The Horsehead Project:

Yet, many other aspects of the article are very informative. So my wife Regina (with my help) posted this notice to the newsgroup sci.astro.amateur, to encourage people to read the magazine article, and then to look at our Horsehead Project website.

I have to say that it is a sad thing that the magazine, which has had in its possession all of my work since 1990, did not bother to check its archives. Furthermore, it is very surprising that Dr. Shubinski apparently did not check the Net: my Horsehead paper -- thoroughly studied and vetted by Dr. Donald Osterbrock of Lick Observatory, incorporating the collaborative work of Dr. Hazen of Harvard College Observatory -- has been online since October, 2005. The Waldee/Hazen notice of the Fleming Discovery, published in the PASP, has been online for years, and was first published at the end of 1990! And, Dr. Marc Pound -- co-author of the scientific paper "Looking at the Horsehead", mentioned above -- has written to me that early in 2006 he had discovered our "Horsehead Project" website, and had been able to utilize some of the historical material and images for a popular astronomy talk that he gave to a general audience at the University of Maryland's Observatory. We are grateful indeed that this material is proving to be of interest to professional astronomers.

One wonders how many years it will take for the snobbish short-shrift of Mrs. Fleming and William Pickering by Dr. Dreyer, and the bad research of subsequent writers, to fall out of favor, in the writing of "popular" articles and webpages about the Horsehead nebula? At least, it is gratifying to know that professional astronomers have now acknowledged the work of my fellow amateur collaborators, and the professionals who assisted us, in setting the historical record straight.

• Another historic woman scientist involved in discoveries of dark interstellar matter: Caroline Herschel

Papers published in 2004 and 2006 that are relevant to the Horsehead saga have just come to our attention: they inform us of Caroline Herschel's importance in the search for understanding of the "vacancies" in the skies, later found to be dark interstellar matter (of which the Horsehead nebula is a quintessential object.) According to research by Dr. Elizabeth Lada, professor of astronomy at the University of Florida, William Herschel, though puzzled by his views of what he called "holes in the heavens", after some consternation about them did not then attach too much significance to the findings. "However, [his sister] Caroline appears to have guessed that this... held a potentially greater significance, " writes Dr. Lada. A half-century later, using observations made in South Africa by her nephew John and the large body of her brother William's data, gathered with her assistance, Caroline Herschel compiled the first catalog of dark nebulae (containing 33 entries, cited in a 2006 article by Dr. Michael Hoskin of Cambridge University, a scholar of Caroline Herschel's scientific work.) Dr. Lada states that "It wasn't until the early twentieth century that the work of Barnard and Wolf conclusively demonstrated that these startling vacancies in the sky were true astronomical objects-- dark obscuring nebulae and it took another half century until astronomers proved them to be the birth sites of all stars and planets in the galaxy, amply confirming Caroline's intuition concerning their importance in the pantheon of astronomical objects." On July 2, 2007, we have added these references to our short introductory article, and long dissertation, on the history of the Horsehead.

• Distinguished British Organization A.L.P.O. cites Mrs. Fleming's discovery of the Horsehead, and our paper:

• Occasional Notice of Our Horsehead Research by Amateur Astronomers in Discussion Groups

As an avid reader of astro-forums, I frequently encounter discussion threads about viewing the Horsehead nebula. They tend to go like this: someone asks 'what size telescope is needed to view the Horsehead?' and the answers come fast and furious, ranging all over the place: always just the personal experience of a particular astronomer. I have been surprised that the persons who ask this question DO NOT check the Net and look for the astounding multitudes of observing reports that may be found. They are apparently too lazy to look directly for information, but ask to have it spoon-fed to them. I've been pleased that on one or two occasions (discussions found here and here on the forum of Astronomy.com) someone such as the notable observer Dave Mitsky has drawn attention to our tests, reported on this website in my third article. But seldom is there any other reference to the 1989 viewing tests that were done by me, Ron and Ryan Wood, and Rich Page. So, recently, I was almost astounded to discover that an observer has pointed out our article in a discussion thread on the Cloudy Nights deep sky observing forum. I believe in fact that this may be the one and only time the article has been mentioned there [note: that is, through 2007; it has been critiqued in March, 2008, as discussed later in our Update pages. -- srw, 3/17/08]

