Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 16, 1997 - Art Bell

02:04:14

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Whitley Strieber - Courtney Brown in the Crossfire

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	From the High Depths and the Great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening, or good morning, as the case may be.
	Across all these many, many time zones, from the Tahitian and Hawaiian island chains, all the way eastward across flyover country.
	To the Caribbean and the U.S.
	Virgin Islands.
	Good morning in the islands.
	South into South America.
	North to the pole.
	And worldwide on the internet.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	And I'm Art Bell.
	Well, good morning everybody.
	We are going to have a rather different sort of show this morning.
	It has come to our attention that the photograph from the The alleged top 10 university astronomer that we held on, Whitley and I held on to, as you know, for two months is a fraud.
	I repeat, is a fraud.
	And I will demonstrate that to you shortly with an interview.
	I have with me tonight Whitley Streber and Professor Courtney Brown from Emory University.
	Whitley Streber, you should be well familiar with.
	Multi-million dollar selling author on book tour right now, taking time out to do this.
	Probably getting close to the point of hallucination without sleep.
	And Professor Courtney Brown at the Farsight Institute, where it is very late, a little after two o'clock in the morning already on the East Coast.
	Now, Recalling for my audience the chronology, or rough chronology, and I may be corrected on some of this, but basically, on the evening of November 14th, Chuck Schrammach in Houston, Texas took a photograph of an anomaly that appeared to be adjacent to Hillbop.
	On that very same evening, We had Professor Courtney Brown and Prudence Calabrese, a graduate student in physics.
	Now, Professor Brown, with only that information, and some in the background, the Chuck Ceramic photograph, produced three, I think it was three or four, you can correct me on that, remote viewing sessions that declared the object to be basically an alien craft.
	Three, I believe, to four times, although that was a little bit in dispute, the size of Earth, traveling with Hillbob.
	He did the remote viewing sessions based on the photograph from Chuck Schramm.
	However, he told us in the background he had a major top ten university astronomer Who had given him several rolls of film and had unambiguous radio signals coming from the object.
	As a matter of fact, now that I consider it, I think perhaps the proper chronology would be to play, I've got a little collage of some of the things that Prudence Calabrese said, and so I'm changing this at the last minute.
	I think I'd rather deal with that first.
	I'm going to play that for you here in a few moments.
	And it's kind of a collage of things that the graduate physics student, Prudence Calabrese, said.
	At any rate, within a short while, there were photographs, thank God, I say that because it was not just me.
	A photograph was delivered to Whitley Strieber, and a photograph was delivered to myself.
	As a matter of fact, two of them.
	The same one sent to Whitley, and one other.
	And for some time, actually it was going to be about a week, it was promised, and the university astronomer was going to come out and have a news conference.
	And of course, the week came and went without the news conference.
	I was itchy to release the photograph because I felt my word to you was important.
	I felt it was very important and I didn't want you all out there thinking I was sitting here with a photograph.
	Important to mankind and surely if something of that size was out there it would be very important to mankind to have that photograph in everybody's hands.
	I'm a very Public kind of person, as you know.
	However, at the urging of Professor Brown, and, as a matter of fact, with a show that we did with Whitley, we decided we would wait.
	And wait we did, finally releasing that photograph on January 15th, or at just plus the two-month point.
	In other words, We had waited two months for this university astronomer to come forward.
	Professor Brown kept telling us he will, he will, he will, and if you out him too soon, why?
	It's going to blow the whole thing up.
	I didn't want to do that.
	I didn't want to blow the whole thing up.
	So let us first go back to November 14th so we might properly recall Some of the things said about this university astronomer and how sure everybody was at the time that this guy was for real.
	Now, bear in mind that myself and Whitley had only the word of Professor Brown and Prudence Calabrese to go by.
	We did not know the name of this university professor, nor did we know the university.
	Later we found out, or we were given the name, I should say, of a university, but at the time we had only the word of Professor Brown and Prudence to go by, which was quite considerable when you consider Professor Brown is a tenured professor at Emory University and heads the Farsight Institute.
	That was quite considerable, along with the credentials of Prudence Calabrese.
	So, here is a little reminder of what occurred on November 14th, when everybody was together.
	You're going to be hearing of Prudence Calabrese.
	You have had many hours of discussion with this professor, haven't you?
	Yes, I have.
	How convinced is he that this is not ambiguous He is very convinced.
	He's completely convinced.
	When we first started talking with him, he thought that there was a possibility that this was some type of artificial object, but he wasn't committing himself at that point.
	And then apparently he received some confirmation from other people in his field that had seen the same thing.
	And one particular colleague of his who has detected radio signals from this object.
	And this colleague has a radio telescope?
	That's correct.
	This is not an amateur with a radio telescope? This is a professional?
	No, this is a professional, another PhD in astrophysics who does all sorts of radio astronomy.
	Bruton Scalabrese is the Director of Planetary Education at the Farsight Institute.
	Her responsibilities as director involve presenting information on the Farsight Institute website
	so others can see, examine, and discuss the remote viewing research that is conducted.
	She has a strong graduate background in physics with emphasis in magnetics, cyclotrons, and astrophysics.
	She is expected to receive her doctorate in physics in May of 1997.
	She will be talking this morning about the efforts of the Farsight Institute to obtain verifying and to some degree cooperating evidence of the remote viewing data that was obtained by the Farsight Institute using its professional remote viewing staff regarding the anomaly apparently accompanying the comet Hale-Bopp.
	Prudence Calabrese is as well a remote viewer trained by the Farsight Institute.
	Here she is.
	Prudence, welcome to the program.
	Hi Art, thanks very much.
	Let me ask you, with all of your credentials, if we've got it right so far regarding the photographs from an astronomer at one of the top ten universities here in America, and the fact that there has been what appears to be an intelligent signal received from this object.
	Is that correct?
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	What we did When we first heard about a possible anomaly with the Hale-Bopp comet, because of Chuck Ceramics and his photograph, we targeted Hale-Bopp and found out through the remote viewing sessions that there apparently was some large object as a companion to Hale-Bopp.
	But we didn't stop there.
	We decided, as we always do with any professional session at the Farsight Institute, that we need to find Collaborating evidence.
	And as far as a large companion to Hale-Bopp, if it's there, someone somewhere must have seen it.
	All right, this is where it begins to get very serious.
	Because a lot of people in the audience will say, okay, remote viewing, yes, the government did it, yes, it's very interesting, but it's still off into the land, in the public's, from a lot of the public's point of view, of psychic Now, when you begin to talk about corroborating evidence, then you're talking about a very, very serious revelation.
	Tell us, please, what you can about this professor.
	Okay.
	This astronomer, he's an astrophysicist, actually, and he has one of the impeccable credentials.
	He has taught at more than one of the top ten universities in the United States.
	In the areas of physics, astrophysics, and astronomy.
	Now, his specialty is in planetary science, which is the formation and the life of planets and planet-like material, of which comets is included in that.
	So, he has the ideal specialty for an expert involved in this kind of discovery.
	So he's the right guy?
	Exactly, and he's been involved in successful efforts to discover planets around distant solar systems, He's a real pioneer in his field.
	He's a very brave and courageous person to have come forward, at least to us at this point, with this information.
	How did that occur?
	Did you go to him?
	Did he come to you?
	Can you tell us how the contact occurred?
	What we did, after we did the HaleBot remote viewing sessions, we started calling around all the astrophysicists and astronomers that we had some personal contact with.
	Um, we happened to run across this particular person and he said, well, yes, there are some, um, observed anomalies with HaleBOP, although I'm not exactly sure what these anomalies mean.
	He said that, yes, there were some anomalies.
	Um, and then later that same week he called us back and said, I have some photographs that show another object traveling with this comet.
	Alright, you've got those photographs, Dr. Brown's got them, and I've got them.
	That's right.
	In front of me.
	Now, the immediate audience reaction, we've got some people who have joined since midnight,
	and we're going to describe this object, but they're going to say right away, well then,
	why the hell don't you put these photographs up on the web so we can all see them?
	And I certainly wish I could.
	Please tell them why we can't.
	Now, just the nature of the telescope involved in this particular series of photographs that
	we have, anyone with any type of astronomical training would be able to narrow it down to
	a few different observatories in the country, just because of the type of image.
	In other words, it's too good.
	It's too good, exactly.
	And it would then narrow down who this particular person is.
	Alright, why does this person not yet wish to be known?
	Well, as he conveyed to us, he is wanting to get as much data as possible and he wants to have a completely irrefutable analysis before he comes forward to the public.
	He is concerned That if he comes forward at this point with these photographs and some other evidence that he has that it won't be enough and that he'll just be besieged and his whole career will be in turmoil as well as he kind of fears for the safety of his family and himself.
	Of course.
	So he wants to take some time and make sure he has everything lined up before he comes forward.
	What are the moral imperatives?
	This is very serious information, Prudence.
	And what are the moral imperatives?
	Is this man's reputation more important than getting this out right away?
	I've got the photographs, you've got them, Professor Brown has got them, just about everybody's got them, and we're not releasing them, so we really need to address that.
	Where are the moral imperatives?
	Well, it's always a tough call to make, and it's something that journalists, for example, have to do all the time, because they have All sorts of sources that are secret that they do not disclose because of what could potentially happen to the source.
	But sometimes a journalist will come up with a piece of information from a source that he or she doesn't want to disclose and they feel that this information is so important that they need to put it out there right away.
	No matter what.
	If within a reasonable time there is not a news conference Would you release these photos?
	We have given this astronomer our word that we would not release the photos at this time.
	We will be in contact with him after this show and we'll check his reaction to all this and to see what kind of decisions he's come to and then I guess we'll reevaluate.
	Is there any possibility that this astronomer at this major university has made a mistake and it is a star.
	It is just not possible.
	This object is too large.
	If you look at the photograph, there are several large stars in the immediate vicinity.
	Yes.
	And those are all accounted for.
	If you look at any star catalog, star chart, star chart program, computer program, those bright stars would show up.
	But where this large object is, there just is no star of any magnitude that would even approach showing such a large luminous object.
	All right.
	And so the audience understands, it is not a single photograph.
	This man has taken how many?
	Over many, many hours in this particular series?
	In this particular series, I don't know how many he's taken total.
	We have five clear shots.
	Um, but I know that there were much more, probably a couple hundred would be my guess.
	A couple of hundred?
	Right.
	Alright, uh, you have had many hours of discussion with this professor, haven't you?
	Yes, I have.
	How convinced is he that this is not ambiguous?
	He is very convinced.
	He's completely convinced.
	Alright, there you have it.
	That was Prudence Calabrese on November 14th, and I don't know about you, but to me, that did not seem at all ambiguous.
	Not at all ambiguous.
	But I wanted to recall that for you, to refresh your memories.
	In a moment, we will continue.
	There is quite a story Do you ripple while you walk?
	Do you pinch not just an inch, but a bunch?
	Would you like to lose 8 to 10 pounds in the next month?
	Yes, of course you would.
	Fiber can do that.
