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

From: Sterling K. Webb <kelly_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat Sep 17 02:24:16 2005
Message-ID: <432BB668.E8C4514E_at_bhil.com>

Hi, Doug,

    It's clear you experience great sympathy for Ortiz.
But I caution you to examine the evidence closely. The
analogy you suggest for the "Sterling" meteorite hunter
is not quite accurate nor apt.

    I hope you like lots of links, 'cause that's what
we have here. Initially, suspicion fell on Jean-Claude
Pele, because he hacked the Yale SMARTS site for the
SMARTS pointing information for K40506A that same day
(July 26). He even posted the SMARTS log information
on the Yahoo Minor Planet Mailing List, but after
2003EL61 was announced, and a complete ephemeris of
K40506A:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15142>
and
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15143>
and
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15144>
and
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15145>

    People were immediately suspicious. The next
message reply asks "Where'd you get this data??!"
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15147>
and Pele tells him how he hacked it:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15149>
Here is where he got them. These are the SMARTS observing logs.
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/Logs/2005/Jul/20050703.log
http://www-astro.mps.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/Logs/2005/Jan/20050125.log
http://www-astro.mps.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/Logs/2005/Jan/20050126.log
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/Logs/2005/Jan/20050127.log
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/Logs/2005/May/20050505.log

    Here's his protestation that he wasn't the thief:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15283>
and he gets Brian Marston (MPC) to "clear" him. Obviously,
he does not regard using these logs to make a "discovery"
to be harmless, but is desperately concerned to establish
that HE DID NOT do such a thing nor aid any one else to
do it.

    The complete MPML posts were re-posted to Freelists
by Marco Langbroek, a member of this list, if you want to
see them all:
<http://www.freelists.org/archives/fmo/07-2005/msg00082.html>

    Pele's innocent of "discovery." He wasn't him. It was
Ortiz and Co., using the IAA computer:
<http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/ortiz/>
the same IAA computer used to report Ortiz' "discovery."

    The SMARTS site was not secured nor password
protected, nor is it now. Here's the SMARTS Consortium
website URL:
<http://www.astro.yale.edu/smarts/>

    It's very open, but obviously intended for the use
of the members of the Consortium. You can even access their
UNIX directory list:
<http://www.astro.yale.edu/smarts/smarts13m/>

    There is no attempt to conceal the observing logs.
On the bottom left are links to the "nightly logs." And
through the directory link you can get to the ccd
processing logs as well.

    For example, here's the URL to the "discovery
night," or Brown's first observation of K40506:
<http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/ObsLogs/2004/May/>
Click on 20040506 and the log will download.
Of course it isn't called K40506A until later,
but it's in there somewhere...

    The name K40506A isn't "code" as you called it,
Doug. It's a field ID number for a thing that has no name
and is being referenced for the first time; that's all.
The number is merely the year,month,day of first sighting.
Brown gave out that ID number in 2004, when he told
the AAU that he would report on it at their September
2005 meeting with this notice:
<http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v37n3/dps2005/320.htm>

    Teasing all this out was not easy. Yes, it was
(unintentionally) accessible, but it is difficult and
would yield usefull information only with a lot of work.
You'd have to want it pretty bad, need it, in fact.

    Brown was too naive. Also, he doesn't seem to
have been aware that Google indexes EVERYTHING,
and that you could do what actually was done to him.
    He said:
"It's true that the information was available
without breaking into any sites. It's also
true that sometimes I don't lock the door to
my house. I hope that people don't think it's
therefore OK to come in and take my stuff."
<http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3526451>

    I have no idea why you think Brown is such a
plotter, like his not criticizing Ortiz earlier, so
he can criticize him more later. That's paranoid,
Doug, really. Nor why you think his congratulations
to Ortiz were not sincere? They were unqualified
and open. He had no suspicions at this point because
he was unaware that the observing logs had been
accessed by anybody outside SMARTS. As for your
suggestion that the log accesses are "faked," Brown
would have to know in advance when Ortiz would
announce, an impossibility pretty much, don't you
think?

    As you can tell, GOOGLE is the key here. Without
it, connecting the AAU notice with the observing logs
and the ccd processing logs (they are crucial too because
they identify K40506A in the field coordinates), both of
which are on-line, are useless to a competitor.