However, one distinguished and accomplished amateur astronomer and observer seems to be a serious skeptic about our research; I quote some of his remarks and have supplied emphasis, in bold, on the statements that I believe are his most important points. He had earlier posted on sci.astro.amateur that our articles would tend to upset people who were not capable of viewing the object in small apertures, writing "While I have glimsed [sic] the faint band of IC 434 in some relatively small apertures, the smallest aperture I have seen the Horsehead itself in is a 4 inch refractor at about 20x to 25x (equipped with the H-Beta), so you will probably get a lot of consternation from people who try it with the smaller scopes and fail." Now, he continues this discouragement (in my view) saying "you should always push yourself, but remember that not everyone can see to the faint limits required for viewing the Horsehead in a small scope. I have managed to just barely see the nebula in my 100mm f/6 refractor at 25x using the Lumicon H-Beta, but it was very marginal" (all emphases mine.)

I'd like to reply to this, but would rather not argue about it on that forum (not even being registered at present.)

1. It is extremely important to note that our research was not limited to the experiences of ONE PERSON. In fact, four individuals whose ages ranged over a span of more than 30 years, from teenage to late forties, were the participants in our observing tests. I present a chart of the results of specific viewing experiences with a number of small aperture scopes, ranging from 60 mm to 8 inches, plus an even smaller binocular, fitted with filters. In almost every case, 4 out of the 4 persons present were able to discern the Horsehead. In one case (using a 70 mm aperture fluorite refractor), 4 tried but only 1 could see it: a 14 year old observer (but, subsequent to that, I have learned to be able to do it in 80mm and even 50mm telescopes, as cited in a report whose link is given below.) The exception to this multiple-viewer test was the one that I did, with 8x42 binoculars fitted with h-beta filters in both eye-cups. I spent nearly an hour dark adapting my eyes under a black cloth; none of the other three observers was willing to undergo this unpleasant and boring conditioning practice!

2. The writer who has criticized my Horsehead research, at least twice in postings to the Net, has done his own extensive study of nebulae -- but apparently by himself only, not with other corroborative observers -- while the Horsehead viewing tests that Ron Wood and I arranged involved four inviduals, and were done with some attempt to establish controls. With no evidence offered or cited, my 'critic' asserts "not everyone can see to the faint limits required for viewing the Horsehead in a small scope." Is there evidence of a test that he has done, with multiple observers, to supply any data whatsoever? The statement is, on its face, incontrovertible: as it is only too obvious that a rank beginner who has NEVER looked into a telescope; is not familiar with the celestial field; does not know how to choose a good site and night; who has NOT dark adapted his or her vision; and who does NOT know what the Horsehead would look like, will CERTAINLY FAIL to see it in a small aperture scope (in fact, as Jay Freeman shows, in an example given below, such a person might also likely fail to see it in a LARGE scope.) In my opinion, the 'warning' that not everybody "can see to the faint limits required" is so self-evident as to be practically pointless -- though it could have a deterring effect. Until we have gathered more evidence, by accumulating lots of reports, augmented preferably by some consistent test procedures, we simply do not know HOW likely it is, nor to know what a variety of observers, from novices to experts, can do when working under controlled experiments. Furthermore, there may be evidence that viewing conditions and site have just as consistent an influence as personal sensitivity.

We can surmise that, probably, relatively few have tried to see the Horsehead with small scopes, for a minority of astronomers, out of hundreds of observations documented, have reported doing it: is this because persons decide to try to see it, or not, because they are biased by the received wisdom that "it requires a big scope"? Indeed, as I shall illustrate below, most of the ones who have commented about such an experiment claim success.

3. After only about an hour's research on the Net and with my own copies of observing books, I can offer the following discussions of viewing the Horsehead in a small telescope:

In the book Deep-Sky Wonders (a compilation by Stephen J. O'Meara of Walter Scott Houston's column in Sky & Telescope magazine), it is reported that famed comet-hunter Leslie Peltier saw the nebula, long before filters were made, in his 6 inch refractor. "Scotty" Houston says (pp. 8-9) that, in fact, "From Connecticut my 4-inch refractor failed to reveal the Horsehead, but...I have since fished it out using a 4-inch Clark refractor, a 4-inch off-axis Newtonian...and a 5-inch Moonwatch Apogee telescope ...and a group of 4 amateurs sighted it with Snow's 4-inch off-axis reflector... French observer Jean Texereau recorded the Horsehead with an f/5 lens of 1.6 aperture. Can you beat that?" He then adds (p. 51), "During the last two decades amateurs have demolished other traditional 'test' objects like the Horsehead and turned them over to the rosters at star parties. Of course, the list of test objects has been updated with new, more difficult targets. But at one time the Horsehead was a prize worth claiming" (emphasis mine.)