	We know, scientifically, it sweeps fat out of the digestive tract like a broom.
	Reducing the amount of fat your body can store as excess weight.
	Well, there is now a revolutionary fiber called chitosan.
	Chitosan, actually.
	It comes from shellfish.
	Not only does it sweet fat, but absorbs 10 times more fat than any other fiber.
	You get this fiber in a new formula called Kytoslim.
	And with Kytoslim, you can lose weight without changing what you eat.
	No stimulants, gentle and effective.
	Here's the offer.
	And it's a guarantee.
	You order a 90-day supply of Kytoslim.
	With it, you get an antioxidant moisturizing cream free and then you go to work.
	And if in 90 days you have not lost the advertised weight, you get your money back and you keep the face cream free.
	The number is 1-800-557-4627.
	1-800-557-4627.
	Once again, that's 1-800-557-4627.
	Would you enjoy working at home?
	I do, it's fun.
	Some financial pundits have just about made commodities a dirty word.
	However, if you learn the ins and outs of how to do it, how to approach it with the right attitude, commodities can pay off big time.
	Ken Roberts is a financial educator, educator is the word, and multi-millionaire investor, and has taught tens of thousands of people How to invest in commodities and manage your own money without depending on a broker for advice and, of course, having to pay a commission.
	There is a step-by-step process.
	First, you learn how to invest with a no-risk approach by trading on paper.
	In other words, you learn and you trade on paper as though you were using money.
	When you're ready, you'll know it because you'll be making money or losing money, more properly said, because you're just on paper.
	So you will naturally graduate yourself and move off into the world of commodities.
	And I really have talked to a lot of graduates, and they're making money.
	Call 1-888-GOLD-KRC.
	That's 888-465-3572.
	Ken will send you a free audio cassette titled, Real People, Real Money, and a 44-page report that explains all.
	Call 888-GOLD-KRC.
	If you will now go to my website, you will see the original image released, let's see, on the 14th, no, make that the 15th of January, the one given to us by Prudence and Professor Brown.
	You will see next to it the Well, when I said real, what now turns out to be a fraudulent image, and then next to it, the real image, the image from which this photograph was obviously, obviously, and we intend to prove that, taken.
	The real one, the fraud, side by side, on my webpage, right now, as the story unfolds.
	You're listening to the American CBC Radio Network.
	♪♪ Tune in Tuesday night, Wednesday morning, when Art Bell
	returns to the airwaves from his quickie Mexican vacation.
	Hear all about it tomorrow night on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	This is the CBC Radio Network.
	This is Art Bell.
	This is an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	You're listening to Art's January 16th debate between Professor Courtney Brown and Whitley Streber.
	And now, back to the best of Art Bell.
	All right, back now to our story.
	And a lot of you will not have heard the original program, so I think this may help you.
	That is what we've already done with Prudence Calabrese.
	And now, before we really go to Professor Courtney Brown, I'm going to go to him for a moment.
	After two months, and on January 14th, as a professional courtesy, I called Professor Brown and said, basically, that's it.
	That the prior week, Whitley Streber and myself had set a date of January 15th, and if by then this astronomer had not come out with his news conference, we were going to release the photograph that we had.
	The only information that we had that backed up this story at all, that we had kept.
	Now, I had never really promised to hold on to this forever.
	All of you know that.
	I had said I would not do it forever, that there was a time limit, there was a time that would come when I would finally release this photograph.
	In fact, there was even a reference to it in that which you just heard from Prudence Calabrese a few moments ago.
	Now, Professor Courtney Brown from Emory University is on the line, and Professor, before we get going with our session, I want to ask you permission to be able to play On that day, as a courtesy, I called the professor and I said, look, on his answering machine, we're going to release this tomorrow.
	I want you to know that.
	And he then made a return call to me.
	Courtney, I want permission, if you would give it, for me to replay that return call that you made to me.
	Art, I don't remember exactly how I phrased that.
	I certainly didn't I didn't phrase it with the intention of it being broadcast.
	I don't remember anything back... No, I didn't say I was going to broadcast it unless you give me permission.
	I just think that the people have the right to hear what it is you said to me on the day before I released the photograph.
	If you don't want me to play it, if you will... I'm not sure I remember it exactly.
	I don't remember saying anything I wouldn't... I wouldn't want people to hear, but... Well, okay.
	Is it all right, then, to go ahead?
	You might as well.
	I can't remember anything that I wouldn't... Well, this will refresh your memory.
	Well, certainly it will.
	Okay, here we go then.
	You give permission then.
	Sure, go ahead.
	Alright, alright.
	So, here is a call that came to my answering machine the day before I was going to release these photographs.
	Hello, Art.
	This is Courtney Brown, returning your call.
	Art, I got your message.
	I know you're planning on doing that.
	I do think it's a mistake.
	I don't think you're going to get any payback from putting the picture up.
	And I think you'd actually get a lot more payback from standing on what you originally said was your word of not putting that up.
	I think actually your audience, a large portion of your audience, they'll be some rabble-rousers.
	But other than that, the large portion of the audience will remember you as someone who stuck to his word.
	And if you put that picture up, They're going to say the opposite.
	And you're not going to come out smelling as nice as you should.
	And I just think that the picture is a blow-up anyway of the original one.
	So just by itself it probably couldn't trace the astronomer.
	But your public image will probably be damaged by putting that up.
	And I just want to give you my own from-the-heart feeling that It really is not going to do you any good, and in the long run, well, in the short run, it may look like there'll be a little blip of interest, but it'll be very short-lived, and in the long run, it'll hurt you.
	The other thing is, I want to say, please, at least, do not mention the University of the Astronomer.
	As it is, we already have more information, but, you know, I mean, my mother was a journalist.
	I was raised in journalism.
	If there's one thing people have to have confidence in, it's that when the story is developing, if something sensitive comes about, that the person they're giving their information to will keep some things confidential that have to be kept confidential, i.e.
	deep throat.
	If they're in the Watergate Affair, no one's still ever come out with who that person is.
	It will help you in the future for people to be able to come to you when big things
	start happening.
	For you to have that persona out there of someone who is stuck to your original thoughts.
	Anyway, Art, I know you may differ from me on this and it's okay.
	We can agree to disagree.
	But I just would like you to think about what I just said.
	I really think you could play this to your word business up even more and come out smelling
	like a rose and actually much stronger.
	I really think that's the better way to go, the more ethical way to go and I think it's
	ultimately the better ratings way to go.
	I think it's better all the way around.
	So just think about it and I understand you will make your own decision.
	God bless you both and talk to you soon.
	Alright, in his own words, that was Professor Courtney Brown on the day prior to the release of the photograph.
	Then we released the photograph on the internet.
	Whitley Strieber and myself did it simultaneously.
	Within 24 hours, we knew that photograph was a fraud.
	We knew that photograph, within 24 hours, Had been taken by the University of Hawaii, and here is Dr. Oliver Hynock, who is himself an astronomer.
	Not the one who took the photograph, but a colleague of the one who took the photograph that we are going to discuss tonight.
	Here he is from Hawaii.
	We're speaking with Oliver Hynot.
	Oliver, do I have your last name correct?
	Is it Hynot?
	Yeah, it's perfect.
	Yes.
	Very good.
	And you work at the... where is it you work?
	Okay, that's Institute for Astronomy at the University of Hawaii.
	And you work with an astronomer there.
	What is his name?
	Oh, Dave Tolan is a colleague of mine.
	I don't work especially with him.
	One of the many colleagues of the Institute for Astronomy.
	All right.
	Myself and Whitley Streber released a photograph given to us by Prudence Calabrese and Professor Brown from Emory University on the 15th of this month.
	I presume that you saw that photograph and recognized that photograph.
	Well, I did not recognize it.
	It took some time.
	What I did, I recognized that the comet looked like a late 1995 picture.
	And so I started digging in the late 1995 pictures that are on the World Wide Web and found on the website that I maintained that one of the pictures was exactly the same as the one you published.
	That photograph was taken September 1st, 1995.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	All right, let us go through the points.
	You begin by saying that a careful comparison of the central region of the original image shows the comet in the same position with respect to the background stars.
	Right.
	Now, does that mean that it could only have been taken on that day?
	Oh, it's much stronger than that.
	It means that it had been taken within, let's say, 15 minutes, half an hour from the
	picture taken by the Stollen.
	But the comet is moving, so the position of the comet with respect to the star background
	gives you really time with very good accuracy.
	So we know that it has been taken around 8 p.m. Hawaiian time on August 31, 1995.
	August 31, 1995.
	Yes.
	All right.
	The photograph could not have been taken, you say, from Eastern Asia or Australia?
	At that time, it was still daytime in Japan.
	The sun?
	The sun was up?
	Yeah.
	So the comet was not visible.
	Nor could it have been taken from Western, North, or South America because the comet was very low in the sky.
	Is that correct?
	That's it.
	The comet was extremely low.
	That means that Even if it had been visible, the image quality would have been very bad because of the turbulence.
	And the image that you published is excellent.
	All right.
	That means that it has been taken in good condition.
	All right.
	The images of stars on both show the same amount of sharpness.
	Is that correct?
	That's right.
	Yes.
	So to finish on the location, it's not It's not Western United States.
	It's not South America.
	It's not Japan.
	It's not Australia.
	There's something in between.
	So the most probable location is Hawaii, which was perfectly located at that time.
	All right.
	Is there any way that you can know for sure that this photograph, the photograph given to us by Professor Brown and Prudence Calabrese, was exactly the same What other ways do you have of knowing that?
	For example, the telescope use.
	OK.
	As you see on that image, the stars are not trailed.
	The stars appear round.
	That means that the exposure time must have been kept quite short.
	Otherwise, the telescope would have followed the comet, and the stars would have appeared as trailed stars.
	Uh, from many pictures that have been released.
	So that means short exposure time, and as the comet is well visible, that implies a big telescope.
	So we know for sure that the image was taken with a big telescope.
	A large, university-sized telescope.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	Not a small amateur telescope.
	A really big telescope.
	What size is your telescope?
	Uh, the one at University of Hawaii is 2.2 meters, so that's 88 inches.
	All right.
	OK.
	And what about the filtering?
	You also mentioned something about the filtering.
	Another thing is that you see that the relative brightness of the stars in the image that you showed and in the images of Stolen are exactly the same.
	Some stars appear brighter than others, but they all do it in the same way.
	In your image and in our image.
	So that means that the filters used were exactly the same.
	Otherwise, if another filter would have been used, a red star, for instance, would appear brighter in one image than in the other.
	Or a blue star would appear fainter.
	So that means that the filter combination used was the same.
	And the filter combination used by It's extremely peculiar.
	It's very uncommon.
	It was a composite of three images to make something like a real color image, which is something that is not very commonly done in professional astronomy.
	All right.
	The photograph from the, quote, mysterious astronomer was in black and white.
	The photograph on your website Yes, but it's very easy just to turn the color off and then you get the same brightness.
	I guess that it was to make it harder to identify.
	Would there be any reason for somebody who wanted to perpetrate a hoax to change a photograph from color to black and white?
