Welcome to



The Hale-Bopp Controversy



Copyright (C) 1996 CNI News


This page contains updates on the controversy surrounding Comet Hale-Bopp and its alleged "companion." New information will be added as it becomes available. The stories currently posted here are:

  1. Strieber, Brown Say Huge "Ship" Seen Near Hale-Bopp;
  2. Shramek's Hale-Bopp Images Ignite Controversy;
  3. Farsight Rep Thinks Mystery Astronomer Will Talk;
  4. Hale-Bopp: Much Talk But Little Clarity; and
  5. Courtney Brown Responds to Hale-Bopp Photo Hoax

This page was most recently updated on January 24, 1997.



Strieber, Brown Say Huge "Ship" Seen Near Hale-Bopp

[This story appeared in CNI News, Vol. 2, No. 18, dated December 1, 1996.]

Professor Courtney Brown of Emory University, founder of the Farsight Institute and author of the sensational book "Cosmic Voyage," and famed author and professed abductee Whitley Strieber, teamed on Art Bell's syndicated "Coast to Coast" radio program in the early morning hours of Friday, November 29 to announce that a top astronomer associated with a "top-10 university" now has definite proof that a huge object, thought to be a "ship" of extraterrestrial origin, is trailing comet Hale-Bopp.

Two weeks ago, on November 14, Houston-based amateur astronomer Chuck Shramek imaged something while viewing Hale-Bopp with his 10" telescope, then went on the Art Bell show to describe what appeared to be a large "Saturnlike object" close to Hale-Bopp. This set off a firestorm of controversy on the internet, in which Shramek was generally denounced. Crushed by the negative publicity, he soon left Texas and went into seclusion in another state, where he reportedly remains at this time.

However, having heard of Shramek's image, Courtney Brown assigned three of the Farsight Institute's remote viewers to examine the situation out at Hale-Bopp. On the basis of their findings, Brown asserted on Bell's show that there was indeed a second, huge object that was apparently under intelligent control. The ensuing huge controversy, which dismayed Shramek, did nothing to dampen Brown's insistence that the mystery second object does exist.

Appearing again on the Art Bell program the morning of November 29, Brown went even further. He said that after the first round of viewing sessions nearly two weeks ago, he had quietly gone about seeking hard confirmation of his findings among professional astronomers. Now, he says, he has received photographs from, and talked "for many hours" with an internationally known astronomer who works at a "top-10 university," who positively confirms that there is an extraordinary second object that appears to be a "ship" under intelligent control.

Brown refuses to give the name of the astronomer or the university, stating that this man is currently deliberating his next steps in consultation with his family and professional colleagues. "This is a free will universe, and this man must make his own decision," Brown stated on the air. Art Bell stated that he had in his possession copies of the photographs, which are described as of such high quality that, if they were posted to the internet, their origin would be easy to determine. Bell said he does not know the name of the astronomer.

Whitley Strieber appeared later on the same program to assert his conviction that the photos, along with the astronomer's testimony, did indeed represent evidence of a huge, intelligently guided object running with Hale-Bopp. Strieber spent most of his two hours on the program talking about his own experiences of contact with "the visitors" and how humans might respond and adjust to the imminent certainty of extraterrestrial life visiting the earth.

Brown also stated that a radio astronomer, a colleague of the other astronomer, had discovered evidently intelligent radio signals coming from the Hale-Bopp object. Brown said it should soon be possible to announce the exact frequency on which the signals could be heard, so that others can verify them.

Brown stated his belief that the astronomer would call a press conference within one week to announce his findings. He noted, however, that there were bound to be very serious repercussions to such a step, and that the astronomer might decide against it, at least for the moment.

However, if these claims are true, it can't be long before anyone with a reasonably good telescope can confirm that the second object is there. Thus, if it is there, some kind of announcement seems a certainty before long.

On the other hand, if it is not there, Courtney Brown and Whitley Strieber, among others, will certainly be denounced. Both they and Art Bell acknowledged that talking about this on the air put them all at risk of grave ridicule, or worse.

In the following story, Rebecca Schatte describes the first steps in this ongoing controversy, in which her personal friend Chuck Shramek made and announced his controversial images of Hale-Bopp. Following Schatte's story, CNI News editor Michael Lindemann interviews Farsight Institute representative Prudence Calabrese.