In his 1989 book "Observing the Constellations", professor of photography and experienced amateur astronomer John Sanford writes (p. 131) that the Horsehead "has been seen in 6-inch (15-cm) and even smaller telescopes of the rich-field variety which have fast focal ratios of f/5 and below." Since this book was written before I conducted my tests and subsequently met Prof. Sanford, he is certainly referring to other amateur observers than myself and my colleagues.

Search engines turn up a number of links to reports of using small aperture optics to view, not merely photograph, the Horsehead: one of the earliest champion observers with binoculars seems to be Phil Harrington, who writes, in a report contained in a long text file online here, "I've seen the Horsehead through a pair of Fujinon 10x70's and [a] Unitron. Be aware that both binoculars were outfitted with a pair of hydrogen-beta filters (taped in place!). The view came at the 1991 Winter Star Party."

Noted deep-sky observer Rich Jakiel says, "With a H-Beta filter, the Horsehead is a fairly easy object with a medium sized scope under dark skies" (Saguaro Astronomy Club newsletter, February 1998: online as a pdf file.) In narrowing down the possibilities to 4 to 6 inch telescopes, I came up with the following links. This review discusses the capabilities of a 4-inch APO refractor, including being able to see the Horsehead. A northeastern amateur's report is quoted in the "Star Gazer News" March 2007 club newsletter: "We’ve seen the Horsehead with my 4 inch refractor on a couple occasions and it’s easy with the 12.5. Yes, I am now spoiled! Clear skies, Paul Gray." On page 15 of the RASC's newsletter of February 2000 (another pdf), an article by Canadian astronomer Richard Huziak is reprinted, and the editor adds: "Rick is currently the Saskatoon Centre’s newsletter editor. And, once and for all to end the rumours, yes, he has seen the Horsehead Nebula in a 4-inch scope!"

In the March 2000 issue of "The Hypoxic Observer" (the newsletter of the Colorado Springs Astronomical Society) Chris Earley reports on a viewing session using a 70 mm TeleVue "Pronto" telescope owned by club member Doug Triggs, writing “the skies were filled with stars and I couldn’t get enough. Doug’s new Nagler lens was showing spectacular views of the Orion Nebula. We all took turns at Ken’s scope trying to see the Horsehead with varying degrees of success..."

Jeff Medkeff has provided a very thorough report of his observation with a 4.5 inch reflector, posted to the IAAC observing mailing list here. I quote some of the most interesting passages (emphasis mine):

To: Internet Amateur Astronomers Catalog 
Subject: (IAAC) Obj: IC 434, Barnard 33 (Horsehead Nebula) 
    - Inst: 4.5" f/7 
From: Jeff Medkeff  
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 98 13:25:05 -0500 

Date and UT of observation: 1998-Dec-31, 06:40 UT
Location & latitude: Sierra Vista, Arizona, 31N
Site classification: rural
Limiting magnitude (visual): 6.8 at 10 deg from zenith
Seeing (1 to 5 - best to worst): 2
Moon up (phase?): no
Instrument: 4.5" f/7 Newtonian
Magnification: 60x
Filters used: none
Object: IC 434 and Barnard 33 (Horsehead Nebula)

I took careful notes at the observing site. I can think of nothing 
better than to reproduce them verbatim here:
>>>>>
"Bright" nebulosity could be discerned cutting the 60x FOV 
approximately in half along a line of stars ... extending from 50 
Orionis and terminating several minutes past an aries-shaped 
telescopic asterism ... which was superimposed on the nebulosity. 
The edge of this nebulosity was pretty clearly visible... Using a 
black shroud, I could detect an indentation in the F side of this 
nebulosity, but only during moments of good seeing (?) and 
good relaxation. The indentation required averted vision. It 
was only observed confidently and for longer periods after 
patching the observing eye for 20 minutes [i.e., keeping it in 
darkness for 20 minutes]. The horsehead was, however, quite 
clearly seen after so doing, as a rounded 'bite' taken out of 
the bright nebulosity. Subsequent comparisons of the 
memorized field to photographic charts at the observing 
site showed the observed indentation was consistent with the 
actual position of the dark nebulosity.
<<<<<
Shortly after taking these notes, I looked at the object with a 
10" f/5 Newtonian, and found the horsehead to be a rather 
easily seen object that posed no particular challenge. That 
observation wrt position and orientation was consistent with 
the observation using the 4.5". This is, incidentally, both my 
first posting to this list, and also my first observation of the 
horsehead nebula. IMO the use of Hbeta filters on this object 
in skies like I experienced should possibly be considered 
cheating. :-)
--
Jeff Medkeff 
Rockland Observatory  
Sierra Vista, Arizona