	I guess that it was to make it harder to identify. I don't know.
	That picture of Comet Hale-Bott is one of the only ones that has been taken in color.
	Because, again, it's quite difficult to take color pictures with a big telescope.
	And so to leave that image in color would have pointed immediately to Toland's picture.
	Is there any doubt in your mind, or in the mind of David Toland, the astronomer, that The photograph that we have is the identically same photograph and therefore a hoax.
	Yeah, there is absolutely no doubt.
	We've been through some of the points, but there are some others.
	For instance, what we call the limiting magnitude, which is the faintest star visible on both images, are exactly the same.
	That's really something that shows that it was.
	the same picture. Another point is that the pixel size is the same and pixel size is kind
	of a fingerprint of the instrument. So in our mind there is absolutely no doubt that
	the image that you showed is based on the current image.
	How conclusive is the pixel size? How is one to understand, if I might ask you, how do
	understand what you mean by pixel size.
	OK.
	The images are made on electronic cameras, which are constituted by many little squares side by side.
	Each of these little squares will become one of the elements of the final image.
	And these pixels, these picture elements, It has a physical size, it's a few micrometers, and the combination of physical size with a telescope is only one scale on the sky, so the pixel will have a given scale on the sky, and that scale is typical of the telescope.
	So it is like a fingerprint?
	Yeah, well, of course you can copy it, and you could You could adjust an image so that it matches any pixel size.
	But the fact that here we have a perfect match is one more element that proves that it's the same image.
	All right.
	Doctor, I can't tell you how much I appreciate your work in doing this, and I have no interest other than getting to the absolute truth.
	And that is what we are going to pursue, is the absolute truth.
	Well, I think at this point it's the only thing that has to be done, in the sense that that whole Hale-Bopp story, I think now we have evidence that at the beginning it was just a mistake, and then more and more there were some people trying to give false information.
	So what we are trying here in Hawaii to do is to Every time we have something that appears, we try to find what it is.
	Well, there is a big difference, doctor, between a mistake and an intentional fraud.
	Definitely, definitely.
	And this has to be, if it is exactly the same photograph, and you are assuring as it is, then that makes this an intentional fraud.
	Definitely.
	Yes.
	Doctor, I thank you for doing the interview, and I know that you're about to embark on a trip, and I wish you a good trip, and I thank you.
	Thank you.
	Take care.
	Dr. Oliver Hinot, an astronomer at the Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, the original photograph taken, bear in mind now, this was on their website since September 1, The original image taken by Dr. David Tolan.
	When we come back, Whitley Streber and Professor Courtney Brown, and myself, will discuss all of this.
	Microtech, they're developing SMR, Specialized Mobile Radio.
	They've been doing it for some time, to the degree now that it's already built in New York, LA, Houston, Boston, Detroit, and many more cities.
	But listen.
	They are offering their last site now to investors.
	So, if you think you might be interested, you should act fast, because the door be closing.
	There is some risk, and that's why it's called an investment.
	However, they say for a minimum $8,700, socked in now, you could get back $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, or more, plus a yearly income for the rest of your life, and it can be part of your IRA or retirement plan.
	So write the number down, please.
	Better yet, call it right now.
	1-800-444-1049.
	That's 1-800-444-1049.
	If Newt Gingrich had had a digital cellular phone, or a digital portable phone, he would not now owe somebody $300,000.
	1049 if Newt Gingrich had had a digital cellular phone or a digital portable phone
	He would not now owe somebody three hundred thousand dollars the phone call he made
	Would would have been secure Because with digital technology one cannot listen on scanners
	nor other portable phones or televisions Or whatever all else you can lose
	It's horrible.
	Regular analog phones can be heard by neighbors, snoopers, whoever.
	And digital phones cannot.
	So privacy is the number one reason to own a digital phone.
	And you've got to be careful, because a lot are advertised as digital, and they're not fully digital, and you don't know that, and you're sitting there broadcasting.
	This one is truly digital.
	You've got to read the fine print.
	That's one.
	Two, it has great quality.
	In other words, it is as clear as a phone you plug into the wall.
	And three, you get great distance.
	I get about a mile from mine.
	Oh, it's great.
	Absolutely great.
	It is the VTech 900 NDL digital telephone and the price is $129.95.
	You will love it.
	Call Bob Crane in the morning and get one on the way to you at 1-800-522-8863.
	at 1-800-522-8863.
	That's 1-800-522-8863.
	The C. Crane Company.
	This is the American CBC Radio Network.
	This is the CBC Radio Network.
	This is an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	You're listening to Art's January 16th debate between Professor Courtney Brown and Whitley Strieber.
	And now, back to the best of Art Bell.
	This is the CBC Radio Network.
	That's what it is.
	I'm Art Bell.
	My guests coming up Professor Courtney Brown from Emory University.
	And of course, America's premier writer, investigator, I guess, of ETs, UFOs, things unusual, Whitley Strieber.
	You know Whitley.
	Coming up in a moment.
	All right, back to it now.
	And without being able to review really in detail, obviously, the entire last hour, we laid out a number of things.
	Uh, original statements made by Prudence Calabrese, a phone call made by, um, Professor Brown to me, uh, but one day prior to the release, finally, of this photograph, that now, according to Oliver J. Hynot and David Toland, and anybody with eyes, is an obvious fraud.
	That photo we were urged to hang on to for so long.
	Now I'm going to bring on Professor Courtney Brown, and he can go at it in his own words, along with Whitley Streber.
	Professor Brown, are you there?
	I'm here.
	All right.
	Whitley, are you there?
	Yes, I am.
	All right.
	I take it you both were able to hear the information in the first hour?
	Yes, I did as well.
	All right.
	I think it might be appropriate to start with you, Professor Brown.
	Do you acknowledge that this photograph He's a fraud.
	Well, Art, based on the information that you sent to me by fax this morning, which is the email that you were sent, apparently from Dr. David Solin.
	Right.
	Looking at all the data and how he analyzed the pictures and so on, and I myself looking at the two pictures, and then also hearing Dr. Hinnop basically say the same thing, it does appear that the picture is fraudulent.
	It does appear that the picture is This is a piece of disinformation that was given to us.
	This is a very great puzzle to us.
	I have to admit, from the very beginning, when you talked to me about this, what was it, this morning or yesterday morning?
	Both.
	I'm losing time here.
	I've not slept since I talked to you about this.
	And it is a very, very great puzzle to us because everything that we have told you has been absolutely sincere and absolutely honest from the perspective of all the information that we have gotten.
	But the evidence does seem to suggest that the picture is a constructed picture.
	I mean, I can't walk away from something like that.
	It looks like this is a University of Hawaii picture.
	The things do match up awfully closely.
	And at the same time, we were indeed given this photograph as a photograph, not from the website, not from any website, but as a photograph.
	And in good faith, we just assumed it was what it was.
	Now, you must understand art.
	That this photograph has nothing to do with anything we've ever done with regard to targeting remote viewing.
	We have never used this photograph for anything other than after the sessions were already in.
	They were basically sparked by the Chuck Schrammich photograph.
	After everything was done, later on, the astronomer got back to us within about a week, it seems to me, if my memory recalls, and said, and offered us Well, let's stop there for one second, Doctor.
	On that same program, the 14th, you made reference to the fact that you also had a top 10 university astronomer.
	Now, are we talking about the first?
	We're talking about the program... The first one where I talked about the Hale-Bott remote viewing session, or the second one in which Calhoun and Prudence was on?
	We're talking about the first one.
	You made reference to... Okay, that's where I was on by myself.
	Yes, and you made reference to the Top Ten University Astronomer.
	The photograph was not described until the second program.
	That's right.
	We didn't have the photograph then.
	In fact, the only thing we had at that time, during that first show... Remember, the SRAMIC photo had just come out a few hours earlier.
	So we had immediately assigned some remote viewers, under blind conditions, to go look at the anomalous object following Hale-Bopp.
	We got three sessions.
	One literally was coming in as the show, your show, that I was on began and we went through
	those sessions.
	Those sessions were completely independent of this photograph we are talking about.
	But later, right after the show, we did what we always try to do.
	We try to find out if we were right.
	We try to get some feedback.
	It was an unverifiable target unless we could get some feedback.
	So we called around and we did in fact find one astronomer.
	Actually, initially he had just said that he had heard that there were some strange
	things with that comet and that there did seem to be an object nearby.
	That's what he said initially.
	But then afterwards he called us back.
	This is after your show.
	And he said he's gotten more information being sent to him from colleagues.
	Now we were under the impression that he actually was responsible for these photographs.
	Oh, indeed, in that program there is no question if you listen to Prudence.
	Yeah, well I understand.
	Prudence is my employee.
	That's right.
	She's done what I asked.
	She's our webmaster and she described that photograph very well.
	And even when I heard it the second time through, when you played it in the beginning of this program, I was very proud of her.
	She simply described the photograph that I requested her to do for your show as it was given.
	She does not have the ability to determine if it was a fraud.
	No, but the astronomers certainly would.
	I mean, that is... That's what it seems to us.
	And that's what's so puzzling about it.
	Now, Art, I want to tell you from the get-go, right from now, I don't have all the answers.
	All the evidence is pointing in the direction of our astronomer, but he is an extremely well-respected person.
	And, you know, I tell you, today, all today, since this morning when I first heard about this thing, we have been racking our brains going through absolutely everything that ever happened, comparing everything, looking at everything, looking for some type of reasoning behind it.
	We even asked whether the guy is a member of PSYCOP, you know, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Claims of the Paranormal.
	To see if he was setting us up, because maybe he said he just wanted to debunk remote viewing.
	Fortunately, none of our remote viewing was based on that photograph, but the very fact that we gave you the photograph, you know, ties us to that photograph.
	Well, you gave it not just to me, but you gave another version of it to Whitley Strieberg.
	No, I have another version, the exact same one.
	Uh, no.
	Uh, Whitley?
	Yes?
	Whitley, which one did you get?
	There was only one picture.
	Well, actually, there was two.
	One with a circle around the object, and the other without.
	That's the one I got.
	He got the one with the circle, I got the one with the circle, and one without the circle, which I have since given to Whitley.
	Now they're both up on the website, aren't they?
	That's correct.
	Now, I'll tell you something, Professor.
	In the phone call that you made to me, you appealed to me as though I were protecting deep throats.
	That's exactly how I felt about it.
	With reference to journalistic things.
	That's exactly how I felt about it.
	And by the way, I want to say that I gave permission without remembering very well what I said, but after you had played it, I was fine with it.
	I was glad you put it on.
	It was okay.
	I didn't say anything I was ashamed of.
	Alright, well let me say this.
	In journalism, Doctor, If a reporter sits down and writes a false story, a fraudulent story, they lose their careers, and rightly so.
	And the way I see this absolute fraudulent photograph is no different.
	In other words, whoever did this deserves to lose their career.
	You know, I'm in agreement with you.
	The only problem is proving this thing.
	For example, let's take a look.
	Well, we have not yet said anybody specifically did this.