For additional details, visit the following web sights:




Shramek's Hale-Bopp Images Ignite Controversy


[Rebecca Schatte, a regular contributor to CNI News, is a close personal friend of Chuck Shramek, the amateur astronomer who produced controversial images of comet Hale-Bopp in mid November. Shramek has been a professional radio broadcaster for some 20 years and involved with astronomy since he was 8 years old. Rebecca was one of the first people Chuck contacted after he took his mysterious pictures. She watched at close range as the controversy erupted into an online firestorm. Her story appeared in CNI News, Vol. 2, No. 18, dated December 1, 1996.]

by Rebecca Schatte

When I met fellow Houstonian and radio newsman Chuck Shramek last February in Washington DC, he handed me his business card. It had his picture and six simple words: "I was right about the comet." We laughed about that then, but today, it just might not be a laughing matter.

On November 14 at 6:10 pm, I received a call from Chuck. As an amateur astronomer, Chuck had been following the comet Hale-Bopp since the beginning. And over the last several months, he has been imaging the comet using his 10-inch Meade telescope and CCD imaging system.

Chuck was excited. He told me he was receiving his first pictures of the comet, and there was something in the image that should not be there. He described it to me, saying it looked like Saturn in that the "object" appeared to have rings. Chuck wanted me to reconfirm that the date was actually November 14 because, according to his computer star atlas, no star or other object should have been in his field of view.

"Rebecca, what is it?" he asked me, somewhat apprehensively.

I had no idea. And in the last 16 days, I don't know if I have come any closer to knowing. But here is how the story unfolded.

Shramek put the image up on his website (paradise.pplnet.com/shram/comet.htm) and posted a message on the USENET newsgroup sci.astro.amateur, asking "What is it?" He also sent the image to a few friends and to Art Bell, asking the same question. Shramek was immediately invited to appear that night on Bell's syndicated radio program "Coast to Coast."

Neither Bell nor Shramek could anticipate the firestorm of controversy his image, and the radio program, would create.

Before the show aired, the image found its way to remote viewer Courtney Brown, who was previously scheduled to be Bell's guest that night [Nov 14-15]. By showtime, Brown had already contacted an unnamed astronomer from a top 10 university, who allegedly confirmed (for Brown, off the record) that there indeed was an anomalous object associated with the comet. This was enough for Brown. He gathered a team of scientific remote viewers to target the object. (For more information on scientific remote viewing and the reports from this team, see www.farsight.org.)

After Shramek made a brief comment on the program that evening about his image, Bell asked Brown to share the "data" from the remote viewers. That information was sensational, to say the least. While not directly validating Shramek's image, Brown's remote viewers claimed that a large, sentient object was in the vicinity of Hale-Bopp and that "it" was somehow trying to communicate with the people of Earth.

Both Shramek's unusual image and his appearance on the Art Bell program were tossed into the fire that Brown was stoking. Shramek's original question -- "What is it?" -- got lost in the confusion that followed.

Art Bell's listeners began asking questions to astronomers on the Internet. Not just any astronomers, but Alan Hale, who -- along with Thomas Bopp -- discovered the comet on July 23, 1995. Alan Hale and his webmaster Russell Sipe (www.halebopp.com) apparently declined to investigate the story. Instead, they set up a webpage, dubbed the image "SLO" (for Saturnlike Object), and proved to a lot of people that astronomers could use a better "bedside manner."

What was really in Chuck's image? He captured Comet Hale-Bopp as well as two lesser-magnitude stars (<14 magnitude) and the "object." The object does look like Saturn. It is very bright, brighter than Hale-Bopp (magnitude around 4.5). And curiously enough, in the position where the Saturnlike image is, there should be a star -- even though Chuck's MegaStar Atlas computer software did not show it. (His software, set to reference the General Star Catalog, termed the star in question a "non-star.") In point of fact, a star IS there. That star, however, known as SAO 141894, has a magnitude in only the 8 to 9 range.

The magnitudes of stars and other objects in space are a subjective matter. The lower the magnitude number, the brighter the object. With that in mind, why would an 8 to 9-magnitude star appear brighter than the comet? That, apparently, is not a simple question to answer.

If a comet has a magnitude of 4.5, and a star also, the star would appear brighter, probably much brighter. In this image, the comet has a 4.5 magnitude, and the star -- at least hypothetically -- an 8 to 9 magnitude. This star should not appear brighter than the comet.

Could the apparent brightness be caused by diffraction spikes? Maybe. But Shramek took 161 images that evening in a little more than 30 minutes. The images are of different exposure lengths, varying from one to five seconds. The five-second exposure length should make a star or object appear brighter and larger than the one-second exposure. In this case, there is no discernible difference in the images at different exposure lengths. Some astrophotographers have commented that the diffraction spikes would appear larger and brighter the longer the exposure. Again, this is not the case.

Shramek even re-imaged the area a couple of days later (there has only been one clear evening since November 14 in Houston). The star SAO 141894 appears in the image, but it appears just as an 8 to 9-magnitude star should. It brightens and becomes larger with the longer exposure lengths, and no diffraction spikes or rings are noted.

