[G12] Fwd: Momentum corrections

[Gagik Gavalian]

Since Moskov is unable to send messages to g12, I'm forwarding his message:

Message from Moskov:

Dear Matt,

I have no intention to undermine your efforts to replicate our analysis.
However, you left a trace of suspicion that even after a long time since,
people have something in their mind.

For different reasons we did not complete the full strength comparison
of our analyses in both data and Monte Carlo. Period, you can't refuse this.
At this stage of our analysis, which you are not following closely enough,
the review committee has accepted our data analysis and the fact that we
see a resonance structure. It doesn't mean yet that our analysis is embraced
and released.

Nevertheless you would probably agree  that any discussion refering
to your analysis has to be abandoned due to memory update if you wish
that followed.

I am inviting our colleagues to start from the end of last review, which took us
one more year of work. We simply can not agree  each time to fall back
to ground zero
and start from "already Matt Bellis has shown..." that MC reproduces
the fake peak.

The last committee was  chaired by Elton Smith and included members of previous
committee to preserve continuity and prevent the loss of information.

All songs have been sung, everything under the sky has been discussed
and questioned and checked and recheked many many times.

If anybody wants to bring new issues it should be something new,
like whether g12 data show the same signal or not, or is a t cut obstacle or
what? Does the fact that in g12 we see a signal even without a t-cut
is sufficient
to remove a barrier to g11 data release.

So, we should keep civility, but we are professionals and we can't accept going
around the circle and this is a reason why we refuse to discuss
validity of our analysis
based on your analysis of two years ago, putting it mildly.

And finally to all recipients, we like Matt Bellis, we do not have
anything personal
against him and let the truth dominate our decisions.

Best regards,

Moskov.





Matt wrote:
>
>     I think we will all use the term "problem in your analysis" unless we
>     know for sure what your analysis really were !
>
>
>   Please note the dates on these public postings. 
>
> http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/hadron/wiki/index.php/ODU_Analysis_of_Meson-baryon_Interference#Dec_1_.2A_CMU_event_numbers__.5BMatt_Bellis.5D
>
> http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/hadron/wiki/index.php/ODU_Analysis_of_Meson-baryon_Interference#Dec_21_.2A_Various_responses_to_Igor_and_ODU_.2A_.5BMatt_Bellis.5D
>
> -- 
> -- 
> ----------------------------
> Matt Bellis
> Stanford University
> (SLAC office)  650-926-4392
> (cell)    412-310-4586
> ----------------------------