	We simply know this to be a fraud.
	We haven't said anybody perpetrated the fraud.
	Well, look, if it is a fraud, someone perpetrated it.
	Yes.
	The question is, why did they want to slip it through to us?
	No, doctor.
	No, I agree.
	That's not the question.
	The question is, who perpetrated the fraud?
	That's the bottom line as far as you're concerned as well?
	At the moment.
	Later, the motive might be very important, but I think that the public has a sort of an absolute right to know everything you know about the origin of this photograph.
	So do I. Well, I, but, you're, you're, you know, I've told you everything that we do know.
	No, no.
	And that's the person's name.
	No, Professor, yes, and that's what we want.
	Oh, now, wait a second.
	Now, Whitley, also listen to this.
	You both may disagree with me, and that's fine, but there's two things.
	What if the person actually did perpetrate this thing and actually was organizing the whole thing?
	First of all, whoever did it went through a lot of trouble because the person left a paper trail, they used FedEx, they sent film that was developed.
	So the point is, the person seems to have done it innocently.
	Let Whitley say something.
	Whitley, you take this one.
	Alright.
	There's nothing innocent about this.
	It's a fraud.
	An intentionally constructed fraud.
	And I think you have a rather strong obligation to say where the photograph came from.
	That doesn't necessarily mean that this individual is the one who created the fraud.
	He may also have been duped.
	Okay.
	It would be essential that we know who that is.
	I don't think there's any way of getting around that.
	Let me speak.
	There were two possibilities I was saying.
	The first is, what if the person did perpetrate it and actually went through all of this trouble to make this thing the way it is?
	Alright?
	What if they actually did try to create this fraud for whatever reason?
	You're referring now to the professor?
	To the professor, yes.
	Alright, so what if he did?
	Yes.
	Okay, what if he did?
	Well, if we put his name out there, then the very if he's actually done it with a evil intent
	then the very first thing he would do is simply deny it and we'd be slapped with a libel suit
	it's it's it's a good thing we had a paper trail including FedEx receipts
	yeah it's
	it's a situation that would ultimately end up in court and it's
	live libel look libel uh... according to the uh... you actually said that it is
	only when you have told a lie a lot of this lie about somebody and you've just
	told us that you've got an absolute trail to this person
	Now, by naming him... Wait a minute!
	No, Courtney, you are not...
	Um, by naming this person, saying that he perpetrated the fraud, you're simply saying, I received the material from the following person.
	That's all you're saying.
	Now listen, are you going to listen to me, or are you going to argue?
	No, no, I'm listening.
	Okay.
	In my opinion, what we have is the fact that it was sent to us by FedEx, and that we have a roll of film that was developed.
	That is not, that person could nonetheless say that he said something else.
	and it wasn't that role of film.
	The point is we would get into a big legal hassle and I don't want to deal with that.
	But there's one more thing as well.
	What if the person actually, what if we misunderstood when he was talking about the various data
	that was being sent to him from his other colleagues?
	And what if we misunderstood?
	Wait a second, let me say it first.
	But Courtney...
	No, let me finish a sentence.
	What if in fact it was our mistake in thinking that these were actually taken by him and
	in fact these were among the other things that were sent by his other colleagues and
	that he just literally sent them to us because it was an interesting photograph and didn't
	check it out in the beginning, but in fact was perhaps sloppy in sending it to us or
	Courtney, then there will be real photographs, and they should be released.
	Not only that.
	Not only that.
	Courtney, may I say one word?
	I did let you finish your sentence.
	No, I didn't, because the point is that would ruin his career.
	If, in fact, it was sent innocently and he has been caught with this, it's bad enough that I actually had the photograph.
	It was flipped to us.
	We gave it to you.
	That was a bad enough mistake.
	It doesn't make it any better to go back to the other person because of the other two possibilities.
	Listen, there's one person in this conversation who's silent.
	The public.
	And the public matters more than anyone who can speak on this radio right now.
	The public has an absolute right to know as much as it's possible for us to tell them about this fraud.
	Now, if the man made a mistake, didn't make a mistake, it really doesn't matter.
	You need to tell us where this came from.
	Yes.
	Now, I want to say something.
	Give me a sentence and then you can go ahead, Professor Brown.
	Um, what you just said, I think, is refuted by what Prudence said.
	She said, uh, nearly quoting, I spent hours and hours talking to this astronomer.
	She spent a long time on the phone with the man.
	That's right.
	So, uh, misunderstanding on your part?
	I don't, I don't, I don't think it was.
	From the beginning, it really did look totally genuine.
	It really did look, from our perspective, We did not, you know, I guess it's not very hard to fool us with regards to slipping up a photograph.
	But the point is, I'm sort of glad the way it turned out.
	We kept our word to the very end and didn't want it released and urged it against it.
	But on the other hand it was released against our desires and we found out in fact it was a fraud.
	And so now we actually, we both kept our words and now we know what we're dealing with.
	We found out that, in fact, we were being slipped information.
	That fact was not true.
	Fortunately, that photograph had no bearing on any of our remote viewing sessions.
	I hope you do get to the idea of motive, because the real question is... Motive?
	Before we get to the idea of motive?
	Yeah, we seem to be losing... kind of losing the... Well, I'm not going to give you the astronomer's name for the two reasons.
	How many times do you want me to say it?
	There are inadequate reasons.
	What reasons?
	Well, that's tough, Whitley.
	If you don't agree with me, that's fine.
	What?
	We have to agree to disagree.
	What are the reasons?
	I just told you.
	You hardly gave me a chance to say them before.
	Do you want me to repeat them?
	Say them?
	Yes.
	I'll do it.
	Repeat them.
	You're worried about legal action.
	Look.
	If the guy actually did, if the astronomer actually for some reason was convinced that we had to have this fraud done against us so that we would actually be in possession of a fraudulent photograph.
	Lots of people are in possession of fraudulent photographs and in our particular case it wasn't a very good thing for us to actually have it and to give it to you and so on like that.
	But for some reason if this person was actually responsible for it Then I would assume that he would be mean-spirited and want to cause us further trouble if we ever linked his name to it.
	And I'm sure something like that would happen.
	Secondly, if the person really was innocent and gave it to us too fast, an astronomer should have known that that photograph was not legitimate.
	That's the point you haven't raised.
	I did raise it.
	And that's what I'm really troubled with, that the astronomer should have known, just by looking at it, that this photograph You qualify the guy as a top 10 astronomer from one of the top 10 universities.
	If he wouldn't know that's a fraud, who would?
	Well, that's what's been so concerning us, because we've had such a difficult time accepting the fact that it might have been done intentionally.
	I tell you, to this moment, I'm having trouble with that.
	But the evidence is pointing in that direction, but I'm still having trouble with it.
	It's overwhelming.
	Yeah, it's overwhelming.
	Before, you know, big time, even Nobel Prize winners have made mistakes, but this, I admit
	the evidence is pointing in that direction, but nothing, the only way you're ever going
	to find out for sure is if this person actually comes out.
	The hell with him coming out!
	This is a fraud.
	It's time to out him.
	Not as the one who committed the fraud, but simply as the one who sent you the photograph.
	There is no legal liability in that.
	If you've got records of that coming to you, then you can give his name and people, the press, myself, others, Whitley, everybody can go to him and say, uh, excuse me professor.
	Where'd you get that?
	I mean, the impression was obvious.
	Both of you, both of you.
	This has apparently beat up Courtney Knight, and that's okay.
	No, no, no.
	Let me speak.
	Get into the truth, Knight.
	Let me speak.
	I have given you my opinion.
	As soon as I mention that person's name, and I'm not, I'm not, I'm still having difficulty accepting the idea that someone with that type of a reputation would actually Well, let me tell you something, Courtney.
	In my opinion, if you don't give his name, then your career is damaged.
	Then your reputation is damaged.
	in his name for whatever reason, his career is seriously damaged, I am not willing to
	do that, especially at this time.
	Well, let me tell you something, Courtney, in my opinion, if you don't give his name,
	then your career is damaged.
	Then your reputation is damaged.
	That's my choice, Mark.
	In other words, if you...
	Mark and Whitley, listen to this.
	This has had an effect on me.
	It not only lost my sleep, and it has also affected my whole day.
	This is not a good day, as far as I'm concerned.
	But the point is, that is my choice.
	I am taking responsibility for the fact that some information was slipped to me.
	The reality is, since it was not something that Farsight actually did, since it was not remote viewing, since it was not something that we actually did, we had no business actually talking about it.
	We had no business actually even accepting it or mentioning it.
	It wasn't ours.
	We made that mistake.
	I made the mistake of pressuring Prudence to go on the show and actually talk about it.
	I made the mistake of actually We've got evidence from this astronomer.
	I accept that responsibility.
	You supplied that to us as cooperating evidence.
	Stand by, both of you.
	We'll be back.
	We're at the bottom of the hour.
	We have to adhere to the plots.
	You're listening to the American CBC Radio Network.
	Stay tuned for more with Professor Courtney Brown and Whitley Streber on this encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM
	with Art Bound.
	Thank you.
	Hi, this is Art Bell.
	You know, if I knew what was coming next, I don't think it would be nearly so much fun.
	I do a program called Coast to Coast AM, and it's right here throughout the nighttime, the late night hours.
	So if you can't sleep or you don't want to sleep or you just would like to join us for sort of an all-night party
	Be here BBC Chancellor Broadcasting Company for the strange and
	unusual it's Greenland with art mail So...
	Thank you.
	What do we discuss on Greenland?
	Two fascinating areas.
	Is there life after death and are we alone in the universe?
	Two ultimate questions mankind's been trying to answer for thousands of years.
	We'll be talking about it this week right here on Dreamland.
	This is an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	You're listening to Art's January 16th debate between Professor Courtney Brown and Whitley Strieberg.
	And now, back to the best of Art Bell.
	All right, back down to Courtney Brown and Whitley Streber.
	Professor Brown, so the answer is you will not release the name of this astronomer, correct?
	And I gave my reasons for it.
	You know, Art, this is not the first time that a fraudulent picture has come up.
	And you have to emphasize here that this fraudulent picture is not associated with Any targeting that we've done is remote viewing.
	Who cares?
	It was given as corroborating evidence for the Schrammich photograph, which backed the remote viewing that you were doing.
	All right, Professor, let's try this direction.
	You said, no, Prudence Calabrese said in the piece that I played, that she had, what, five rolls of film and two hundred photographs?
	No, no, no.
	There were three rolls of film.
	Three rolls of film.
	And only six of the pictures came out.
	Six of them.
	Release them all.
	Yeah, release them all.
	No, they're apparently fraudulent pictures.
	We're not going to do anything with them.
	All of them fraudulent?
	I don't know.
	You found out this one, and if we release the other ones, I'm assuming you'd find out the other ones were released.
	Oh, Whitley?
	Whitley, go ahead.
	Say something.
	You're not going to release any of the other pictures, and you're not going to say the name of the astronomer.
	Why should we?
	Why should we release pictures that are obviously fraud?
