Courtney Brown’s Hale-Bopp comet photo—allegedly from a top university astronomer—was exposed as fraud on January 15th, matching Dr. David Tolan’s 1995 University of Hawaii image with identical star positioning and exposure details. Brown, who received the photo via FedEx, insists he acted in good faith but refuses to name the source due to legal threats, leaving Bell and Strieber skeptical about his remote viewing claims’ credibility. The unresolved controversy risks undermining both the astronomer’s reputation and remote viewing’s legitimacy, despite Brown’s insistence that other evidence remains valid. [Automatically generated summary]
From the high-deck in 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 wide over 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, A.M., 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 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 Streeber and Professor Courtney Brown from Emory University.
Whitley Streeber, 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 Forsyth 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 Schramack in Houston, Texas took a photograph of an anomaly that appeared to be adjacent to Halebach.
On that very same evening, we had Professor Courtney Brown and Prudence Calabreisi, a graduate student in physics.
Now, Professor Brown, with only that information and some in the background, the Chuck Sharamic photograph, produced three, I think it was three or four, he 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 Hailbob.
He did the remote viewing sessions based on the photograph from Chuck Schramck.
However, he told us in the background he had a major top 10 university astronomer who had given him several roles 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 Calabri 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 Calabri, 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 Streeber, 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 Calabre 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 in Prudence to go by, which was quite considerable when you consider Professor Brown as a tenured professor at Emory University and heads the Foresight Institute.
That was quite considerable along with the credentials of Prudence Calabre.
So here is a little reminder of what occurred on November 14th when everybody was together.
You're going to be hearing of Prudence Calabresi.
You have had many hours of discussion with this professor, haven't you?
When we first started talking with him, he thought that there was the 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 have seen the same thing, and one particular colleague of his who has detected radio signals from this object.
Prudence Calabresi 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 corroborating 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 Hail Bopp.
Prudence Calabreski is as well a remote viewer trained by the Farsight Institute.
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 10 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?
unidentified
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
What we did when we first heard about a possible anomaly with the Hailbop Comet because of Chuck Scheramick and his photograph, we targeted Hailbop and found out through the remote viewing sessions that there apparently was some large object as a companion to Hailbot.
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 Hailbot, 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 research.
Now, when you begin to talk about corroborating evidence, then you're talking about a very, very serious revelation.
unidentified
Tell us, please, what you can about this professor.
Okay.
This astronomer, he's an astrophysicist, actually, and he is one of this 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.
What we did, after we did the Hailbot remote viewing sessions, we started calling around all the astrophysicists and astronomers that we had some personal contact with.
And we happened to run across this particular person.
And he said, well, yes, there are some observed anomalies with Hailbop, although I'm not exactly sure what these anomalies mean.
He said that, yes, there were some anomalies.
And then later, that same week, he called us back and said, I have some photographs that show another object traveling with this comet.
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.
unidentified
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.
Well, he, 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.
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.
unidentified
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.
Would you like to lose eight to ten 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 can store as excess weight.
Well, there is now a revolutionary fiber called chytosan.
Chytosan, actually.
It comes from shellfish.
Not only does it sweep fat, but absorbs 10 times more fat than any other fiber.
You get this fiber in a new formula called chytoslim.
And with chytoslim, you can lose weight without changing what you eat.
No stimulants, general 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.
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 K-R-C.
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 K-R-C.
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 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 CDC Radio Network.
unidentified
Music 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.
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
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 Streeber.
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 Calabri.
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 Streeber 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 Calabre 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 wanted 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.
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, there'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 smiling as nice as you should.
And I just think that the picture, the picture, it's 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, 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.
It is 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, you know, will, you know, keep some things confidential that have to be kept confidential, i.e.
deep throat during the Watergate affair.
No one 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.
To know that, you know, for you to have that persona out there of someone who's stuck to an original, stuck to your word, to your original thoughts.
Anyway, so Art, I know you may differ from me on this, and it's okay.
We can agree to disagree.
unidentified
But I just would like you to think about what I just said.
All right, 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 Streeber 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 Hynot, 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.
Myself and Whitley Streeber released a photograph given to us by Prudence Calabre and Professor Brown from Emory University on the 15th of this month.
I presume that you saw that photograph and recognized that photograph?
unidentified
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.
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.
Is there any way that you can know for sure that this photograph, the photograph given to us by Professor Brown and Prudence Calabri, was exactly the same photograph?
What other ways do you have of knowing that?
For example, the telescope used.
unidentified
Okay, as you see on that star, on that image, the stars are not trailed.
The stars appear round.