So what did my friend Chuck Shramek image? I don't know. It seems so coincidental that the "object" appears in the identical place that star SAO 141894 should be. But no one has been able to explain why his images appear the way they do. Despite many attempts and lots of erroneous information posted by supposedly professional astronomers, I don't think the mystery has been solved. It has only deepened.

All of this has had quite an effect on Chuck. For one thing, the name calling got very out of hand. Never once did any of the people attempting to discredit the story contact Chuck for information about his scope, the CCD imaging system, or his FOV [field of view]. Lots of conclusions were drawn prematurely. Lots of mistakes were made. The animosity between the varying opinion holders has run deep.

Chuck has been criticized for not going through proper channels. He has been criticized for noting anomalies with Hale Bopp. He has been called crazy, and a hoaxer. He has even been accused of posting the image for financial gain.

None of this is true. Chuck had a picture. All he wanted to know was, "What is it?"




Farsight Rep Thinks Mystery Astronomer Will Talk


[This story appeared in CNI News, Vol. 2, No. 18, dated December 1, 1996.]

Prudence Calabrese appeared on the Art Bell radio program, along with Dr. Courtney Brown and Whitley Strieber, to describe the Farsight Institute's latest evidence concerning an alleged mystery object near comet Hale-Bopp. Prudence has worked with the Farsight Institute since July 1996, when she became the Institute's webmaster. She has completed the Farsight Institute's basic training in remote viewing and is now in advanced training. She has also completed a Ph.D. dissertation in physics and will receive her Ph.D. degree within six months. However, she prefers not to identify the university she attends. "I don't want this getting back to them at this point -- not until I have my degree in hand," she says.

CNI News editor Michael Lindemann interviewed Prudence Calabrese by phone on November 30. The following is transcribed from that conversation:

ML: What is the Farsight Institute's best evidence at this time concerning the possibly anomalous object associated with comet Hale-Bopp?

PC: We have a series of photographs taken by a very well-known astrophysicist, and we've been getting all sorts of other independent confirmation that other observatories have taken photographs as well. [During the radio program, Art Bell and Whitley Strieber both said that they had received copies of five of the alleged photos, said to be of very high quality, showing a companion object with Hale-Bopp. By mutual agreement, these photos are being withheld from circulation on the internet for at least one more week.]

ML: Do you think the mystery astrophysicist will come forward?

PC: I think he will, yes, especially since there seems to be other evidence coming in. That may make him less hesitant.

ML: How would you summarize Farsight's current view of Hale-Bopp, based on the Institute's remote viewers and/or other evidence?

PC: There appears to be a companion object. It is spherical, rounded, larger than the size of the earth, and hollow. It seems to be both natural and artificial -- planet-like, a combination of planet and spaceship-like object. It is emitting light, or energy of some sort, and signals. The astronomer confirmed that they have received transmissions on two occasions from this object.

ML: Have Farsight's remote viewers sensed a sentient presence?

PC: The object itself seems to be sentient in some way. But there is some group of beings involved with this object that apparently have a mission that is directed toward earth, involving some kind of consciousness/awareness raising.

ML: Ed Dames [former Army remote viewer who trained Courtney Brown and heads a remote viewing organization called Psi-Tech] recently announced on the Art Bell show that Psi-Tech remote viewers have perceived a coming event, said to be "of cosmic proportions," that will radically alter the course of human history before the end of this century. To my knowledge, Dames has not associated this event with Hale-Bopp, but he has said that Psi-Tech is so convinced of this coming catastrophe that they have pretty much dropped all other concerns to focus on this alone. On the other hand, in "Cosmic Voyage," Courtney Brown claimed to foresee a gradual decline of conditions on earth, but not a sudden catastrophe in the near term. With this new information coming from Hale-Bopp, what do Brown and Farsight now think about the prospect of a sudden catastrophe?

PC: We're convinced that some kind of major event will happen, at least within the next four years. The feeling is it will happen much sooner than that. We don't know exactly what this event is going to entail, or whether it will involve some kind of catastrophe. We're feeling that any catastrophe that happens will most likely be of social origin and that it is unnecessary as well -- that there possibly could be ways that a catastrophe could be averted, as far as riots or things like that are concerned. We have a strong sense that whatever this alien presence is, that it will do no harm whatsoever, and that it is being extremely careful not to do harm.

ML: What would you say are the immediate needed steps to prepare the public, especially in the absence of appropriate leadership from the government?