On a very nice webpage about the Horsehead, with a superb color image, the Austrian amateur astronomer Walter Koprolin writes, "The fact that seeing the Horsehead in a 6" scope is actually not extremely difficult for an experienced observer makes detection reports with smaller apertures under perfectly dark skies plausible. There are reports (by Jay Reynolds Freeman) about a detection of B33 in his youth with a 4.5" Newtonian, without any filter. But that takes an extremely dark sky and his excellent eyes." This is confirmed as having been by "a four-inch" in a post made by Jay to sci.astro.amateur in 1997. Here, Jay himself comments on viewing it with his 6" Intes f/10 Maksutov telescope, with and without filters, from Fremont Peak State Park, San Juan Bautista, CA, 9-10 November 1996 (it was indeed seen without filtration, and with a broadband filter: "All of the detections were what I would call "difficult".) In 1999, Jay posted: "I have seen it in four and five inch refractors, at 40x and 36x respectively, without special filters, and in several different kinds of six-inch telescopes."

The very well-known amateur astronomer (and refractor enthusiast) Joe Bergeron has posted in the year 2000 to sci.astro.amateur the following observations, quoting the 'warning' of a skeptic who did not accept the possibility that the observations of others could be real (emphasis mine):

<< Observers with skies of less than an honest naked eye limiting magnitude 
of 6.5 are deluding themselves if they think they can see the HH without a 
blocking or emission filter and a moderate-sized scope. >> 

People who accept pronouncements like this as fact risk being deluded 
by observers who might not see as well as they do. I have personally 
seen the Horsehead through Sue French's 4" Traveller at the Winter 
Star Party. So did she, of course. At the recently concluded WSP 
I saw it pretty easily with my 6" refractor and a UHC filter. My first 
sighting of it was with an unfiltered 8" reflector used near Chapel 
hill, NC. My field drawings leaves no doubt as to what I was seeing, 
either then or on other occasions. Joe Bergeron (JABerge...@aol.com) 

No doubt I will be able to provide more details later, but recently (April 2008) my friend Jaakko Saloranta travelled from his home in Finland to La Palma in order to view objects that are difficult where he normally observes, one of a number of trips he's taken there with his friend Iiro Sairanen. At an altitude of more than 1500 meters above sea level Jaakko observed the Horsehead nebula with a small telescope, in this case a 4.7 inch (120 mm) aperture f/5 achromat refractor that is almost identical to one I own. He writes, "B33 was fairly difficult with the 4.7 inch and UHC filter (intended to use H-Beta, but Iiro left it at home). No shape, just a dark patch in the nebulosity." He has also, on a previous trip, satisfactorily examined the nebula IC-434 with his 80 mm f/5 refractor.

Is a 4-inch telescope the smallest aperture you may use to see the Horsehead? By no means! In our 1989 tests, I saw it in a filtered 8x42 binocular, after a great deal of struggle. Ryan Wood was able to see it with his father's 70 mm Celestron "Photostar" fluorite refractor. I've had a barely perceived but well above threshold experience of it in 50 mm and 80 mm scopes (documented in this report of an August 2007 viewing session.) The very well-known amateur astronomer Bill Weir reports here on the Yahoo group "Amastro" of his observation with a 70 mm scope (emphasis mine):

Re: My Horsehead attempt
Sun Jan 29, 2006
--- In amastro@yahoogroups.com, Wouter van Reeven wrote:
>
  Lately a discussion about the Horsehead has been going on
  on the starrynights yahoogroup and that's what triggered my
  attempt to look for it... Unfortunately, we didn't have an 
  H-beta [filter] available and the UHC didn't help last
  night. But I'll try again and again and again :-)
  Clear skies!
 Wouter
<
Try again with the UHC, an Ultrablock (essentially the same) has 
work[ed] using my 6" dob. The H-Beta is better. Last winter on 
an exceptional night of transparency (NELMZ 6.5) I tried the 
H-Beta with my little 70mm refractor. Using an ultrawide 22mm 
LV at around 28X B33 blinked in and out as a little dark kernel 
in the side of IC 434. I was surprised at how well 434 showed. 
If I didn't know where to look I probably wouldn't have noticed 
B33. Previous sightings helped a lot.