	Just make the matter worse?
	It's obvious that you have a situation here where apparently a photograph isn't right, isn't fraud.
	That's... What value is it?
	There's a lot of fake photographs out there.
	What value is it to multiply it times 5?
	Well, you're claiming you've got these on photographic film, though.
	On film?
	Yeah, I mean, I mean, I mean.
	I said that since the beginning.
	Send us some prints.
	Yeah, send us some prints.
	In other words, we've got a photograph that has been obviously retouched precisely from one that has been up on the Hawaiian website since September 1st.
	Actually, I was talking about this.
	I was talking about this.
	Yeah.
	I was talking.
	Hello?
	Yeah.
	It was retouched in a computer.
	Yeah.
	Therefore, send us the prints.
	Yeah, I was talking about, I was talking about this earlier.
	Send us the negatives.
	So you won't send the prints?
	Of what?
	Of making the photographs ourselves?
	and the prince. Well it's just going to start this whole round over again and start and
	distract from what we are really doing. We're a remote viewing shop. No, no it's not. What
	it's going to do is clear any possibility that anybody would accuse you or Prudence,
	Professor. Of what? Of making the photographs ourselves? If they're going to do that, they're
	going to do that anyway. Look, I would think that you would have great interest in seeing
	to it that the buck doesn't stop with you.
	And just for the life of me, can you Whitley understand why he will not, at this point, knowing he was given a fraudulent picture, give us the name of this professor?
	At this point... Or at least the other evidence... At this point, look, first of all, you guys are not...
	You guys are friends.
	I've talked to you for a long time.
	We've had long conversations.
	But the point is, you're not an official investigative body that has subpoenaed these things.
	The point is, we have evidence now that strongly suggests that these photographs are not real.
	Now, at this point... We have evidence about one photograph.
	And we are assuming that the rest, at least myself, I am assuming that that makes the other photographs, you know, suspect as well.
	They're very similar to that one.
	But the point is, that makes them very suspect as well.
	Similarly, it also brings into question, if this thing was passed to us quickly without looking at it very... just assume that it was done innocently in the beginning, and the astronomer found out... I think that's very difficult to assume.
	Let me say it with me.
	You can criticize me afterwards, but... No, I'm not criticizing you in any way, Courtney, it's just that the assumption that it was done innocently, like you're talking about a ball-safe fraud, is a real question.
	I am not an astronomer.
	I am saying that Nobel Prize winners have been known to make mistakes.
	There was a case just the other day, You both know about it where there was a Nobel Prize winner and his research companion and there had been some fraud in the research or some accusation of fraud in the research and this Nobel Prize winner had made a mistake and actually signed his name onto something.
	Well, I don't know the details with regard to this and we may have actually misunderstood him.
	With regard to whether he actually was claiming that those pictures were from him or part of the group of stuff that was being collected.
	Either way, there's a thousand miles of difference between a mistake and fraud.
	Well, I agree with that.
	We apparently have found out that it's not real.
	Now, look.
	We have gone through this.
	We have a picture that's apparently fraud.
	You might as well assume that the other ones are... We have not done anything with the other ones.
	I think that the public has a right to see the other ones.
	So do I.
	I think the public has a right to know the name of this astronomer.
	We are not accusing him of perpetrating the fraud.
	Absolutely not.
	We're not accusing anyone of anything.
	We're just saying we want to follow the trail, and if you won't let us follow the trail, Courtney... Finish the sentence.
	You're then going to say that the buck stops here, and you're going to accuse me of doing... No, I'm not.
	Or somebody else will accuse me of doing this.
	Let it be.
	The point is that I have been truthful from the very beginning, but I'm not willing to go to the extra steps.
	I'm not going to start this into a chase.
	Right up until the very day that I released that photograph, and we proved that with that phone call you made, you were telling me... I was very open to the very end.
	I didn't want it released, because we gave our word.
	And I'm still glad to the very end, and I'm proud of the fact that the very end, I upheld my side.
	I excelled my side, whether it was fraudulent or not.
	Somebody was interested in flipping us some fraudulent information that would cause literally the stir that's going on right now, and I am very proud that to the very end, for whatever reasons, I upheld my word to the very end.
	The best way to stop a stir is with the truth, and you're not helping us get to that truth.
	I don't like the way you're going about getting to the truth.
	You're demanding... How else would I do it?
	First of all, this was just discovered today.
	Now I have an understanding that the rest of the photographs may not be correct either.
	I also have an understanding that the other data that the astronomer said he was collecting from other people may not be correct either.
	It may be that there's partially good data and partially incorrect data.
	But the whole thing is that that whole body of data that the astronomer has been talking about, in my mind now, is totally suspect.
	It may have been fed to him, or it may have been contrived by him.
	I don't know the difference, and I can't tell the difference.
	I am not going to go into a situation where I'm going to name him, and accuse him, and actually state what's going on.
	Don't accuse him.
	Well, the point is, just by naming him, by implication, it's going to be accusing, and he's going to get 10,000 phone calls tomorrow morning.
	And you folks... Well, maybe he ought to get 10,000 calls tomorrow morning.
	Well, that's my choice to decide whether I'm the one who's going to be doing this.
	Well, you're right about that.
	And I have chosen not to have that done to him, because I could be wrong.
	There could be something more complicated in this.
	I heard about this just this morning, Art.
	There could be something more involved in this.
	You want me to jump the gun, and I think that's an immature response.
	I think that's the response of a journalist who wants to get the story out.
	That's not the way science works.
	It does appear that there's a fraud here.
	As far as I'm concerned, this particular thing was not used to get a National Science Foundation grant.
	It was not used to get Uh, to claim the discovery of AIDS.
	There was no criminal activity.
	There was no criminal activity.
	As far as I'm concerned, it's a great embarrassment to me.
	Embarrassment to everything that I've been doing here.
	I accept that.
	I would like to know why that person actually, or whoever did it, why they wanted to get it to me.
	And especially with regard to the Hale-Bopp stuff.
	I don't know that.
	Alright, let's ask this then, Professor.
	Have you gone back?
	I mean, this is a very simple question.
	Have you personally gone back to the astronomer Since you found out about this and said, hey bud, we got to talk here.
	Where'd you get the picture?
	What's the deal?
	Have you done that?
	Draw your own conclusions for this.
	I don't know what the conclusion really should be.
	The answer is yes.
	I have personally made phone calls to his lab, to his office phone and emailed him.
	I've gotten no response.
	Moreover, We have gotten no response from him since about two weeks after this whole thing started.
	So for the last couple months, he's not been returning our phone calls.
	Now, draw your own response.
	It looks terrible, I admit.
	It looks terrible, but that's the honest truth.
	He's not returned our phone calls.
	He doesn't return our email.
	And we have assumed that he simply got frightened by all of this stuff and is actually trying to just, either he's running away from it, he doesn't want to do it, or He actually, uh, we thought that maybe he was actually trying to build the case stronger and waiting for Hale-Bopp to come out the other side or whatever.
	Build the case on us!
	Courtney, you've said yourself that you don't know whether the other evidence you possess is fraudulent or real.
	I feel it's incumbent upon you to let the astronomical community decide that for you because they do know and they will know.
	All you need to do is to release the rest of the photographs and let them decide and let them tell us.
	Sometimes there's so much problem with one photograph, you just don't want to do the rest.
	I give you Chuck Schrammach as an example.
	I don't, I just can't.
	No, no, no.
	You're asking me a question, let me answer it.
	I give you Chuck Schrammach as an example.
	He released one photograph, had to leave Houston.
	Has he released the other 60 photographs that he has of that anomalous object?
	No.
	He said one was enough.
	That was enough trouble for me to get into.
	So he stopped.
	I feel very similarly.
	I know you disagree.
	It's all right, Whitley, for you to disagree with me, but I don't want to take this thing any further.
	It's an embarrassment to me.
	It's an embarrassment to what I've been doing.
	It doesn't have anything to do with my remote viewing other than the fact that I got a source that I thought was corroborating the stuff that we were doing, and it turned out to be a fraudulent picture that was sent to us, and it has done the job it was supposed to do, which is to embarrass me.
	As far as I'm concerned, I'm closing the book on the situation and the astronomer, and if he ever comes out, he'll eventually, either now or in the next life, he'll eventually explain what happened.
	Either now or in the next life?
	Because I don't, I'm not going to go back to this guy.
	If this man embarrassed you, as you suggest, then it was an obvious disinformation attempt, something to either slam remote viewing, slam Courtney Brown, so why in the hell would you want to protect his name?
	Because I don't do what was done to me.
	Oh, my.
	I'm sorry, Art.
	You just disagree with me.
	And you're making it so cynical.
	But the point is, do that if you want.
	Let your listeners make their own judge.
	They can hear my voice.
	They can know my art.
	I am not that way.
	If I get slack or they don't slack back... Courtney, there is nothing cynical about what Art and I are doing at all.
	Nothing cynical.
	It's very far from cynical.
	And what you're not accepting is the fact that a disagreement is possible on this subject.
	It is possible on this subject.
	It's been done by many people.
	Look at the situation on your own website, Whitley.
	You have a picture of some being that looks like a gray, and it looks very close to what you've seen yourself.
	But rather than say it was authentic, as I recall what you said, and correct me now if I'm wrong, you said you believe it's a fraudulent picture, but it looks authentic.
	That's what I said.
	That's what he said, yeah.
	Now, in this particular case, because of the source, in that picture, you didn't know the source of this thing.
	No.
	But in this case, we did know the source.
	And so we said, we didn't say, we think it's a fraudulent picture, but it looks awfully good.
	We said, well, we think it's the real thing.
	Professor... And we made a mistake in believing the source.
	Professor, if some lab technician or some university computer technician did this and gave it to this professor, surely this professor is not going to want to protect this little Uh, a fraudulent person who is going to do more damage in the future, and by not giving the name or not releasing the rest of the photographs, you are protecting that person!
	Now listen, Gerard.
	What you've just said is true.
	Yes, it is.
	And that person, that lab technician that could have been his own graduate student or whatever, whoever, whatever, that slipped that photograph in, whatever happened, does deserve some punishment.
	But the point is, It's not me that's going to go chasing that person because I fundamentally can do nothing unless that person, the actual professor, enforces this himself.
	And he has to decide whether he is actually going to do this.
	He has to decide his moral imperative.
	He has to decide whether it's something that he is going to be courageous enough to face and talk about.
	And the only damage that's been done right now has been to me.
	And I'm willing to accept that.
	The damage is to me.
	And look, I know there are listeners out there that are going to be saying, Courtney Brown, you know, did this himself.
	There's some listeners that want to say the whole remote viewing thing is a fraud.
	They want to say that the whole thing I've ever done about the EPs is a fraud.
	Some people want to hear that.
	I am not going to say that.
	I'm not saying that either.
	The one thing is that this photograph has that impact, it has that impression on people, and people are going to have to sort it out for themselves.
	By not allowing us to follow the truth, you are going to make that true, Courtney.
	Yeah, you're hurting yourself by doing that, and I don't quite understand why.