PC: At this stage it is important for everyone to be aware that there are other groups of beings out there, other than us, so that that in itself will not be a major shock. We also need to start looking at raising our general awareness and our consciousness level, because that's the only way that contact will be effective. These beings think on much different levels than we do. We know from our remote viewing data that they don't think linearly like we do. They seem to think in "thought balls," all at once. (That's a term we use a lot. I don't know if we coined it or not.) We feel it's important for the human race to become more concerned with meditation, looking inward, not so much reaching out in fear. We think the human race will get through this event just fine. There may be some initial problems, but things will settle down and people will become accustomed, because humans in general adapt very quickly to all sorts of change.

ML: How soon do you think we'll have undeniable evidence concerning Hale-Bopp?

PC: I'm hoping that this astronomer comes forward this week. He gave the indication that he would come forward this week. But rumor in the astronomical community has it that if he doesn't, there will be others who will probably come forward within the next weeks, if not this week. Apparently there are so many different telescopes and radio telescopes focused on Hale-Bopp right now, everyone is trying to corroborate this evidence. I'm sure something will happen soon. We at the Farsight Institute are following up as many leads as we get, and any information we get we're posting immediately on our web site.



Hale-Bopp: Much Talk But Little Clarity

[This story by Michael Lindemann appeared in CNI News, Vol. 2, No. 19, dated December 16, 1996.]

It has now been a full month since Houston amateur astronomer Chuck Shramek took his much-vilified images of a possible second object near Comet Hale-Bopp. In the past week or so a new photo, alleged to have come from the Hubble telescope, began circulating. (See BoppWatch at this site.) And guess what? The Hubble shot -- if indeed it is that -- looks almost exactly like Shramek's, with the difference that in Shramek's the "companion" is located at about 3 o'clock to the comet, whereas in the "Hubble" shot it's at about 11:30. In both cases, the object is very bright and displays a single pair of what some have called "diffraction spikes," for which Shramek's image became known as the "Saturn-like object." Against a field of stars elongated by time exposure, the "companion" in both shots seems NOT elongated and thus apparently may be near the comet and moving with it, or similarly to it.

"Apparently" is an important word here. We at CNI News profess no expertise in the analysis of comets or other things celestial. We assume the sky can fool us, even as mundane things down here nearer the earth also fool us now and then. We honestly do not know what to make of the Hale-Bopp photos. During the last four weeks, the over-heated rhetoric on late night radio and the internet has not, we think, moved us any closer to a true understanding of the Hale-Bopp situation. But, broadly speaking, there seem to be three main possibilities.

1) The first is that there is no companion at all, and the "apparently" close object has been misinterpreted. This is the position so far taken by astronomer Alan Hale and all the other mainstream scientists who have spoken on the record.

Respected researcher Linda Moulton Howe has interviewed at least eight astronomers within the last four weeks on the subject of Hale-Bopp. All of them have spent considerable time viewing the comet and are also aware of the controversial photos. Without exception, Howe says, these experts say the comet shows no sign of a companion, and the photos show normal celestial objects that can be identified from star charts. Among those that Howe has interviewed -- four of whom she has presented during her weekly slot on Art Bell's "Dreamland" radio program -- are Dr. Karen Meech, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy at the University of Hawaii and an expert in the use of the largest telescopic CCD camera in the world; Dr. Michael Mumma, Ph.D., Chief Scientist in Extraterrestrial Planetary Physics at the NASA Goddard Laboratory in Maryland, who is currently using an infrared camera in Hawaii to conduct spectrographic analysis of Hale-Bopp's gas content; Dr. Martha Hanner, Ph.D., a senior research scientist and comet specialist at JPL in Pasadena, California, who has also done extensive spectrographic analysis of Hale-Bopp; David Schleicher, astronomer and comet scientist at Lowell Observatory in Arizona; Brian Skiff, another astronomer at Lowell Observatory; Daniel Green and Brian Marsden at Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; and Harold Weaver, an astronomer at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland who has concentrated on studying Hale-Bopp. Based on extensive discussions with all these experts, Linda Howe concludes that there is at present no reliable evidence of a companion object.

But others, of course, disagree, notably author Whitley Strieber and remote viewers Courtney Brown and Prudence Calabrese at the Farsight Institute.

On his own web site, Strieber declares: "I don't think that there is much real doubt that Hale-Bopp has a companion, despite the fact that the astronomical community is inexplicably denying the reality of an object that many observatories and the Hubble Space Telescope appear to have been aware of for months. I have known this for certain ever since I saw [an] image posted by the Japanese National Observatory... and I am troubled that so many astronomers have ignored this inescapable fact even though the most rudimentary professional observation reveals without any ambiguity that the object pictured beside the comet is precisely what the Japanese first claimed: an anomaly that is traveling with it."