My favorite sightings are using the 25",when B33 looks like a 
chess piece.

Bill

But, that was soon bested there by John Class:

Re: My Horsehead attempt
Sat Jan 28, 2006

Using H-beta filters on 15 x 45 IS [image stabilizer] 
Binoculars -- I taped them to the eyepieces -- B33 is visible 
from a dark sky sight I use near Mount Palomar in California, 
USA. The site is dark enough to see the Milky Way most every night.

I've never tried it with my 6 x 42 Nikons using H-beta Filters -- I'll
add that to my list of things to try and for someone else to match or
beat.

Clear skies,
John

There are many other reports of viewing the Horsehead in very small apertures on the group Amastro.

On the opposite side of the coin, consider this story: an experience Jay Freeman once had with the owner of a giant Dobsonian, who had the object perfectly centered in the field of view, but who was totally oblivious to it -- though the nebula was quite visible to Jay, an experienced observer. Jay also explains the paradox of large scope owners not always being able to see it, in a post made in February, 2000, to sci.astro.amateur (emphasis mine):

IMHO, folks who explain differences in success at 
seeing the Horsehead Nebula by way of differences 
in sky conditions and differences in experience, are 
quite right. 

My best view of it was with six inch aperture, (a Newtonian 
at 36x), with no filter, but that was from about 2000 feet 
elevation in the coast ranges of central California, with 
thick fog below to darken artificial lights from population 
centers, with the sky above sufficiently dark and transparent 
that the equatorial counterglow was visible, and with several 
hours of dark adaptation -- it being late at a mid-September 
star party, after most everyone had either left or gone to sleep. 

On another occasion, at Fremont Peak, someone with a large 
Dobson-mounted Newtonian -- something in the range of 14 
to 18 inches aperture, I do not remember exactly -- was 
looking for it without success. This particular observer was 
rather a newcomer to the hobby, and since I was familiar with 
the field for the object, I offered to step to the eyepiece and 
see if I could find it. And what do you know -- he had it centered! 
It was, in fact, a quite nice view. At the magnification in use 
-- probably 100x or so -- it wasn't even small. Once I pointed 
out that the object was rather difficult, and reminded him 
about averted vision, et cetera, the newcomer could see it 
just fine. But until then, he simply hadn't noticed it. 

Jay Freeman has also commented on a particular observing session at a Pacific coast site near Monterey, California: Fremont Peak (2500 ft. elevation), which is not especially dark, averaging around 6th magnitude NELM unless fog comes in at lower elevations. On the night of December 16, 1998, he used his Celestron C-14, a remarkable scope but less aperture than used by many of today's astronomers:

I dropped in on one old friend, the Horsehead Nebula. At 98x, it was detectable without a filter, but the UltraBlock improved the view. I used to think the Horsehead was tough, but many of the other objects described herein [such as Sh 2-155, the "Cave" nebula; Palomar globular clusters 1 & 2; galaxy Wolf-Lundmark-Melotte], were more difficult.

4. The Horsehead is by no means the "challenge object" that it was three decades ago. In fact, Dr. Roger N. Clark, a professional astronomer and avid amateur observer (and author of the highly regarded "Visual Astronomy of the Deep Sky" published in 1993 by Springer) has included the Horsehead in "A Catalog of Deep-Sky Objects", an online appendix to his book that selects 661 items "that, in the author's opinion, are the most interesting for amateur astronomers." He explains that "In compiling this catalog, the first step was to check that an object might be seen through average amateur telescopes. Then I searched for those that might show some features. Many objects within range of small telescopes were left out because they are so near the limits that most would just look like another fuzzy patch. The present list has many of these (depending on your telescope size and sky quality), but many others clearly show significant detail and have much text devoted to them in books like Burnham's Celestial Handbook."

