[meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl

From: Sterling K. Webb <kelly_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Sep 15 04:39:07 2005
Message-ID: <43293309.EBCC22E4_at_bhil.com>

Hi, Rob, List

    No, Ortiz hasn't replied yet, even though you will note
Brown has been repeatedly asking him to explain since July
without any response from him, which is why Brown gave up on
trying to resolve things peaceable and private. Ortiz can
communicate with the NYTimes, though: "I do not enjoy...
so much questioning." No, I'll bet he don't!
    The reason why 2003 EL61 is very simple -- it's 100 times
brighter than 2003 UB313, even though the later is larger.
Ortiz' scope ("a brace of small telescopes at the Sierra
Nevada Observatory, in Granada") couldn't pick up a 19th
mag object like 2003 UB313, so no way he could claim it!
Neither is the other one (I forget its number) bright
enough for Ortiz to observe... But 2003 EL61 is 16th mag!
    The timing of the log accesses from Ortiz' OWN
COMPUTER make it crystal clear. It's a case of being
caught with your hand in the cookie jar, crumbs on
your face, smears of chocolate chips on your lips...
    By all means, let us adopt the standards of the day:
the ALLEDGED hand in the ALLEDGED cookie jar is
all the ALLEDGED evidence for the ALLEDGED theft
of the ALLEDGED planetary discovery that an average
observer really needs to persuade one's ALLEDGED
common sense...
    Yes, it is (just barely) conceivable that 2003 EL61
was discovered on July 25 by Mr. Santos-Sanz as a
slow-moving object on images taken in March 2003
and that Ortiz went to Brown's logs to verify that the
object he had just "discovered" was the object K40506A,
which Brown had ALREADY announced observations of.
Would that make it "his" discovery? Emphatically, No.
    Yes, Ortiz had photographed (alledgedly photographed?)
the object in 2003, but did he discover that BEFORE he
accessed Brown's logs or AFTER? Remember, Brown has
already published on K40506A (without giving its sky
coordinates), so that photographing it would not constitute
"discovery." It has, after all, been photographed since
1955 by a variety of scopes and observers. Galling, I'm
sure it was. ANNOUNCING makes it a discovery.
    As the article says: "Were he and his colleagues only
checking to see if Dr. Brown's object was the same as
theirs to confirm their own discovery? Or did they use
the information to find the object and beat the Caltech
team? Both actions would violate scientific ethics but
with varying degrees of seriousness..."
    Yeah, that's a very genteel way of putting it:
petty larceny versus grand larceny. Ortiz was just
"checking" those cookies, right? IF he discovered an
object and feared it MIGHT be K40506A, the thing
to do would be to have announced WITHOUT checking.
    Then, if it turned out to be K40506A, he would have,
at the least, been listed as co-discoverer and probably as
principal discoverer, given that his was the shoestring
and brave effort at a small underdog observatory, etc.,
etc.
    There's even a certain similarity to another discovery
story: Kansas farm boy after years of toil at discredited
observatory discovers new world! What Ortiz did ('cuse me,
ALLEDGEDLY did) was a foolish and stupid thing to do.
He could have played those cards so much better. You'll
recall that Brown immediately acknowledged him as
discoverer BEFORE his access was identified.
    So I ask, in return, if Prtiz knew he had photographed
a heliocentric object, why did he go to Brown's logs
at all? Why not just announce?
    Far and away the most likely sequence was his log
access, observation, then finding he'd already
photographed it, argh! then announcing. It must
have been frustrating, yes, but...
    Or, perhaps the correct term for the offense is:
GRAND THEFT, PLANET.


Sterling K. Webb
----------------------------------------------------------
Matson, Robert" wrote:

> Hi Sterling and List,
>
> It may be premature to jump to conclusions about the true chain
> of events and the reasoning behind them -- Ortiz hasn't responded
> yet to the allegations, so it is quite possible that there is a
> less nefarious explanation.
>
> Two interesting facts to consider:
>
> 1. Ortiz's team DID observe the object on three separate nights in
> 2003. Either this is an extraordinary coincidence, or Ortiz has
> been imaging huge swaths of the sky over the last 2-3 years.
> (Such searches could not be confined to the ecliptic region
> since this object is not in the ecliptic.)
>
> 2. Why steal 2003 EL61, when Ortiz could just as easily have
> scooped the larger 2003 UB313?
>
> --Rob
Received on Thu 15 Sep 2005 04:38:33 AM PDT