In a note posted to the internet on December 2, Junichi Watanabe, Public Information Officer at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, explained their interpretation of the so-called anomaly. "Yes, we have an anomalous object in 1996 Hale-Bopp photo," he wrote. "But it is just the artificial one we often have, where the saturated star caused the electronic trick when the electrons were transfered from the CCD [imaging device]... we can say that it is definitely a star."

Strieber knows that this is the official Japanese position on the anomaly -- "definitely a star." But this apparently does not alter his view on the "companion."

Similarly, Prudence Calabrese of the Farsight Institute stated again on December 12, as she has several times previously, her personal conviction that there is a second object, albeit with some question as to its nature. "There has been a companion object to the Hale-Bopp comet," she wrote on Farsight's web site message board. "Whether the companion is fixed or whether it comes and goes, I do not know, and really cannot even speculate. Whether the object will stay with the comet and visit the earth is something else I do not know." But concerning the basic question of the object itself, it appears she has no doubt.

A number of amateur observers, besides Chuck Shramek, have added to the argument in favor of a second object. For example, CNI News recently received a log of observations from Robert Collins in Colorado, which reads as follows:

"Dec 1st: I went out tonight Dec 1st, 96' to find Hale Bopp and I found it at two observing points south on 115 from Col Springs. At this point I wished I hadn't sold my telescope: At [about] 6 PM MST I observed the comet through binoculars from observation site 1 north of Penrose. In the field of view I saw the fuzzy comet and a bright object to the upper left of the comet. I couldn't tell whether this object was a star etc, but the object flickered more than the surrounding stars. 15 mins later I was at observation point two on the Ft Carson riding range. From there the bright object was gone.

"Dec 10th: Checked tonight from 5:50 PM to 6:06 PM MST and no object etc: Visibility was very good at 6000 +ft and you could easily make out the corona around comet using binoculars.

"Dec 11th: Well, saw what appeared to be the object tonight from 6 to 6:30 PM MST: It stuck close to the back outer Corona of Hale Bopp for the 30 mins I watched it. It on occasion twinkled and disappeared only to reappear in the same position relative to the comet. Comet got too close to the horizon so I had to quit. Now, if it was easy for me anybody should be able to observe this Comet until it fades from sight in the latter part of December.

"Dec 12th: Star like object is now just below the Comet: [about] 6PM MST: Had same relative brightness as last night's Dec 11th sighting except now it is in front. No other "stars" in vicinity.

"Note: Both on Dec 11th and 12th 1996 the closest star to Hale Bopp was a 6th magnitude star according to the Sky & Telescope 1996 star map for the Comet. Both the Comet & Object had an estimated magnitude of ~4 to 4.5: And, the 6th mag star was not close to where I saw the "Star Like Object." Also, it can't be pointed at like Chuck Shramek because there was no CCD array to supposedly blow a 9th, 6th etc magnitude star into a 4th or 4.5 magnitude object.

"Dec 13th: No object sighted. 6:10 PM MST: Using binoculars HB Comet had a highly visible Coma and Corona."

This observer, like some others, indicates that the mystery object does seem to "come and go" -- unexpected behavior for known celestial objects. The "coming and going" of the alleged companion explains, for some, the seeming failure of mainstream astronomers to see the object at all -- they simply weren't looking at the right time. It also fuels speculation that the object is not altogether natural.

Thus, despite unanimous denials from the mainstream, we must consider the possibility of a "companion." The second of our three possibilities is:

2) There is a companion -- perhaps even more than one -- of entirely natural origin. Large comets can break up into several pieces as they pass near planets or approach the sun. We saw this occur most impressively in mid-1994 when Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 smacked into Jupiter, not once but many times. The comet had previously broken up under the influence of Jupiter's gravity and had become "a string of pearls" -- many pieces traveling in a cosmic parade. Could this happen to Hale-Bopp? According to the astronomers Linda Howe has talked to, it certainly can -- and they are looking for signs that it has. So far, they say, there is no indication of any breaking up.

But if Hale-Bopp were in more than one piece, how would it look to us here on earth? If we were viewing the "front of the train," so to speak, we might catch only occasional glimpses of the trailing pieces, even if they were a lot bigger than the lead piece. However, with respect to the aforementioned photos, there is a slight problem with this theory. The "companion," if a piece of the comet, should behave like the comet, and that means it should by now have a substantial corona of its own. But it doesn't. So, maybe it's not a piece of the comet. Could it be any other kind of natural object? That gets us into more problematical territory. Comets are basically globs of ice and dust. Asteroids and meteors, on the other hand, are made largely of rock and/or iron. Comets glow a lot as they near the sun. Asteroids and meteors do not. To our knowledge, there is no known instance of an asteroid or meteor traveling along with a comet -- but even if there were, it is hard to imagine why such an object would have the luminosity exhibited in the photos. So, the idea of a natural "companion" has weaknesses. Which brings us to the third possibility.