	I am making that choice because I view the future of releasing the rest of those photographs is just a nightmare.
	I don't see it as anything productive other than a witch hunt and a thing that's going to be ultimately futile.
	Look, there is a witch!
	Somebody sat down at a computer and perpetrated an intentional fraud.
	And that person already knows who he or she is.
	And in addition, I must say, the professor now is almost certainly listening to this broadcast.
	Well, and he hasn't called you back, so... I hope he helps you.
	By coming forward, because Courtney is killing you now.
	I mean, this is not good.
	But Whitney, if he's done this on purpose, he's not going to help me by coming forward.
	And he may not come forward simply because he may be frightened.
	If he was duped, do you realize the problem that would be with his career?
	I think it's highly unlikely that he was duped.
	I mean, a professional astronomer, it didn't take the people at Hawaii too long to figure out what was going on.
	24 hours.
	Well, exactly.
	Of course, it was one of their own photographs.
	Well, yes, and by the same token, it wasn't one of his own photographs.
	So it's hard to see how a mistake like that could have been made.
	Plus, Courtney, the story changed.
	I mean, clearly, the impression from listening to Prudence was that the astronomer had taken this photograph and that a colleague... I talked to Prudence about that earlier today because I had talked to you, Art, earlier in the morning and I was trying to sort it through and then you were making that point that we had earlier stated that the astronomer actually seemed to say, you know, that he made the photograph and I was arguing with you earlier in the morning saying that we may have misspoke.
	It didn't seem to be that I remembered it that way.
	But after that, you know, he had a collection of information, and this was one of that collection, and it could have been given to him by my senior colleague.
	And then I went back and I talked to Prudence about it, and to the best of our recollection, it does appear that what you originally said is what we believe actually was originally told to us.
	Thank you.
	That it does appear, and I think that is literally how we were feeling, and that the sense was that he had ownership or control somehow.
	of these pictures.
	Now, nobody does things in an astronomical laboratory like that just by themselves.
	There's always assistants.
	It's always a group picture.
	There's not one person behind the lens snapping a shot.
	It's a group thing.
	But nonetheless, we had the sense that it was something different from some of the other information that was being sent in elsewhere.
	That it was somehow his ownership of it.
	That's clearly what we got.
	And clearly we were either grossly mistaken in getting that information or he lied to us.
	Either way, I cannot, I cannot understand why you want to now protect him.
	No, it doesn't make any sense, Courtney.
	Okay, I'm sorry you guys disagree.
	I think I've explained myself well and I don't know if it's good to repeat myself.
	The thing that's so distressing and upsetting to me is that What you have done is to create the impression that there isn't anything else.
	That this picture and you and Prudence are always there.
	Now, that may or may not be a true impression, but if it isn't a true impression, please, for your own sake, help us to believe you.
	You've got to release the other pictures.
	Let me think about that.
	of worms and so forth. It's just ridiculous. If you don't want to release them, then give
	them to the University of Hawaii astronomers confidentially and let them give the public
	a verbal report on it. Why not do that? You can't lose that way.
	Hello? Let me think about that. Let me think about that. There's no reason not to do it.
	None whatsoever.
	All of the reasons that you've given not to release the photographs... Well, what is all by doing it that way?
	Right.
	What is to think about?
	I mean, uh... It's a no-brainer, Courtney.
	It saves you.
	Look, first of all, nothing's gonna take away from the damage that is done with regard to this.
	Oh, yes, there is.
	If you were to give us the name of the professor.
	No, I disagree with you.
	Not accusing him.
	Not accusing him, Courtney.
	Not accusing him.
	Simply giving us his name so we can go to him and find out where he got the photograph so we can get to the little worm that perpetrated this hoax.
	Look, if he's not returning our phone calls or answering anything, he's not going to return your phone calls or answer anything.
	And if worse comes to worse, he'd simply deny the whole thing and that would throw the whole thing back on our court.
	Oh, you mean he would deny your FedEx receipts?
	The ones you claimed you have?
	The ones you claimed you have?
	I don't know what would happen.
	He could possibly deny the content of the FedEx package.
	He could say he was sending something else.
	Regardless, it's authentically a can of worms that has opened up that is very, very truly a heartbreak on my side because we did in fact trust this person.
	You know, there's so much evidence that, in fact, it was authentic.
	You know why?
	That, in fact, we were true to our word.
	That we were authentic.
	Because, if you remember the show that I was on with Whitney and Prudence... Listen, we're at the top of the hour.
	Do you feel you have more to say, Courtney?
	Just one more minute for it.
	Well, we don't have a minute.
	We're at the top of the hour, so... Alright.
	It'll have to be after the top of the hour, and then we'll finish up.
	Alright.
	Alright, both of you, stand by.
	Alright.
	We're going to begin to do a repeat, I think, at about 2 a.m.
	Pacific time of what we've already done, so those joining late can hear it.
	This is CBC.
	Tune in Tuesday night, Wednesday morning when Art Bell returns to the airwaves from his quickie Mexican vacation.
	Hear all about it tomorrow night on Coast to Coast AM with Arsene.
	Tonight, Chancellor Broadcasting Public.
	Tonight, Chancellor Broadcasting Company presents one more installment of the Best
	of Art Bell.
	We take you to that infamous night from January 16th, where the world of Professor Courtney Brown collides with that of Whitley Strieber.
	The debate?
	The Hale-Bopp companionship controversy.
	Look for a tanned, rested, and ready Art Bell tomorrow night, Tuesday night, Wednesday morning.
	And now, The Best of Art Bell.
	All right, this is simply typical of the... Well, let me hold that for just one more moment.
	Professor Brown, I want to have something very clear with the audience.
	At no time, at the beginning of all this, or up until this very moment, have you given the name of that professor to either myself or to Whitley.
	Is that correct?
	That's absolutely correct.
	And we have asked many times, haven't we?
	Many times we've asked.
	Alright, this is typical of the faxes coming in.
	Obviously, Cordy Brown, in not giving the name of this professor at this point, or giving up to at least somebody these photographs, many of them, has no awareness that he stands in the eyes of the public as contributing to the perpetration of a fraud.
	He doesn't seem to understand that his personal integrity And that of the work of the Farsight Institute is at stake.
	He could lose everything.
	His reputation by a misguided sense of loyalty.
	And to what?
	And I think that's the critical question.
	Your loyalty to what?
	Somebody who has handed you a photograph that has been proven to be a hoax.
	All right.
	We've talked about this, but you gave one of your faxes.
	Do you want to hear one of mine?
	Yes, sir.
	One that came over just now?
	Go ahead.
	Courtney, stick to your gun.
	There is no paper trail.
	A FedEx receipt is not a tie to a specific roll of film.
	That does not something.
	It could be any roll of film.
	Now, look.
	All right, let me just say one thing.
	You only gave me one minute.
	I'll give you what you need, Gordon.
	Let me just remind you of how sincere we were with regard to this from the beginning.
	When we went on your show, I made this stupid assumption.
	It was my fault to actually think that it was even remotely okay Yes, very well.
	somebody else on somebody's show and talk about somebody else's data. We
	should never have actually talked about the astronomers data because it wasn't
	our data. But when we did it, remember we said there would be that the astronomer
	had given us a very strong sense, I can't emphasize this enough, that he was
	going to try to put a press conference together within a week. Do you remember that?
	Yes, very well. Yes. If we were not sincere in that information that was given to us,
	put two and two together, we never would have said a week.
	It would have been seven days made us look like a fool.
	It was obvious that we got this information or we would have come up with some other type of story, such as, at some point in time in the future he's going to... We said a week.
	We were very, very much convinced that he was going to come through in a week.
	I accept that.
	Yes.
	We have mud on our face now, but you know what?
	And you haven't said this in the whole show, but please, you listeners, understand this.
	Whoever did this was going after our remote-viewing data on the Hale-Bopp, and there's a reason.
	I can't stand by this photograph.
	I don't know why someone did... I don't know why... Someone sent us some picture that the frauds... Someone tried to give us disinformation and associate us with it.
	But, the reason was, they tied it to the Hale-Bopp remote-viewing data.
	That data I will stand by.
	That's ours.
	That came out of our shop.
	That's good data.
	There was a ship out there, and that's the data.
	That has nothing to do with this, Courtney.
	It does!
	It's the motivation.
	It's the motive for why this is going on.
	Alright, fine.
	Then it ought to be the motive, Courtney, for you to straighten this out and let the public realize that it was not you Where it was not Prudence, or it was not somebody else that created this photograph.
	You say again and again and again, this was sent to you by the astronomer.
	The most evidence that I can give you right now is for you to judge our behavior.
	No, that's not right.
	That's not right.
	It's my opinion.
	Go to the University of Hawaii.
	There is no reason not to do it.
	I'm going to think about that, Whitley.
	I don't make any judgment snaps.
	I'm going to think about that.
	But the point that I want to make right now is, when we said that the astronomer had told us he was going to try to come out within a week, that should tell you right then and there how absolutely, thoroughly convinced we were that this was an authentic piece of information that was given to us.
	That's words.
	The fraudulent picture is real.
	What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
	We know that the picture is fraudulent.
	That is the price of tea in China.
	Yes.
	Look, someone slipped us some bad information, and we were stupid enough to go onto the Art Bell Show and talk about it.
	That's the bottom line.
	We made a mistake to do that.
	We won't do that again.
	But, Courtney, by doing... We will talk about remote viewing data, but not about somebody else's picture.
	All right, fine.
	But what you're doing, Courtney, by refusing to give any information, is you're leaving some little, um, fraudulent person Who will do it again and again, in place.
	No, no, no.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	The astronomer either is responsible for this himself, or he knows that he's been duped himself, and he's in an embarrassing situation, and it's his responsibility.
	So either you're leaving him, or... I'm not the only person.
	I was the one who was the target for this thing.
	But I'm not the only person in the chain of command here.
	Other people know that this thing happened.
	And as far as this is concerned, I am not the only person that's been given a fraudulent picture.
	You don't need to start a whole inquisition because a fraudulent picture was sent this way.
	This is not an inquisition.
	It's a simple attempt to try to get to the truth.
	And since you never gave us the name of this astronomer... For good reasons that you haven't accepted, but I think are very good reasons.
	Yeah, but Courtney, you're doing nothing to defend yourself and everything to defend somebody who defrauded you.
	It's not making sense.
	There is a chance.
	There is a chance.
	He may have simply made a mistake in the early on, and it has happened to the best of minds.
	And besides that, even if he didn't make a mistake, and if he purposely tried to do this, I still have to consider the legal ramifications to the idea.
	There aren't any, because of the fact that the fraud is real.
	You know, quickly, I'm sorry, but the advice, the legal advice of you and Art Bell is not really something I'm taking too seriously right now.
	We're not necessarily talking about the release of the man's name at this point.
	If you're concerned about that, that's your privilege.
	Although from a personal standpoint I can't see what there is to conceal.
	The only thing that you need to consider is giving the negatives, in other words the roles
	of film and the prints to the University of Hawaii for evaluation.
