representatives, I am pretty much convinced there is no intentional deception.

The only thing you didn't comment on from my post was the memorials. I'm still curious to know what you (and anyone else of course) think about those.

Condemn - really that is the word I should have used. I think people were condemning these companies as overtly misleading.

With regard to this issue, I did change my mind. I initially reacted to these companies a few years ago as most people here have. But after giving it more thought literally on this thread - I changed my mind.

Sorry - at that point I was responding in general and not to you specifically. Others have said that. And I do think the sentimental value is denied when some emphasize that they don't think people are getting anything for the $200 or whatever it amounts to. That is the consumers choice.

Exactly. Its a business. I don't understand why we would criticize them for using cute little phrases like "timeless" to try and sell a product. That is what businesses do.

Again I think the idea of it being published in a book and recognized by somebody - even if its only this company - is part of the appeal. Don't forget either that when they buy one of these they will see their name along with celebrities and other famous people. Some people like that kind of stuff and its part of what they are forking over the money for.

By doing that doesn't it make people feel that they get more for their money. If they didn't do that wouldn't it be letting down the customers. I also haven't seen a page from their book so I don't know how scientific it actually looks.


I must have missed that on their website. I've got a busy day ahead so I'll have to get back to you on that one. BTW Josh, I wasn't really upset with anything you said specifically so if my response sounded emotion is was more because of the previous response in which it was implied that I was misleading the people on this board about my conversation with the Star Registry.

AGN - Thanks for doing that! And I agree with you - as I've stated in earlier posts - that they could improve their site by clarifying the issues of finding these stars and the fact that they are not recognized by astronomers. You'd also think they could fix the "falling star" item!

Dgruss,

No offense taken. It's been a good debate and I've learned a lot. I also appreciate the fact that you and AGN took the time to research as thoroughly as you did, actually contacting the companies and talking with the employees.

One of the principles of the american system is preservation of the rights of the minority. No "over-ruling" that.

Yes, you are correct. The US system of government is a republic (with democratic tendencies), which tries to balance the rights of the minority with the rights of the majority. Trying to give more justice to one group inevitably becomes a real or perceived injustice to another group. If the US were a true democracy, then the rights of the minority would be non-existent.

Unfortunately you are wrong that there is no over-ruling of the rights of the minority. It occurs, and with alarming frequency, even if it is not so blatant as it used to be (e.g. legal slavery for almost 100 years after the DOI).

I was primarily referencing the US DOI and it's principles and not the US Constitution which is the actual legal contract authorizing the creation of a governing legal authority. The "consent of the governed" is the basis for all human government (whether it is codified or not).

The IAU may be considered a minority in a numerical sense, however it's authority makes it a governing body as opposed to a body of the governed. The IAU has authority in astronomical names because it was given to them. This authority could very easily be revoked and given to Star Registry if the US government decided.

Consider this scenario. A star is named after a living (ex) president. That (ex) president dies and people want to commemorate him. The execs at a star name registry company publicize his star and ask everyone to remember him that way. A sentimental grandmother in a rural part of the US (where this star is visible) writes her congressman asking to make the star's name official. This congressman, seeking a tough re-election campaign, goes ahead with it for the sympathetic vote. Others jump on the bandwagon. Late-night and day-time tv alike have shows on the topic and write-in campaigns ensue. Congress finally decides to vote on it and it passes by a vote of acclamation. (It's not nearly as difficult a vote as removing personal liberties for homeland security.) It's one star down, and a precedent for millions. The IAU's authority is a slow death spiral, or they acknowledge the one time special occasion... until it happens again.

This US legislation would only have jurisdiction in the US, but that would make the number of adhering countries 65, about half of all the countries on earth. Being a major player, it would have a profound effect. Consider the fact that any work published in the US on said star would be legally required to include the star name registry company's copyrighted and congressionally legislated name. Moreover, those current non-adhering countries could legally adopt the star name registry company's list as official without any pesky international treaties to break.

Here in Chicago, Comiskey Park is where the White Sox play and is called that by most people in town. However, TV/radio newscasters and newspapers anywhere are legally required to call it US Cellular Field, under penalty of lawsuit. Even the USPS and Rand McNally, call it by the new name.

I do think the IAU should be the official and internationally recognized authority on astronomical objects today. However, it only stays that way until we change it. Eventually there will be a planetary government, we will become a space-faring people, and the IAU as an separate body will cease to exist. Their days may be long, but they are numbered as the authoritative institution it is today.

JPax

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

Interesting Jpax2003, but there is one important point to consider. The official IAU cataloging of stars serves the purposes of science. The various star naming registrys serve the purpose of providing a sentimental novelty gift for private citizens around the world. I don't see why these two purposes should ever come into conflict - except through misinformation. Scientists have no need of the private names, and the people who have privately names stars have little use for the scientific names. Each should leave the other alone.