3) There is a companion of "unnatural" -- i.e. artificial -- origin. In short, this is the spacecraft theory. On its face, of course, this is wildly improbable. But if something is really there, and that something cannot be easily explained as natural, then we seem to be left with this option. Once this logic is accepted, all manner of incredible speculation ensues -- of the very kind that has been overheating the late-night airwaves during the past four weeks.

It must be pointed out that not one single reputable scientist has spoken on the record in favor of the companion. According to the Farsight Institute, at least one, and perhaps several, top scientists have privately confessed their awareness of the object, even alluding to its possible artificial nature. Hopes were greatly raised over two weeks ago when Farsight's Courtney Brown and Prudence Calabrese announced on Art Bell's "Coast to Coast" radio show that a "world-class" astronomer at a "top 10 university" was on the verge of coming forward with proof of the companion. He had provided photos to the Farsight Institute, photos which had been passed along to Art Bell and Whitley Strieber, but which would otherwise remain sequestered while the mystery astronomer got his affairs in order. This person remains nameless up to this moment (December 16).

Similarly, rumors have circulated that astronomers at the Greenwich Observatory, Kit Peak and Lick Observatories, among others, are all aware of the companion and may come forward. But still, we have not heard a single name -- only the assurances of alleged insiders.

A few days ago, Art Bell dropped another bomb into the fray, reading over the air a letter received from a self-proclaimed priest formerly employed by the Vatican -- in churchly "Black Ops" no less -- who says he hacked into the Papal Mainframe to discover files labeled "Wormwood?" and referencing the coming comet as a harbinger of Great Tribulation. This letter, posted at Art Bell's web site, reads much like a cheap detective novel and offers precious little opportunity to verify the author's pedigree. And it is only the latest in a growing stack of dubious "information" about the companion-as-spacecraft -- psychic readings, remote viewings, pronouncements from mystery astronomers -- none of which, we confess, inspire us with much confidence.

Still, we cannot entirely dismiss the possibility that there is Something out there besides the comet. And if that is true, then it is by now most certainly known or at least suspected by various professionals within the astronomical community. That is, the "mystery astronomer(s)" could very well be real, could very well be "reducing their data" as we speak...

And of course, they could also be somehow beholden to some Deeper Agenda, entwined within some convoluted interpretation of the National Security...

But even if that were true, it should also be true that anyone with a decent amateur telescope could, before long, establish beyond reasonable doubt that the "companion" does exist -- if it does exist.

And so, with Hale-Bopp getting closer every day, and with thousands of telescopes watching it around the world, we at CNI News hold out hope for a resolution to this mystery before long. We'll report new developments whenever they occur.



Courtney Brown Responds to Hale-Bopp Photo Hoax


In Exclusive CNI News Interview, He Defends Astronomer
And Remote Viewing -- Claims Disinformation Campaign

[This story by Michael Lindemann appeared in a CNI News Special Supplement dated January 16, 1997.]

On January 14, a photo attributed to a "mystery astronomer" and purporting to show a "companion object" near Comet Hale-Bopp was posted on the web sites of radio personality Art Bell and author Whitley Strieber. This was the long-awaited photo given to Bell and Strieber by remote viewer Dr. Courtney Brown, first mentioned by Brown and his Farsight Institute employee Prudence Calabrese on Art Bell's nationally syndicated radio program on November 29, 1996 [see CNI News vol 2, no. 18 of Dec 1]. On that show, Brown and Calabrese claimed that remote viewing of Hale-Bopp showed the companion object to be huge and "sentient," possibly a "planet-sized spacecraft." They also said they believed the "mystery astronomer" would come forward within a few weeks to confirm the existence of the companion.

However, just one day after the photo was posted, it was shown to be a hoax, casting grave suspicion on the "mystery astronomer" and on the remote viewing efforts of the Farsight Institute. The fraudulent nature of the photo was demonstrated on James Neff's ENIGMA web site.

Neff announced that the fake was a doctored version of a legitimate Hale-Bopp photo taken on September 1, 1995 by astronomer David Tholen using a University of Hawaii telescope. The fraud was actually discovered by Oliver Hainaut of the University Astronomy Lab.

CNI News Editor Michael Lindemann reached Dr. Courtney Brown by telephone on Thursday afternoon, January 16 to get his reaction to these startling developments. Thanks to Courtney Brown for permission to post these excerpts from their conversation:

Michael Lindemann: Courtney, can you tell me your view of what's happened?