	That seems to me like the minimum you must do to defend yourself and your reputation.
	A reputation which I value at least as much as you do, believe me.
	I understand that.
	Because I know the value and the truth of remote viewing and I don't want to see that harmed.
	I have to make some decisions myself, Whitley.
	I agree, but I think that you should think about doing this and doing this quite soon.
	Listen to the facts, and listen to the facts I just got in.
	I am listening real-time to the Art Bell Show.
	Call me immediately, he says.
	I am an attorney specializing in liability law.
	He is correct.
	Litigation would be inevitable.
	I'm sorry, folks.
	I'm not going to get into this can of worms.
	I was duped.
	Let everyone know I was duped.
	It had nothing to do with the remote viewing data.
	That's what I do well.
	As far as I'm concerned, Let everyone know.
	Someone passed the Nikki to me, and I swallowed it.
	You are not in legal jeopardy by naming the professor, unless you say, this professor perpetrated the hoax.
	Unless you say he did it, you're not in any legal jeopardy by simply saying, he's the one who gave it to me, and allowing the press to go to the professor and say, yo, professor, where did you get this photograph?
	And getting to the person who did perpetrate the hoax, you're not putting yourself in any legal jeopardy.
	Art, if I ever hire you as my lawyer, I'll let you know first.
	But you're not my lawyer, and I take legal counsel from someone else, and as far as I'm concerned, I don't want to get into this.
	Well, there is a legal problem.
	Alright, um, what is it?
	I told you, what do you want me to do, repeat it for the fifth time?
	No, and if you feel that we've covered as much as we can cover, I... I really think we have, it's time to replay the show.
	Alright.
	And let all the audience know.
	I take responsibility for being stupid enough to come on the show and talk about somebody else's data.
	I was duped.
	I shouldn't have done that.
	But let everyone know, I am not backing away from the remote-viewing data.
	The remote-viewing data is a separate issue.
	And whoever wanted to get me tried to get me because of that remote-viewing data.
	Your listeners should put two and two together and look at those sessions again.
	Art, by the way, I want you to know that I respect you dearly.
	And Whitley, I know we disagree.
	But my love for both of you is constant.
	Well, I'm glad to hear that, Courtney.
	It's very mutual.
	I know we disagree, but believe me, my respect for both of you is absolutely up to the stars.
	I hope that this comes out in your guys' favor.
	I really very much do.
	I think it's deadly.
	Something that's sort of getting lost in the... Alright, well, I know you're headed down a different trail.
	Thank you for coming on tonight.
	God bless both of you, Art, Whitley, and thank you for giving me a chance to speak my piece.
	Take care, and we'll be back in a moment with Whitley Strieber.
	All right, back now to Whitley Strieber, and we're going to begin taking your calls for the balance of the hour.
	Then we are going to go into a repeat of the first two hours, the first two critical hours for those that have joined late, so that you get the whole Story.
	Now, to Whitley Strieber.
	Whitley, are you there?
	Yes, I am.
	Good, good.
	Do you have any comments you want to make, Whitley, before we proceed and begin to take some calls?
	Well, yeah, I would like to be sure that we don't get lost in the... Something that shouldn't get lost in the shuffle is that there remains interesting evidence that the Hale-Bopp object is or was there.
	Indeed.
	Indeed.
	The one piece of evidence that I think we can safely remove is the claim that there may have been, that there were radio signals coming from it.
	Because that claim, I don't think, has been supported anywhere.
	Well, it's associated with the same information path that produced the fraudulent photographs.
	Yeah, that Brown and Prudence were victims of.
	It would be great if there were more pictures forthcoming from the amateur community.
	Well, I want to say something, too.
	from church ramachan particular hopefully that will happen in any case
	uh... over the course of the spring the prop college is going to become more and more visible
	and if there's still anything unusual about it i think everyone will be able
	to see for themselves uh... which is going to be very exciting
	well i want to say something to uh... whatever else we've talked about tonight
	whatever judgments the public will make a naval you know make their own
	based on what they've heard or will hear.
	I am still as angry as I was at the beginning at the response to Chuck Schrammich's photograph.
	Poor Chuck, who simply rendered up a photograph and said, hey, what's this?
	And we put it up on the web page.
	And the rest of the amateur community, including Mr. Hale of Hale-Bopp and Mr. Sipes, And others just came down on him like a ton of bricks.
	Like a ton of bricks, yeah.
	I don't change my feelings about that reaction one bit.
	Well, there's a wonderful webpage, the Defense of Chuck Schrammich webpage, which can be linked to through my webpage, through the Hale-Bopp article on my webpage.
	It makes a fascinating case for the object.
	I must say that the University of Hawaii, to its credit, makes a very good case for the debunking of the object.
	But nevertheless, It's still a very live and very valid issue.
	This particular photograph was never part of the controversy.
	It simply came, became identified as a fraud, and went.
	At no time did any of the astronomers involved claim this photograph as evidence of anything, and I think that should be made very clear.
	Any of the named astronomers involved.
	Let me put it that way.
	I refer to Chuck Schreck.
	I absolutely agree.
	All right, let us take a few phone calls here.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Art Bell and Whitley Strieber.
	Hey, Art.
	Hey, Whitley.
	How's it going?
	Yeah, about Professor Brown here.
	I knew it.
	I said on your Malachi Martin show, I said he's got his neck out so far he's done had it snipped off and handed over.
	But I knew it.
	I knew it, too.
	But see, now I knew he wasn't going to commit to anything either.
	as far as the pictures go, who says even that?
	He's lost, to me, he's lost all his credibility.
	And I'm a remote censor in a way, but I wouldn't stick my neck out as far as he did.
	I'd go as far as saying the Trojan swarm will hit us sometime this year.
	We will have one heck of a big meteor storm.
	But nothing as outlandish as what he said about the object behind Hale-Bopp.
	Well, I was treated.
	to a lot of private conversation from Courtney and Prudence.
	And I have to say that it sounded extremely sincere to me, and I've been in this for so long,
	and seeing the way that the bunking and the disinformation work,
	it's always possible that they are victims of this thing.
	Of course it is.
	And that must not be forgotten.
	Of course it is, but it is for me impossible to understand.
	Yeah.
	Why, at this point, he will not release these rolls of film, or seems hesitant to, and I don't... They should go to the University of Hawaii.
	If the rolls of film and the photo prints don't go to the University of Hawaii for further evaluation, I think there's a, well, there's a problem.
	Or why you would protect, ultimately, and I'm not accusing this unnamed professor perpetrating a hoax or anybody else for that matter, all I want to do, and I'm sure all you want to do, is follow the trail to who did this.
	And then when we do, we can probably find out why they did it.
	Well, it's an enormous struggle to get to the truth with things like this, always.
	And it seems to be made much harder in this case.
	And it's sad that that's the case, that that's true.
	But I want to just to remind this particular listener that Remote viewing, as I said earlier, is absolutely real, and we do not want the remote viewing process to be given a bad name because these other questions have arisen, any more than we want to toss out the baby with the bathwater.
	That's absolutely correct, but that's liable to be the net effect of this.
	That's what's worrying me, that it will, and after all, the Farsight Institute, as far as I know, is the only I think it is unfortunate.
	Yes, it is unfortunate.
	It really is.
	It does seem...
	Hold on.
	We are at the bottom of the hour.
	Hold on a moment.
	Stay tuned for more of the absolute best of R. Kell right after a word from your local
	We are at the bottom of the hour.
	sponsors.
	Hold on a moment.
	Stay tuned for more of the absolute best of R. Kell right after a word from your local
	sponsors.
	We are at the bottom of the hour.
	Hold on a moment.
	Stay tuned for more of the absolute best of R. Kell right after a word from your local
	We are at the bottom of the hour.
	sponsors.
	Hold on a moment.
	Stay tuned for more of the absolute best of R. Kell right after a word from your local
	sponsors.
	We are at the bottom of the hour.
	Hold on a moment.
	Stay tuned for more of the absolute best of R. Kell right after a word from your local
	sponsors.
	you you
	This is Art Bell for Dreamland.
	Coming up this week, Robert G. Teats, author of West Virginia UFOs.
	You ever wonder what's going on in the Mountain States East?
	We'll find out.
	Close encounters in the Mountain States.
	Coming up this week, right here on Dreamland.
	You are listening to the best of Art Bell.
	You are listening to the best of Art Bell.
	From the Kingdom of Nine, Coast to Coast AM continues with Art Bell.
	Back now to Whitley Streber.
	Whitley, are you there?
	Yes, I am.
	Okay, good.
	We've got a good half hour to finish up here and a lot of people who would like to speak to you.
	Great.
	Well, let's go to the phone.
	All right.
	First time caller line, you're on the air with Art Bell and Whitley Streber.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	My name is Brad.
	Yes, Brad.
	And I'm an amateur astronomer and I've worked with scopes and I have A 10-inch Newtonian reflector of my own.
	I've also used the scope at the University of Washington here in Washington State.
	And I happen to know that in order to use the scope, you have to log time.
	And it's no big deal, but there is quite a waiting list.
	As I am sure there is at the University of Hawaii.
	Yes.
	All this log time is Well, we know that.
	We know that, sir.
	Go ahead, Whitley.
	they are a student or a professor.
	Yes.
	And if you guys are serious, you'd like to determine who it was that was using the
	equipment.
	Well, we know that.
	We know that.
	Yeah.
	We know that, sir.
	Go ahead, Whitley.
	Yeah, the man who made, the astronomer who made the legitimate photograph,
	which is the one without the apparent object near the Hale-Bopp comet,
	has freely stated the fact that he made this completely legitimate photograph.
	What we don't know is who added the false object to that picture and unfortunately there's nobody to log that.
	That's right.
	And the only path we have to follow the truth, if the truth even matters, and I think it does, to me it does, is to either get the name of the astronomer or to get the roles of film, the alleged roles of film, and take a look at those.
	Even on a more private basis.
	And I talked to Courtney earlier in the day about that, about doing all of this investigation even more privately, and he's not willing to do that.
	And I just... I'm lost at that point.
	I can't imagine that Courtney is going to allow this person who handed him a fraudulent photograph, whoever did the fraud, for it to stop there and hurt him and not get to the truth.
	It hurts everybody.
	I just, it makes no sense.
	I've thought it over a million ways, Whitley, and it makes no sense.
	Well, let's hope that he delivers those roles of film and prints to the University of Hawaii as soon as he decides that it's clearly the course of action he should take.
	Right.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Whitley Strieber and Art Bell.
	Hi.
	Hi, this is Vicki in Honolulu.
	Hi, Vicki.
	My question went back to what the last caller just said.
	But I wonder, in order to make the fraud, in order to add that article to that print, wouldn't he have to have some kind of an original print?
	And how would he have accessed that?
	The answer is easy, Vicki.
	The photograph in question, the only photograph, has been on the Hawaii University's webpage since September 1st.
	So all they had to do was take that photograph and modify that photograph.
	And if you look on my webpage, you will see an example of the photograph given to us by Prudence and Professor Brown.
