How Did They Debunketh Me?

Let Me "Counter" the Ways!

They: There is an 8th to 9th magnitude star in the position of the "anomalous" object imaged by Shramek. He mistook the star for the object.

Shramek: There is a star in that position, but what I saw was far brighter than 8th or 9th magnitude. It was so bright, it was visible before the sky was completely dark (my computer guided scope can point to objects automatically without the need to visually find them first so I can point my scope before it gets dark.) It was so bright and strange I began to pray. Yes, it scared me. In my 40 years of amateur astronomy, I have never been scared by a star.

They: CCD imagers tend to be overly sensitive in the red and longer wavelengths of light. Since the star in the position of the "object" was a red giant, Shramek's CCD produced a brighter image.

Shramek: CCD imagers are indeed more sensitive in the longer wavelengths of light (red and infrared.) This is why I used a special filter to reduce the long wavelength sensitivity on my CCD. Additionally, I also shot the comet pictures through a green filter. This filter gave me a better more detailed image of the comet's nucleus region and jets. It also would have reduced the brightness of any red star to a considerable degree. Indeed, I took pictures of the same region of the sky a few days after I imaged the object. I found the star the "real astronomers" claimed was the object I had imaged, but it was very dim. It was certainly not the anomalous object I had imaged next to the comet on the night of November 14, 1996.

They: Shramek was way out of line to give any kind of meaningful size estimate of the object. "Stars" are tiny points of light. Their apparent "size" as circles of light is an illusion caused by the point like image spreading during a prolonged exposure. This is true whether the image is done on film or a CCD.

Shramek: True, stars do get bigger as the exposure gets longer. This is a wonderful proof that I did not image a star. I took 161 exposures of the comet and it's companion. The exposures ranged from 1 to 5 seconds and in every exposure, the object was the same size. If it had been a star, the image would have grown larger with the longer exposures. This is also why I prefer to take short exposures and layer them together electronically. This technique reduces the tendency for star images to expand and grow. This is why I like CCD imaging, you can electronically prevent stars from getting huge and yet still image very dim objects by layering many pictures. For a more detailed explanation of my size estimate of the "companion" click here.

They: There should have been apparent movement in the comet and the "companion" during the time Shramek took the pictures.

Shramek: I took 161 pictures between 5:55 pm and 6:27 pm during the night of November 14, 1996. The first ten minutes were not good shots because it was still rather light outside. The last few minutes were not good shots as the comet was setting behind some trees in my yard. That only left about 15 to 20 minutes of good shots of the comet and "companion." At the resolution and power I was shooting at, this was only about 1 pixel of movement on my CCD. Not enought to make any conclusion about the absolute movements of the objects.

They: The 'rings' or 'spikes' on the anomaly were the result of the CCD 'blooming' - a common problem.

Shramek: Blooming happens along horizonal or vertical rows of pixels. I imaged a diagonal line of light.

They: The 'rings' or 'spikes' on the anomaly were the result of internal mirror supports in the telescope.

Shramek: My scope (the Meade LX-200) has no such structures inside. Besides, those supports produce a 'four' pronged pattern. The pattern I imaged was 2 prongs, and not exactly in a straight line either.

They: OK, then explain the object you imaged without resorting to an "alien spaceship" explanation!

Shramek: I never made any such claim. Although since this entire controversy began many of the so called "spaceship" explanations sound more plausible than some of the "don't bother me with the facts" explanations from the so called "real" astronomers.

There may be a rather mundane explanation for what I imaged. If you notice the two small stars above and to the right of the comet. These are both about 15th magnitude stars and they should have been barely visible. They appear brighter because the light from the comet coma is being added to them. I have imaged this brightening of very dim stars behind the coma many times. The "companion" is much farther away from the comet. However, this comet has thrown off many thin jets of material in all directions and it could be one of these jets lined up precisely with the 8th or 9th magnitude star in that position and for some reason greatly increased its brightness - and some "clumping" of dust within the jet gave the object an apparent visual 'size'. This could also explain the 'spikes' emanating from the anomaly, they are small jets from the comet which can only be seen when the brightness of the nearby star is added to them - as the jet 'crosses' in front of the star.

The major flaw with this explanation though is that it does not explain why there has been a cover-up of good pictures from major observatories since May of 1996. It also does not explain why there was an instant and powerful effort to debunk me. I still feel the most plausible explanation for everything that has happened is that I let some information out that people in positions of power wanted squelched right away.

They: Shramek made a number of outrageous and insulting claims and statements on the various internet news groups.

Shramek: After I made my initial newsgroup posting on November 14 along with my picture and asked, "does anyone know what this thing is next to the comet?" - I never again posted anything on any newsgroup. There were some people who were apparently impersonating me - some with apparent good intentions, others not. Some also claimed they were my "assistants" - I had no assistants for my observations. I have seen these so called "quotes" from me show up in the strangest places. It's very weird to be quoted about things you never said. The usual internet "rumor" distribution system from anonymous types was no surprise, but a lot of false quotes were spread by publishing types who should have known better. At first I was depressed and outraged about this, now it seems rather funny. This is why I am doing this page, to set the record straight.

They: Are you planning on taking any legal action?

Shramek: No, that would be foolish. I am not licensed to practice law. I'll let this real lawyer do that.

They: I hear it really hurt your feelings when you were actually denounced and ridiculed by Alan Hale!

Shramek: It did for awhile. I met him about ten years ago and he seemed so nice then and of course, all America loved him as "The Skipper" along with his little buddy "Gilligan."

(to be continued....)