[meteorite-list] re: All Hail Eris and Dysnomia (2003 UB313)

From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat Sep 16 02:32:33 2006
Message-ID: <006001c6d959$e14378d0$104ce146_at_ATARIENGINE>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco Langbroek" <marco.langbroek_at_wanadoo.nl>
To: "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb_at_sbcglobal.net>; "meteorite list"
<meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] re: All Hail Eris and Dysnomia (2003 UB313)

> Sigh. I am getting tired of this.

    You're not the only one, I'm sure.

> ...there are well-established standar[d]s, as issued by the MPC, mandated
> by the IAU to be the official clearing house for such. Ortiz et al
> complied to these rules by the letter. They did nothing wrong.

    "They did nothing wrong."

    Your argument is based on an assumption that
Ortiz is telling the truth in one or all of his slightly
varying accounts (the other two of which are no
longer accessible). If Ortiz is telling the complete
truth, then you are quite correct.

    However, bluntly put, the basic question is whether
Ortiz IS telling the truth. There is no objective evidence
available to anyone that can determine that. There has
never been and there never will be.

> people are innocent until[l] proven otherwise.

    Ortiz is not accused of a crime. The standard that you
refer to, of civil legality, does not apply here. The standard
in question is that of personal behavior, perhaps no more
than the balance between ambition and the means of its
achievement.

    We judge others all the time, by their behavior, by the
implications of their actions, all circumstantial. Are they
telling the truth? is one of the most fundamental judgments
we are required to make of others, almost every day, even
in "civilized society."

    I surmise that it is not unreasonable to characterize you
and Ortiz as colleagues or co-workers to some unknown
degree; perhaps you are friends, I don't know. Familiarity
of some degree may be the best guide to judgment, or it
may not. One is naturally inclined to think well of friends
and associates. Sometimes, one is ultimately disappointed
when one does so.

    The rest of us have to weigh things as best we can from
what we can discover or observe. If I felt myself to be falsely
accused (even by implication), I would not be silent nor cease
work. Perhaps Ortiz would. Perhaps he has to. J. C. del Toro
Iniesta has been accused of "throwing him [Ortiz] under the bus"
and ruining his career.

    As to what Ortiz actually did, I do not know the truth of
things. And neither do you. No one but Ortiz knows that
(and possibly Santos-Sanz). The first access of Brown's
logs occurs many hours before the first notice of OSNT11
is sent to the MPC, time enough to use Brown's discovery
to make your discovery, and whether you put quotes around
the word "discovery" depends entirely on what you believe
the sequence of events to have been.

> All accusations that they inappropriately used these
> records are and remain unsubstantiated, non-proven...

    Equally, their assertion that they did not use those records
is and remains unsubstantiated, non-proven. It's not capable
of proof or disproof. Their "curiosity" to identify the object
(your explanation of their access) has raised a cloud that largely
obscures the discovery. I quote: "The MPC asks observers
to not identify their objects which they report:
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/info/Astrometry.html#id
     18. Do I need to identify objects?
           Strange as it may sound, no."
This, from Reiner Stoss on the MPML. I'm sure that Ortiz
heartily wishes he had heeded that procedural admonition
if it was only curiosity that led him to access those logs.

    Marco, you must allow for the possibility that others may,
for some inexplicable reason, arrive at conclusions different
than yours from the same human events. The issue is not a
technical one of procedures and precedence; it is a more
fundamental one of judging the honesty of a person. You
insist on treating that question as already decided (by you)
and not the issue. To do so simply overlooks the fact that,
for most people, that is the question that is unanswered.


Sterling K. Webb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case anyone cares for more and better rant about it:
    Brian Marsden's account of events as seen from the MPC
and a discussion of MPC view of the question of :
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15696
    Reiner Stoss' account of his work in the recovery:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15326
    For some real intemperance and anger, read:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/messages/16012?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1
    expanding all messages. It's lamentable.
Received on Sat 16 Sep 2006 02:32:27 AM PDT