5. So, to sum up: while the preponderance of Horsehead visual observing reports on the Net may indeed show the successful results that can be achieved by means of a hydrogen-beta filter and a large (17" or bigger) aperture telescope, there are many reports of seeing the dark nebula in scopes in the 10 to 8" range, and not a few with scopes from 6 to 4 inches, and even smaller ones. I have noticed that the most dedicated and experienced observers are generally the ones who have achieved it with small telescopes; but by discouraging people from TRYING, on the grounds that it is a difficult and uncommon achievement, what positive thing has been accomplished? Is there any harm in trying? Is it bad even to know that people have done it with small apertures (even binoculars, as Phil Harrington and John Class report)? Why should not we document our experiences?

I tend to suspect that my 'critic' -- who says he's done it once with a 100 mm refractor himself, by no means an easy feat! -- is trying too hard to be an "ombudsman" for beginniners, and to dispel their enthusiasms. If one of my testers (Ryan Wood, then a 14 year old boy) could see the Horsehead with a 70 mm Celestron "Photostar" refractor, why does my 'critic' seem to me to suggest, I infer, that it isn't a very good idea to share this knowledge? A tyro might not be able to do it at once, but there is nothing like a long-term motivational goal to stimulate the improvement of one's skills. -- srw, 12/22/07

• Damned with Faint Praise:

• "Pickering's Wisp" - another discovery by Fleming:

Steve,

I note your identification of the discoverer of the Horsehead as Williamina Fleming. Fleming also discovered the non-NGC bit of the Veil now known as Pickering's Triangluar Wisp. It was common, even in my days at college, for the astronomer one worked under to get main credit for a work. Hence, the grad student or whatever may have done most of the work, but the big-name astronomer gets top billing. I believe we are trending away from that these days.

As for Pickering's Triangular Wisp, it was Pickering who wrote it up for the journal, but he did give credit to Fleming. Nonetheless, Pickering's name is attached to it.

Best, Sue

Here is the entry in the Astrophysical Journal (Volume 23, 1906) that illustrates the scientific honesty of Dr. Pickering in giving Mrs. Fleming credit:

I have found a few modern references to Mrs. Fleming's discovery via a web search: for instance, her contribution is mentioned in this Wikipedia article on the Veil Nebula; and it is also explained on this web page by David Jurasevich, with a splended amateur astrophoto. You may read a list of Mrs. Fleming's quite considerable number of NGC/IC catalogue discoveries in this biographical page by Wolfgang Steinicke; but "Pickering's Wisp" and the Horsehead Nebula are not included, since this page deals only with items given numbers in Dr. Dreyer's catalogues.

• The Horsehead Nebula in sci-fi:

There's a science fiction story in which Man has spread into the galaxy and his planet of origin has been forgotten. One gent is discussing with another the claim of a rundown backwater planet that mankind originated there. He cites as evidence the Horsehead Nebula's name and asks his companion how he thinks it came about. The friend replies that he assumes it was named after some guy named Horsehead. Then the first person explains that from Earth, the nebula looks like a horse's head. His friend asks what the heck a horse is, whereupon he admits that a horse is an extinct animal that was supposed to have lived on Earth.

I had not known about this, and did some quick Internet research. A Wikipedia entry, "Nebulae in Fiction, explains that:

Isaac Asimov's novel The Stars, Like Dust involves a search for a rebellion world, which the characters [are supposed] to be located in the nebula. Asimov exemplifies the geocentrism of the nebula's name by having one character expound the false etymology that the nebula (which, from most other vantage points, looks nothing like a horse's profile) is named for a pioneer explorer named Horace Hedd.

There is also a Wikipedia article that extensively discusses Azimov's The Stars, Like Dust (which I so far haven't read), and a directed search turns up many reviews and articles. Thanks, Sue!