    As for envy and resentment, does that justify
stealing somebody's else's observations? If Ortiz
actually uncovered the three 2003 plates used to make
that GIF, roughed out an orbit, observed it again,
refined the orbit, found the archival detections, all
without using Brown's observations, WHY? WHY! WHY?!!
did he not merely ANNOUNCE as the joyous and righteous
discoverer of a new world, without peeking into somebody
else's search records? Why pause on the way to glory
to commit a gratuitous and unnecessary crime?

    The fact is that the log accesses PRECEDE his
own timeline of discovery in every step. He hacks in the
first time BEFORE finding the object in the 2003 plates...
and he does AGAIN before submitting an orbit to MPC.
The light comes on and there you are, with your hand
IN the cookie jar, crumbs on your chin, and chocolate
on your lips, and you mumble with your mouth full,
"Id wuzzant me..."

    I'm somewhat aghast at your advocacy of the notion
that Ortiz is entitled to steal Brown's work because
he (Ortiz) is underfunded compared to Brown. Huh? In fact,
I see a kind of generalized third-worldish rationale toward
the rich and greedy Americans obviously not being entitled
to their obscene wealth because they couldn't possibly
deserve it or be entitled to it and must have stolen it
all in the first place, so it's only right to to help
yourself to it -- it isn't really stealing at all...
    There's an abbreviation for that (bs bs bs bs).

    If you want to indulge in complete paranoia about
fakery, consider that all these astronomical images are
digital ccd images. Given three plates of a region at
some other time than when K40506A was there and the knowledge
of what it's position would be when it was, I could create
that lovely GIF animation in PhotoShop in a few minutes.

    But I do not make that accusation. I think Ortiz hacked
the positional data, calculated the orbit, and found he had
an unexamined plate for a recent past position, checked
those plates and found that he had discovery plates and
never knew it! Driven as mad by that frustration as Don
Quixote obstructed by the windmill, he charged! Perhaps.
    I think if he had claimed, the next day, the three
plates as the prior discovery to Brown's and credited
Brown's data as an aid to that, everything would have
worked out fine and he would have been credited with
the find. Remember, we credit LeVerrier with Neptune
and not Adams, even though Adams really was the first
(but shot down by that jerk Flamsteed). Good thing
for LeVerrier, else he'd have been remembered solely
for "Vulcan."
    I think Ortiz' motive was not what you suggest, but
an excess of pride (and frustration).

    More chunks of the IAA website have disappeared, BTW.
In fact, there some pages gone tonight that were there
yesterday. Bad news for somebody. So while there's
anything left on the web, let's see...

    Let's examine the wealthy American astronomers, shall
we? Here's the URL to a photo of Brown's telescope. It is
typical of the facilities maintained by we rich, greedy,
selfish Americans... Please note the gracious architecture,
the annoying Corinthian columns, the large number of Rolls
Royce's in the parking lot, the luxury boxes, and most
particularly, the hot tubs for observers to relax in after
a hard day of hoarding knowledge from more deserving
(Spanish?) astronomers...
<http://www.astro.yale.edu/smarts/smarts13m/13mcr.jpg>

    We turn now to the poor but virtuous astronomers. Here's
a URL to a photo of Ortiz' telescope. Please note the fences
besieged by hollow-eyed starving children, impoverished by
the greedy Americans, the generally shabby and rusty
facilities, the antiquated equipment. The poor IAA, it has
no telescope bigger than 3.5 meters diameter, los pobres
del AnduTHia!
<http://www.iaa.es/~ortiz/OSNTWeb/index.htm>
and more here:
<http://www.osn.iaa.es/osn_eng.html>
and here's more "fotos"
<http://www.osn.iaa.es/fotos_eng.html>
    Am I to understand from your comments about greater
aperture that the operators of a 3.5 meter telescope are
envious of a 1.3 meter telescope? Doesn't seem logical.
    Ortiz' "quad-scope" is four Celestron 14-inchers
(on very expensive mounts BTW -- C-14's ain't cheap either)
and is the equivalent of a 0.72 meter scope. It's 20.5
magnitude reach comes to within 1 magnitude of Brown's
1.3 meter telescope. It's clever, well done, and a worthy
competitor.