It's good you looked that up, then. Kinda negates your previous statement, "If the unruly masses have the right of franchise in this country (USA) then the people are the over-ruling legal authority." The pen (or, in some cases, TRL) is still mightier than the sword.

I'm sure I know what I am talking about. However, I am not sure I understand what it is you think I am talking about. The principles I've elucidated have no conflict with each other so far as I use them. The US-DOI and the US Constitution are both clear on the point. A government is only legitimate based on the "consent of the governed." Most political scientists are on agreement on this. However, there is ongoing debate as to the duration of that consent and whether it need be confirmed on a periodic basis. Talk of "trees of liberty" and "blood of patriots and tyrants" is interesting, however it does not answer the actual issue. Is the consent given everytime one pays taxes, everytime someone votes, everytime someone pays a speeding ticket? We do not currently have an established method of confirming the consent originally granted to the US Constitution.

However, we do have several methods of removing consent. The Constitution may be amended, or a convention may be called to overhaul it entirely. Then there is the much debated method implicit in the 2nd Ammendment. While the constitutional wording may appear ambiguous, the writings of the Federalists were not. This is highlighted in their rebellious actions prior. We draw our authority from the principles in US-DOI, which was the manner in which we formally withdrew the consent of those who were governed by King George III.

We de-consented, King George resented,
through force of arms, he then relented,
the people now are represented

I do not contradict myself. The fulcrum of US politics is between personal liberty and general security. Several times in US history have people been agrieved and picked up arms, or threatened to do such. Several times this has ended in bloodshed. The pen is only mightier than the sword when we agree to live by the strokes of that pen. However, the sword requires no such confluence of endeavor. Some say violence solves nothing. In truth it solves most things, but it leaves a big mess to clean up.

To sum up, my previous statements were consistent. The people do have the franchise, but even if they did not, they would be the over-rulling legal authority. This has been expressed in the written contract we call the US Constitution. The constitution is the legal authority of the government, charted within, yet the OVER-ruling authority is the un-ruly masses... so long as they consent.

Consider this legal argument: If consent is by the governed; And, If the expression of that franchise is the execution of that consent; And, if a majority of consent is required for authority to be vested in that government; And, if the non-expression of that franchise is the execution of a denial of consent; Then, the possibility exists that a total voter turnout of less than 50% +1 in any given election indicates that consent of the governed no longer authorizes the existing government. Thus, the US Constitution is no longer valid.

But it may still be possible that we could operate on the current contract until negotiations result in a new and improved contract.

What's this got to do with star name registries? not much anymore. I just think that requests some have made for legal injunction against star name registries is silly. Much of it appeared to be based on arrogance, more than on established legal doctrine. Then to assert that some NGO trumps domestic law without even a cursory examination of the facts. Then to assert that those who did make an examination were inventing their facts. At that point I decided that a review of constitutional law and political pragmatics was indicated.

degruss23, I agree 100%. The systematic cataloging of stars if beneficial to whomever finds it useful. If the star name registry companies find it useful, then more power to them. It is not impossible that professional astronomers may also find value in an astral-nomination as memorial. There is no reason for the two purposes to come into conflict, although some may have suggested otherwise.

And science serves the purposes of humanity.

JPax

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

Do you have specific evidence to back up your position that those people are actually scientifically minded?
We're talking about the star registry. Remember, pyramid schemes have been reinvented as multi-level marketing. One's illegal, the other is legal. So far. As we all know, "legal" is not the same thing as "ethical" or "moral" or "pragmatic".
You called them the "over-ruling legal authority" before. Big difference.
Phil Plait has a star named after him. He mentions it in his book.

Not really. The IAU is an international organisation. They can't just be stopped by one government.

Yep, the United States government isn't all powerful. One day Alaskans will sweep down and across Canada and take over the pitiful Lower 48! Then the Empire of Alaska will be born. -Colt

__________________
Be not afraid of any man no matter what his size; when danger threatens, call on me, and I will equalize.

If you'll note, I call them that in the passage you are quoting. I try try to avoid being sesquapedalian. The un-ruly masses are the over-ruling authority over all government. If codified in the laws of the government then it can also be labeled "legal" authority. In a democracy, the people are the over-ruling legal authority. If the government is a tyrrany, then you might say that the people are not the over-ruling legal authority, but they would still be the over-ruling authority.

Cool.

Are you sure about that? Do you know how many international treaties the US has unilaterally broken in recent years? Do you know how many treaties and resolutions would cease to function if the US makes the UN irrelevant? Do you know how many bombs would make the IAU cease to exist? (answer: not many) There are quite a few ways that one government an stop the IAU.

JPax

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

The United States is not a democracy.
The USA is not a tyranny either, but in the USA, the mob is not a legal authority.
Now you're being silly.

It would not take much for the actions of the ISR to be declared illegal. In fact, the more successful they are, the more likely it is. There are a finite number of appropriate stars, so they're bound to recycle them. Someone'll get t*cked, and someone else will try to make a law against it. The existence of the IAU makes it more likely that such an effort would be successful, regardless of how poorly they've budgeted for missile shielding and their own international military defense. Perhaps the IAU copy right is being violated somehow??