• Ham radio hobbyists' fun with the Horsehead:

I frequently listen to a number of ham radio operators that I know slightly or have become friendly with via email, who are night owls and rag-chew on 75 meters SSB (especially when "Coast to Coast AM" has shows about witches, remote viewing, or conspiracies, which I largely ignore.) The ham operator KN6Z (Glenn Thurman), an amateur astronomy buff and telescope owner, recently posted on the website Hamcams.com his own rather faint image of the Horsehead (which I've enhanced a little bit) that he was nevertheless proud to be able to register at all in the dreadful light-polluted conditions of San Diego: he says that in his driveway you can't see it at all in the eyepiece. The red tint of his picture probably reveals his camera's sensitivity to the infrared and longer visual wavelengths of the light polluted environment, as his caption suggests (since he did not use filters.) Perhaps to poke a bit of fun, another amateur colleague (WA6UHA, David Billeci of San Francisco), soon provided a facetious response. Since these graphics did not have a copyright restriction (other than just these modest and minimal limitations), I present them below under fair-use rules:

• Another Case of Dr. J. L. Dreyer's Bias Against Young American Astronomers:

While researching information about globular clusters in the constellation of Lupus, I came upon a fascinating account, by the esteemed professional astronomer Dr. Harold G. Corwin, of the distinct bias of Dr. Dreyer in favor of older, established astronomers -- in this case, British ones -- and his disregard of an upstart American: none other than the young Edward Emerson Barnard. The following are not MY words (the claim of Dreyer's bias that got me in 'trouble' in 1990, leading at least one prominent editor to refuse to print my assertions) but those of one of the finest astronomical researchers alive: Dr. Harold Corwin (of the California Institute of Technology), "one of the leading experts in deep-sky data and catalogues" in the words of Wolfgang Steinicke. Now the main professional astronomical researcher at the NGC/IC Project, he is much more celebrated as the co-author of the RC2, RC3 (Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies) and the Southern Galaxy Catalogue (SGC). In his long text file of corrections to the New General Catalogue by Dreyer (search the file here for "NGC 5824 = NGC 5834" to find the full text), Dr. Corwin explains that the original NGC contained an incorrect position for an object erroneously logged by John Herschel, designated NGC-5824: non-existent at that spot, as it turned out later. When Edward Barnard reported finding it at a different position, Dreyer refused to double-check and correct Herschel's figures; I include some of the explanation below, with bold emphasis supplied by me:

NGC 5824 = NGC 5834: Here is an interesting case in which Dreyer reveals his bias for his senior colleague from Great Britian, and against a younger one from Tennessee. But the younger persisted, and proved himself correct.

JH's position (from his Slough sweep number 353 on 9 May 1831; curiously, there is no trace of this in his Cape Observations) is out by 2.4 minutes of time, and 3.5 arcmin; the position is not marked uncertain in any way. His description is also unusual in that it says only, "A very strongly suspected nebula; but I cannot be quite sure (from the low situation) it is not a star." He translated this to "eeF(?)" for the GC, and Dreyer went along with that in the NGC, too.

Barnard first observed this object in 1882, and had four micrometric measurements for it by 1886 when he published a note about it... The resulting position agrees with the modern positions to within a few arcseconds. Barnard also noted the brief incorrect description in the GC, saying that "The nebula is small and very bright with a decided nucleus."

Dreyer rejected Barnard's identification of the object as GC 4036, listing both it and JH's observation, giving both objects NGC numbers. Another oddity is Dreyer's parenthetical inclusion of Marth's brief note that JH's object is "B, stellar" (I've not yet traced Marth's note). Unfortunately, Dreyer has no other note in the NGC about the two entries, so Barnard's object stands there as a "new" one, while JH's continues on with the wrong coordinates.

Barnard was evidently annoyed by this, and published a second note in AN 2995 (1890) with yet more micrometric measurements, this time from Lick Observatory where he had just taken a job as one of the resident astronomers. This second position is accordant with his first to within a few arcsec, but Barnard gives more details here, noting that the object is probably a globular cluster of 10th magnitude about 3/4 to 1 arcmin in diameter. He also notes that the object must have been quite bright if JH was to have swept it up in the southern sky just six degrees above his horizon at Slough.

This time, Dreyer got the point. So, in the IC1 Notes, he asks that NGC 5834 "be struck out" as it is identical to NGC 5824. Since there is nothing at JH's position, and nothing else in the area that he might have seen, the identity is assured...

So, one observes yet another case in which Dreyer defers to older, presumably wiser, astronomers, and eventually has to back-track when the true evidence is impossible to refute on the mere grounds of "argument from authority".

Stephen R. Waldee, amateur astronomer
Manager and partner, ROPER PIANO STUDIO
Developer with Ron Wood of Eyepiece 2.0 Software Program
San Jose, California