	And right next to it, you will see the original photograph on the Hawaiian website since September 1.
	Okay, and I have one other comment.
	Yes.
	It might help us understand Courtney Brown's position.
	Yes.
	You know, he sounds like he's coming from a moral point of view because he said, you know, if he's slapped, he doesn't slap back.
	And if he is a Christian and he is a remote viewer, he may have some thoughts going around in his head that we aren't aware of, you know, about the future coming.
	And he may be trying to behave in a Christ-like manner by turning the cheek.
	Well, perhaps that's true, but at the same time, the perpetration of fraud is, in that sense, also a sin.
	And I think it's very important that all of the principles and who did what is made clear in this situation, because it places the rest of us in such a helpless position.
	We can't know, if we don't know where that picture came from, or If the additional evidence isn't given to someone who can evaluate it for us, then we're left blind.
	And this is not a situation in which we need to be left blind.
	And worse yet, Whitley, it leaves somebody who perpetrated an intentional fraud out there to do it again.
	To do it again to some other victim.
	And, you know, I'm well aware of the fact that other remote viewing groups have been victims of complicated and devastating
	debunking efforts and in one case some amazingly destructive website hacking
	and uh... so he needs
	he really needs to to come to his own defense in this case
	I think very, very much that he does.
	By the way, Woodley, I know you're really dragon-tired.
	You're in the middle of a gigantic book tour.
	Yes, I am.
	You're right now in California.
	Where are you going to be on your book tour?
	Well, tomorrow I'm going to be in Los Angeles and then I believe I go from there to Las Vegas.
	Okay, but where are you going to be in L.A.? ?
	I must tell you that I'm not sure exactly which one it is.
	People can find out by going to my website, www.striever.com, and go to Whitley's Corner
	and to my schedule and you can find out everywhere that I'm going to be.
	All right, then the following day, Las Vegas.
	Yes, and from there to New York.
	I must incidentally thank everybody who has come pouring out to see me at the bookstores.
	It's been awesome and I really am so glad that they're receiving my book the way they
	are.
	I'm very grateful.
	All right, onward we go.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Whitley Strieber and Art Belheim.
	Good morning, Art and Whitley.
	This is Gary calling from Alma, Arkansas, KWHN Country.
	Yes, sir.
	The two of you have very succinctly put your arguments to Professor Brown, and I tend to agree with the two of you.
	However, there's something else that's been troubling me with this regarding some other guests that you've had both on this show and on Dreamland also.
	I recall a statement made by Father Malachi Martin that remote viewing was nitroglycerin for the soul, and evidently, perhaps this time, it may also be nitroglycerin to the reputation.
	Well, it may be, and it may be that being a good Christian and remote viewing are mutually exclusive.
	I really don't know.
	I do know Ed Dames came on the air with Malachi, as you may recall.
	Yes, I did.
	And they did seem to come to a meeting of the minds.
	Yes, they did.
	I have very little doubt that the fact that remote viewing does, in fact, happen.
	After listening to Father Martin, Now I have questions as to the function of it and how it actually does in fact work.
	We're hearing Father Martin's story and then we're hearing the reality of scientific remote viewing and I'm not really certain as to which is which.
	Well I want to say, I want to say, I too believe that remote viewing is a valid, real discipline and I'm scared to death that what you heard discussed tonight If it doesn't move, it's going to result in damage.
	There's no question about it.
	And that damage could be stopped right now if Professor Brown decided to do that.
	Well, absolutely.
	I feel like that you and Mr. Streber have put your point very, very plainly, you know, that it would be so simple to stop this.
	I'm not going to make a judgment.
	I'm really not qualified to make a judgment.
	However, you know, I can't myself see any reason why he couldn't at least submit the rolls of photographs to someone that's expert at examining them and perhaps getting a judgment from them on the authenticity or where they are at all.
	You agree with me?
	I agree completely.
	Incidentally Art, I have now gotten into my notes and I'm going to be at Borders, 3700 Torrance Blvd from 4 to 6.
	4-6 in the afternoon.
	On Saturday, the 18th in Los Angeles.
	That's going to be my appearance there.
	Borders is, I'm sorry, where?
	Borders Bookstore, 3700 Torrance Boulevard in Torrance, California.
	Saturday, January the 18th at 4 p.m.
	Alright.
	You don't know about Las Vegas, do you?
	Yes, I do.
	My Las Vegas will be also at Borders, 1445 West Sunset Road in Henderson, Nevada.
	That is 7 p.m. on Monday, January 20th.
	I'd just like to say that I've been waiting with great anticipation following this story.
	I'm really kind of let down and I could hear in your voices when you were talking to Professor
	Brown that you were too.
	I'm afraid that listening to him and the account, it kind of sounded to me like he was tap dancing
	around a lot actually around the issue and different things.
	And I'm just wondering, really to me it almost sounds like it could have came from him in order to boost his work he had already done on the subject.
	I don't know the person personally, as you do, but I just had a real hard time with his reasoning and not bringing forth any more information.
	Okay, I would like to tell you I've never met Professor Brown in person.
	I have talked to him privately on the telephone, aside from doing the public shows.
	Most of my communication with Professor Brown, 90% of it, has been here on the air.
	So, on a true personal basis, I can't say that I know Professor Brown.
	Only my dealings with him here on the air, and again, the public will make its own mind up based on what was said.
	Well, I do know both Courtney Brown and Prudence Calabrese, and have met them personally.
	And it's terribly difficult for me to believe that they are anything except themselves in some way the victims of a hoax, and I certainly hope that that's true.
	They are, to all accounts, lovely and very competent people.
	And if they were somehow involved in this, it's unfortunate, because it's such a waste.
	I really can't believe that that's true.
	I think that they probably have been somehow, in some unlikely way, duped, and I hope that they find their way out of it in such a manner that they can Let the rest of us know, convincingly, what happened.
	Well, a lot of the audience, Whitley, thinks, or thought, I guess I should say, that you and I were privy to all the information.
	The name of the professor, the university, all the rest of it.
	And, in fact, for the both of us, not only were we not told, but we had something, nothing more than the rumor stage, And I don't think, I'm certainly not clear, I don't know the guy's name, and I don't even know the university.
	Well... I mean, I've heard a rumor of what university it might be, but I don't know that's true.
	It came here, and I followed that rumor up, and I actually did narrow it down to a single individual.
	But given what has happened here, I am truly in no position to mention his name, because my guess is that this is not the right person.
	I mean I would be surprised if it was at this point.
	There's nothing I can do about it.
	I mean I don't know what if the university's name that was said is not the real one and so on and so forth.
	There's just too many questions for me because I'm different from Prudence and Courtney.
	I've never had any direct contact with this individual and my identification is essentially guesswork.
	All right.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Woodley Screamer and Art Bell.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Hello there.
	Yeah.
	Turn your radio off, please.
	It's off.
	Okay.
	Where are you calling from, sir?
	I'm calling from Jamesville, Wisconsin.
	All right.
	I've been listening to about an hour and a half to your show, and kind of got the impression that the guys of Professor Brown felt that the remaining roles of film were probably junk and weren't worth wasting his time on.
	And then the other thing is, If they find this astronomer with his ass kicked, they won't know that he's done it because he hasn't given up his name publicly.
	Well, yeah, but he has said that he had six good prints off of that roll of film.
	And that means there are at least six negatives and six prints that could go to Hawaii.
	And be examined.
	And be examined.
	And that's certainly enough.
	It's a start.
	Right.
	That's right.
	Because to all appearances, and you're welcome to look at my website, and I believe it may be on yours as well.
	It's online too, I believe now, yes.
	We have... As a matter of fact, I did it.
	I took the Hawaiian photo.
	All I did was crop it to the same size as the one that Prudence and the professor sent, turned it to the right 90 degrees, and that's it.
	And we put them side by side.
	They're obviously the exact same photograph.
	That means the photograph came from the website.
	That's where it came from.
	Or had to have come from.
	And the photographs are a way of saying, oh no, it didn't come from the website.
	It came from inside, for example, an observatory.
	Yes, exactly.
	And so those photographs are indeed very important in terms of trying to follow the path.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Whitley Strieber and Art Bell.
	Hello, gentlemen, this is Ken in San Diego.
	Yes, hi.
	I've listened to the show since midnight Pacific time, and there's a possibility you guys really haven't talked about, and it sounded like when Professor Brown was talking, he almost sounds like he was set up on purpose, and not just as a prank, but Oh, it's entirely possible.
	No, I agree.
	Yeah, we've tried to talk about that because it certainly is possible.
	But if he was set up, then he should have every interest in getting to the people that set him up, and even more importantly, stopping somebody who's out there perpetrating hoaxes.
	Well, the thing is, if he was set up, you know, with serious malice, and it sounded like he had more information than he was letting out, and he might believe that that's exactly part of the setup of the people forward with trying to put
	it it's not like he was afraid that it would get even worse
	for him and and that's exactly what the person who set him up want
	them to do it pursuit so he can be damaged
	but he indicated he had a record of who sent those photographs it surely uh...
	are you cannot get in legal trouble for pursuing the truth uh...
	The truth is a legal defense.
	Well, yeah, I know.
	I was a student of journalism, so you're correct in that.
	And what happens if you were a student of journalism?
	You tell me.
	If a reporter writes a fabricated story, what happens to that reporter usually?
	Well, we saw what happened when, I forget her name, but the reporter that wrote the story about the supposed street person and got up to a surprise and then it turned out to be a hoax later, I think her career was pretty much in the toilet after that.
	I rest my case.
	Well, Whitley, we're just about out of time.
	It has not been an easy night.
	No, it's been a tough night.
	Yeah.
	Well, all I can say in conclusion is that I surely hope that Well, I hope that happens as well.
	they can see their way to making it very clear
	that this other evidence photographs of the
	and uh... role of film entirely real by sending it to a neutral party
	further examination i think the next step
	uh... i hope that happens as well i i must say that uh...
	my feeling is that it's not going to
	uh... but you know that's that's conjecture We'll have to wait and see.
	He said he would think about that.
	Well, hopefully he'll think about it and do it, because it's got to be done.
	Uh-huh.
	I quite agree with you.
	This has been a long and very difficult odyssey.
	Yes.
	And again, it's worth saying to the people that although this photograph is obviously a hoax, that does not necessarily end the controversy.
	uh... with regard to uh... ceramic and other ceramics and other photographs.
	That's very true.
	I'm going to pray, Whitley, as I'm sure you are, that we're going to get some clarity on this and that as a result of this, remote viewing is not going to be severely damaged.
	No, absolutely not.
	I'm going to pray for them on behalf of the right of the public to know the truth.
	In the meantime, Whitley, get some sleep.
	You've got books to sign and places to go.
	Places to go.
	Thanks a lot, Art.
	Thank you, Whitley, and good night.
	All right, coming up next, if you missed it, the first two absolutely critical hours.
	And I mean absolutely critical hours.
	So listen to what's coming next.
	I'm Art Bell, and this is the American CBC Radio Network.

▲