    Sorry about the sarcasm, Doug. I couldn't help myself...

    Now, data hoarding accusations by Ortiz. Hmmm. The interval
between his discovery plates and his first report is 2.3 YEARS
and he is critical of Brown because he sat on his discovery and
worked on it for 6 MONTHS. Do I have that correctly? Yes, I do.
Also doesn't seem logical. Nor reasonable.
    Which is worse, working on your discovery for a while OR
not looking at your own observations for more than two years?
Hey, sit down and check the plates once a month! Seems like
a good idea to me...

    The upshot is, that Ortiz will probably get to "keep"
2003 EL61. There ain't no Science Sheriff, pod'ner. And the
IAU are quivering bunnies huddled under bushes. But he will
gain a reputation (or lose one). Well, in this grand era of
gossip, what's a science scandal? Ortiz tells the NYTimes,
"I do not enjoy... so much questioning." Now, that I BELIEVE!

    If you've got clear skies and an eight to ten inch scope,
it's conceivable you could discover it too! It's very bright.
For orbit and ephemeris data:
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/mpec/K05/K05O36.html>
Orbit and ephemeris data are here too:
<http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/blobrana/database/TNO1.htm>


Sterling K. Webb
----------------------------------------------------------------

MexicoDoug_at_aol.com wrote:

> Hello Sterling, Rob, Paul and others following the astronomical brawl,
>
> The Andalucian Astrophysic's webpage of discovery was suspiciously removed
> from the internet, but the cached version from August 16, 2005 is still
> ethically:) available at the following web address, along with the first English
> explanation given by Ortiz of the Spanish team. Even if you have condemned him
> to die in academic hell, it is worth seeing the page alone just to see the
> gif image of the disputed discovery moving through the stars, along with the
> orbit he independently calculated from his prior images:
>
> http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:QJqYiiZyE84J:www.iaa.es/~ortiz/brighttno.h
> tml+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
>
> When participating in a brawl, it is always a good idea to see both points
> of view, even as you throw your punches at the other side. There has always
> been a great deal of resentment, especially heard from the Spanish in the
> spanish-language astronomy discussion groups against those who hoard information
> for a long time. Part of the equation I believe is large aperature and
> instrument envy. Part is an opinion of academic greed. There are no patents,
> though, as science doesn't wait for egos, just information...
>
> There is so much these lesser known but expert groups have to offer, and
> many consider themselves just as good or better, just frustrating victims of not
> having a big enough budget. Mike Brown acknowledged that he took a
> calculated risk and lost initially. While the ethical can of worms is difficult
> here, I would interpret that as Mike Brown accepting that first publication of
> orbit trumps, which he decisively proved he believed by releasing the other two
> immediately. I don't believe Mike's original congratulations to Ortiz were
> genuine in view of this. I believe he was setting Ortiz up from the start.
> Sterling - did you consider that as your jaw dropped about the ease of
> validating IP addresses? And I would congratulate Brown on that strategy as he
> minimized his mudslinging until it counts. And...from Brown's point of view
> Ortiz really deserves it! No doubt! Hopefully for Ortiz, there are no politics
> of joint projects that the Director of his institution will have to weigh in
> the investigation.
>
> Just as Mike Brown comments in his defense against the allegedly
> manufactured argument of withholding discovery information, that he wants to release it
> as a complete, well done job, because he dedicates his career to this and he
> deserves that payback, other less financially endowed groups see it
> differently - using the same logic. "I've dedicated my entire career to this, can
> make plenty of contributions, (and I am better than them if I had those
> resources) but that group won't even leave the crumbs." So, because they are greedy,
> the rest of the world stays behind in a vicious circle in which their
> resources get better while I can't even get someone to clean the grit in our scopes
> optics. He worries about his career as if this discovery jeapordizes it -
> well who speaks for us?
>
> I have to say, I think Ortiz wins the "dedicating my career argument" hands
> down. It is an insensitive argument on the part of Mike Brown. But that
> still doesn't make Ortiz right to do what he did. The real question is the
> ethics of alledgedly using clues from totally publically available but
> intentionally coded information by a group flagrantly flaunting their work on the
> internet and to "peek the interest" of fellow astronomers, as is perfectly
> legitimate and done by many, but still withholding it - a group with vast resources
> where the resources are so much greener on the other side of the fence or
> pond. And not giving them credit for sticking their foot in their mouth and
> being spoofed. This inequity is what rubbed Ortiz' group the wrong way, I'm
> betting.
>
> When NASA, or the Japanese, or Europeans photograph new features in the
> Solar system, they release something to keep everyone busy quickly, although
> plenty of team scientists would probably like more time. That sets a different
> standard and expectation and creates a different basis to judge ethics. And
> in questions of national pride, much has been acquired by sleuthing around and
> little credit has been awarded nor demanded.
>
> Now, in meteoritics, suppose one of the top hunters/traders starts mapping
> out a strewn field and emptying it of everything quietly, and plans on waiting
> at least two years before submitting it, although they just can't resist
> saying "I have a new achondrite like nothing previously seen". But suppose also
> that the person's guide publishes on the web all of the locations of the
> expeditions. Then suppose someone with a Sterling reputation comes along
> working the thankless job in that area, and puts two and two together as well, and
> figures out the same location that the other is vacuuming up everything with
> their meteorite hunting Batmobile, while our guy is stuck with a magnet glued
> to a stick to prospect for an achondrite...He goes, finds a few, and hastily
> submits it to the nomenclature comittee with the coordinates explicitly
> stated and classification done, making no mention of the other Haag-class
> competitor. The original "private discoverer" cries "FOUL!". You trespassed on MY
> strewn field and never even gave me credit. I was going to announce it in 6
> months when nothing was left to learn because I have invested a great deal of
> my resources in this and that is "how it works."
>
> To which our underdog guy responds, "Go jump in a lake, I got my first
> complete stone, classified it, and disclosed its location. What's in your head
> doesn't concern me. We all know your practices and fat budget, and we really
> think you are fantastic scientists - so chalk this one up as a reminder that
> you don't own the universe just because you have the biggest network of peons
> and vehicles and greed. And I have nothing else to say to you, so bug off."
>
> "I demand you explain to me if you looked at my travel agents public records
> to find that stone," responds the miffed world leader. "Now you have ruined
> the science because we were sloppy and everyone else can find it and we
> can't finish the job we started, nor get a monopoly on the stone, and be in a
> position to trade for the crown jewels of other museums, nor monopolize
> distribution to collectors.."
>
> "How it works? Yeah, right. No further response." In private to his
> accomplices "We calculated the orbit and made it public, the rules of the process
> - he screwed up from greed. And he is not happy to be a footnote as having
> been acknowledged as privately discovering it first. With all the science he
> has done, and will get credit for, why can't he be happy with that? It is
> not like his career depends on it. The fact is I was in the area too and here
> are my plates to prove it. The orbit was calculated from independent images,
> and how I saw the jumping dot on my images is not his concern, it is the
> concern of the guy who writes the blink software. This is not about blink
> software.
>
> Finally my opinion, while I hope Ortiz comes clean, I appreciate the gif
> image from Ortiz as it was my first glimpse of the object. Ortiz released the
> first orbit. The answer is that the discoverer ought to be selected just as
> he was for Neptune (How exciting to be living that in our lifetime again - I
> used to read about it and marvel at the good old days), but this time the
> circumstances carefully documented for posterity with no hard feelings and snubs
> be immortalized. And the covetted right to name it something besides the
> Easter Bunny or Santa Claus? A name selected by Ortiz and Brown together. If
> they can't agree, it remains without a name until after they pass on at which
> point the IAU selects a name, since by then they ought to figure out what
> sort of beast it is...
>
> Saludos, Doug
>
> ====================
> Paul H. wrote:
> Darren Garrison posted:
>
> "September 13, 2005
> One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
> By DENNIS OVERBYE
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/13/science/space/13plan.html?pagewanted=all
> "
>
> Related web pages are:
>
> The discovery of 2003 UB313, the 10th planet.
> http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/
>
> What is the real story about the hasty announcement
> and the reports of "hacking"?
> http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/#hack
>
> The electronic trail of the discovery of 2003 EL61
> http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/ortiz/
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Paul
>
Received on Sat 17 Sep 2005 02:23:36 AM PDT