The right of free speech allows anyone to demand that something be made illegal--that doesn't mean that the demand will be successful. Nor will that something be judged illegal just because someone is charging for junk--pet rocks were big sellers, decades ago. We know that. Still dumb.

IF they recycle them they would be violating their own guarantee. They'd be stupid to do that. But if they were that stupid what legal grounds are there for making their operation illegal? They might get sued. Heck McDonalds is getting sued because some people have overweight children so I suppose these companies could be sued for offering faint stars.

If by chance a law was passed that made them illegal in the United States I suspect several things might happen. First the people that bought the rights to name a star in these catalogs will probably think its a bit off the deep end that a harmless novelty gift should be outlawed. Second the companies in question could simply move their operation to another country. Is someone really going to bother pushing for a law that makes it illegal for US citizens to BUY these star names?

IMO it would be arrogance on the part of the scientific community to stand behind a push to make this illegal - unless a case could be made that these lists harm the scientific process. They're novelty gifts. Its supposed to be fun for the people that buy and receive these. It won't harm research in any way. I don't think too many people in astronomical research are going to be fooled by a catalog of stars named "Fred", "Myrtle", and so on.

In such a case I agree. Heck - I could make my own catalog of star names if I wanted to and if someone wanted to pay me some $ to have some names placed in my catalog then that's their (and my) right. If astonomers don't like it, tough.

However . . .

If someone who paid money for a star name actually thought it was going to be used by astronomers;
And they wouldn't have paid for the star name had they realized that it wasn't going to be used 'officially' by astronomers;
And ISR realizes this and so doesn't put an obvious disclaimer about this on their website or radio ads because it would hurt sales;

Then they are engaging in (IMHO) deceptive practices. Not fraud, because the company does not deliberately make false claims, but deceptive nonetheless. [-X

Hmmm, I think I already said that in an earlier post.

Those with the fanchise are the legal authority. Any mob is an authority, albeit transient... or until quelled by force. I think I already suggested that in an earlier post.

Yes. Seemed to be getting heated in here. But it is true that a treaty is only good until someone breaks it.

Absolutely. But that also means it could be declared legal. Never underestimate the ability of american jurisprudence to reach for the absurd. The IAU does have a page regarding this specific topic and suggests that illegitimate usage of their name would be grounds for suit.

Someone can sell crap if the market wants crap, as long as they don't lie about it. A legal lie is usally a pretty stringent definition. The websites probably do not imply official astronomical use, although many may infer a connection. Any lawsuit from a disgruntled customer might have standing in court, but I seriously doubt a ruling in that plaintiff's favor.

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

That is one of the most important points in this discussion. It has been established that no overt false advertising has occurred. It has been established that if you call the Star Registry, they will not lie or mislead you and are upfront about the difficulties of actually locating the stars and the fact that the naming is a novelty gift not recognized by professional astronomers. Anybody who thinks otherwise on these two points has made an incorrect inference or more accurately "jumped to conclusions" and that is the fault of the consumer.

I have not previously said and let me say here. These star naming gifts are STUPID. But that is my biased view as a person who loves science. The people who buy and receive these star names must not think so or the company would be out of business. As Jpax2003 says - if there is a market for this stuff it will sell.

If they were truly "upfront" about this, they would be out of business, so I disagree that they are upfront. Just because they answered questions honestly doesn't mean that they haven't hidden something.

An example. You go to buy a car, and you ask the salesman if the car had ever been in a major accident, and he admits it has. He's honest. However, if the next customer comes in and buys it without asking the question, and the salesperson doesn't inform them, in some places the salesperson would be breaking the law. In that case the salesperson didn't lie to the customer, they just didn't tell the truth, as is required by law.

Whether the ISR will ever cross the line far enough to make their activities illegal is debatable. That's why we're debating it. Some people think they've already crossed that line, some think they never will. Neither side is wrong--unless they accuse the other side of being wrong.

For something like the ISR, sure. Small value consumer-claims aren't even worth the time to pursue them in court (who is going to go after ISR for a $50 refund?) and are not a big concern of most governments. But in the US the line between imply and infer is getting moved around, at least in regards to large money items such as investments. The disclosure required these days for publicly-traded companies is enormous and making a large business deal using a lot of inference in your proposal will definately land you in court if the earnings go south. The business community does not like "I didn't tell you because you didn't ask" approaches to disclosure.

While I don't think that ISR is doing anything illegal one has to ask why they pointed out the Swiss Bank vault and (used to say?) that the book was registered at the Library of Congress. To give an unsophisticated reader the impression of its officiality? Why disclose details like that and not something more significant like "the astronomical community will not use your name"?

It seems there is general agreement that the biggest problem with what they are doing is they have not put on their website that they are not recognized by astronomers.