Courtney Brown: Sure, I can tell you the whole story. Basically, we were told in advance this would happen. My employees have some very good contacts. When the Shramek picture came out [showing a possible second object near the comet], we called around to see if anybody had heard of such a thing. When we got some indications that there was such a thing, we targeted the thing. The results are on our web site.

Then about a week and a half later, an astrophysicist we had talked to, someone we know, sent us three rolls of film, with pictures we had to develop. He said, "This is just for yourself, for your own internal staff, to help you." He said he appreciated us for having alerted him to this. He had started getting information from other colleagues and offered us some of the photographs. So we gladly accepted, and we encouraged him to come out. And he was very excited about the whole thing, and said he was probably going to come out in a week, after the Art Bell show. Well, he never came out, and he stopped returning my phone calls, but we assumed he was just continuing to work on this, and in fact I really think that's what happened. I think he's very concerned about everything, inluding whether he's been duped, because at least one of the pictures appears to have been doctored and is being called a fraud. We were given the raw film, not a scanned image. We developed the film at a camera shop, and that's what we scanned in -- not a web photo.

ML: Have you looked at the photo that's been posted by Whitley Strieber and Art Bell? Is that the photo you sent them?

CB: Yes, it looks like the photo we sent. We just heard about this last night. We haven't made a star by star comparison. To tell the truth, we've been so thunderstruck... It's upset Prudence so much that she's gone into premature labor and is in the hospital right now. We're talking about someone [the astronomer] she's taken courses with, a confidante and advisor -- and you know, you don't get cheated by someone like that. We know for sure -- we've caught people in the act -- that our phone and fax are bugged. Someone is listening to our phones and found out who we were calling to get corroboration. And academics are pretty naive when it comes to magicians and infiltrators. We're pretty good at analysing data, but we have to assume there are no foul deeds in giving us the data. And he [the astronomer] is just like me, just an academic, you know? And he's gotten data from all over and given us some of it. Now I think they're going to make a big deal on the Art Bell show about whether I personally said that this guy took the photo or was given the photo. At that time, it was a little ambiguous with the guy himself. I might have misspoken that he took it, but the reality is, he was getting information from all different sources.

ML: So you don't know the original source of this photo, correct?

CB: He got a whole package of information from lots of sources, and I don't know the source of any of it, other than the fact that his credibility is absolutely stellar, sterling. He wouldn't be collecting bad information, nor getting it from bad sources. Some of the information he got from his own stuff -- what does that mean, his graduate students, his own observations, his lab? -- but a lot of it came from other sources. What I think happened is, somebody knew we were doing this. Two days ago we were reminded, believe it or not, by one of our contacts, "Get ready, you are in the middle of a disinformation campaign, a really big one." And then we woke up this morning and heard this. Our contacts are really accurate.

ML: So you just heard this this morning?

CB: Yes, Art Bell called me at about 10:30 this morning. So, this is why the UFO field is so messed up, because it's so easy to discredit stuff. Somebody is trying to discredit the remote viewing stuff. They slipped us, I think innocently through that astronomer -- I don't think he meant to do us harm -- and he just passed it to us as something interesting, and then he continued to look at it, probably found some incongruities, and that may be why he hasn't come out. But somebody wanted to discredit us, and they haven't been able to discredit us with regard to the remote viewing, so they'll try to discredit us with regard to a picture that has nothing to do with our remote viewing, but which had a huge stink made out of it in the media. We didn't use that picture for targeting, or for anything, except to say that it was given to us by an astronomer when we asked if he's heard anything about the Hale Bopp thing. Just because someone has created a fraudulent picture doesn't mean the actual thing doesn't exist. But this was done to discredit what we're doing, and it was done very cleverly, hooked in to a very impeccable source. Somebody who had the ability knew what they were doing in doing this. Somebody wants this shut up, and they're willing to do anything, including trying to destroy us. So there will be a big media splash, lots of negative stuff is going to be said about us. But we're not going to collapse. We're going to come through this thing, we know that for a fact, and we will get a lot of positive publicity in the near future. But right now it's a storm. You know it's very easy to get set up in this business. It's been happening from Roswell on. And we're vulnerable to this. We get remote viewing data and then we try to find out some feedback, and it's just natural that someone could feed us bad feedback. That does not invalidate the remote viewing data, but in the public's eyes, it means throw the whole thing out.

ML: Once again, is it correct that the image now posted on the internet which shows four large white objects grouped together is an image that came to you on undeveloped film?

CB: Yes it is, and we had that film developed.

ML: So there were other images on the film too, presumably, which you never did circulate?

CB: There were three rolls of film, and out of those three rolls there were about six really good photos.

ML: And do all of them show images like the one we've now seen?

CB: Yes, similar stuff.

ML: It would be interesting at this stage to know if the other images that you have not circulated could be correlated to other shots that, for example, may have come from the Hawaii observatory that this one seems to have come from.

CB: What's weird is, this was film...

ML: And the mystery astronomer is not returning your phone calls?

CB: Well, he might not be returning our phone calls because he's scared of getting sucked into this thing. He's got such a good reputation, I just can't believe it's what people are thinking. People are thinking either he's a fraud, or we're a fraud. I know we're not fraudulent. And he told us, "Please don't put these out to anyone." So initially, I thought it was a moral and ethical violation of trust for Art Bell and Whitley to have posted the photographs. When they were initially given the photos, they promised not to do it. But I can't reveal that astronomer's name. Either he's been snookered himself -- and he's got to deal with the pain of that, the pain it's causing us -- or he's snookering us, in which case, if I reveal his name, I'm dealing with a libel suit. The only thing he has to say is, "Me? I didn't do that." In which case, we're sued, and we're out of business. However, I can't judge which one is true, although I think he's been taken advantage of. But why he's not talking to us, taking our calls, I don't know. He's a personal friend of Prudence...

ML: So Prudence was the liaison on this?

CB: We're trying to get her out of this. She did not want to go on the Art Bell show to begin with, did not want to talk about the photos. Art Bell asked her to do it, I encouraged her, Whitley encouraged her -- so she finally did it. She is not going on Art Bell again. She's already gone into premature labor over this thing. We're not going to drag her into this any more. They would love to just bury her.

ML: I am already hearing the opinion that she is the culprit.

CB: I'm telling you point blank, that is not the case. Someone did this purposely to us. And they're going after the weakest link. The weakest link is Prudence. She's my employee. She does what I ask her to do.

ML: Did you do a background check on her?

CB: I know all about her.

ML: Did you know her before she came to Farsight?

CB: No, I met her in 1996. She's an outstanding web designer. I know her very well, and her husband. There's no doubt in my mind. I know her as well as most employers know any of their employees. That's not the issue. The issue is, where did this stuff come from.

ML: At what point would you feel it's appropriate to give the astronomer's identity?

CB: Never, because we could be sued. We can't reveal his identity -- nor could you. Something like this, where the person's career is going to be destroyed if his identity is made known by anyone but himself, cannot be done.

ML: At some point, if the man refuses to talk to you...

CB: Why does it matter? If it's a fake photograph, it's a fake photograph...

ML: No, it does matter, because people have to be held accountable, and if this gentleman doesn't want to be held accountable....

CB: He twice told us not to give it [the photo] out, and we made the mistake of giving it out. He has to be held accountable for that?

ML: So he said, "Don't give this to ANYBODY"?

CB: He said, "Don't give this to anybody except your very close inner people, just to look at. I don't want it anywhere outside. I want to look at it myself for awhile." And we gave it to Whitley and Art, and they said they wouldn't show it to anybody. Then it showed up on the web sites two months later, after they reinterpreted the original agreement, from "Don't show it to anybody" to "Wait a reasonable amount of time." There was no "reasonable amount of time" in the beginning. Art's perspective is, well, it's a damn good thing we put it up, because now we know it's a fraud. But there's a double-edged sword to that. You find out it's a fraud, OK. But what good is it? It was never claimed... by the only person who could have claimed its authenticity, it was never claimed to be authentic. He just gave it to us as something to look at, perhaps to help our targeting, and specifically said do not give it out. We made the mistake of giving it out.

ML: What is your next move?

CB: We were told this was going to happen, and we were told to ignore all the bad things that will be said about us.

ML: What kind of sources tell you this?

CB: I can't say. But they've not been wrong once... And then what's going to happen is, the ET's are going to do something. See, this Hale-Bopp thing, it's not us. They were the ones who came, not us. Besides, even if you throw away this picture, you can't throw away all the other pictures -- the Shramek picture, the Japanese observatory picture. This Hale-Bopp thing is here for a reason. And they're showing themselves for a reason. It's just a matter of time before something else happens. The remote viewing will be shown as correct. That much I'm sure of. The thing has nothing to do with Prudence. The whole issue is, is our remote viewing correct? And if this photograph is a fraud, then so what? It doesn't make the remote viewing incorrect. All we have to do is wait and see what that object does next. That's it.



^ What's New Search Cool Stuff
CNI News Contents Bookstore Subscribe



Webmaster: D. Oszuscik - - Design: L. Lowe - -Content: M. Lindemann


This page served times.