That means that the exposure must have been kept, the exposure time must have been kept quite short.
Otherwise, the telescope would have followed the comet and the stars would have appeared as trails as on many pictures that have been released.
So that means a 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.
So 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.
So 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 Tolen is 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.
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?
unidentified
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.
And that's really something that shows that it was the same picture.
Another point is that the pixel size is the same, and the pixel size is kind of a fingerprint of the instruments.
So in our mind, there is absolutely no doubt that the image that you showed is based on Dave Torrent's image.
Doctor, I can't tell you how much I appreciate your work in doing this, and we have, I have, no interest other than to getting to the absolute truth, and that is what we are going to pursue, is the absolute truth.
unidentified
Well, I think at this point it's the only thing that has to be done in the sense that that whole hail bought story.
I think now we have evidence is that at the beginning it it was just a mistake and then more and more there were some people trying to to give false information.
So what we are trying here in Hawaii to do is to every time we have something that appears is to try to find what it is.
Dr. Oliver Hinaut, an astronomer at the Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, the photograph, 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, Widley Striber and Professor Courtney Brown and myself will discuss all of this.
Microtech, they are developing SMR, specialized mobile radio, and 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 will 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.
The phone call he made 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.
That's 1-800-522-8863, the C-Crane Company.
This is the American CBC Radio Network.
unidentified
The American CBC Radio Network.
This is the CDC Radio Network.
This is an encore presentation of Coast to Coast A.M. with Art Bell.
You're listening to Art's January 16th debate between Professor Courtney Brown and Whitley Streeber.
My guest's coming up, Professor Courtney Brown from Emory University.
And, of course, America's premier writer, investigator, I guess, of ETs, UFOs, things unusual, Whitley Streeper.
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.
Original statements made by Prudence Calabresi, a phone call made by Professor Brown to me but one day prior to the release, finally, of this photograph that now, according to Oliver J. Hinatt 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 Streeber.
Well, Art, based on the information that you sent to me by FACS this morning, which is the email that you were sent, apparently from Dr. David Stolen, 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. Himat basically say the same thing.
It does appear that the picture is fraudulent.
It does appear that the picture 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?
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 Schramck photograph, after everything was done, later on, the astronomer got back to us within about a week, it seems to me, if I'm memory recalled, and said, and offered us these pictures.
In fact, the only thing we had had at that time during that first show, remember, the Schrammex 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 Helbop.
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're talking about.
But later, right after the show, we did what we always try to do.
We tried to find out if we were right.
We tried 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.
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 about it.
We even asked whether the guy is a member of PSICOP, 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 ties us to that photograph.
Whitley, that's the bottom line as far as you're concerned as well.
unidentified
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.
Well, if we put his name out there, then the very, if he's actually done it with an evil intent, then the very first thing he would do is simply deny it, and we'd be slapped with a libel suit.
unidentified
You said you had a paper trail, including FedEx receipts.
Look, libel, Courtney, is only when you have told a lie, a libelous lie about somebody, and you've just told us that you've got an absolute trail to this person.
Now, by naming him...
No, Courtney, you are not by naming this person saying that he perpetrated the fraud.
You're simply saying, I received the material from the following person.
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 and sending it to us or whatever.
unidentified
Courtney, then there will be real photographs, and they should be released.
I did let you finish the sentence, Mr. No, I didn't, because the point is that would ruin his career if, in fact, it was sent innocently and he was been caught with this.
It's bad enough that I actually had the photograph.
It was slipped 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.
unidentified
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.
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.
And that's what I'm really troubled with, that the astronomer should have known just by looking at it that this photograph, something was wrong with it.
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, excuse me, professor, where'd you get that?
As soon as I mention that person's name, and I'm still having difficulty accepting the idea that someone with that type of a reputation would actually do this purposefully.
I just still having trouble with that.
And so because I know that as soon as I mention his name, for whatever reason, his career is seriously damaged, I am not willing to do that, especially at this time.
It's 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 flipped 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 should never, I made the mistake of pressuring prudence to go on the show and actually talk about it.
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.
I would think that you would have great interest in seeing to it that the buck doesn't stop with you.
And I 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, look, first of all, you guys are not...
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, I don't know.
And we are assuming that the rest, at least myself, I am assuming that that makes the other photographs 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, just assume that it was done innocently in the beginning and the astronomer found it.
It's very difficult to assume.
You can criticize me afterwards, but let's say you can see it.
unidentified
Well, yeah, but how can you wait for it?
It's just that the assumption that it was done innocently is talking about a ball-faced fraud.
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.
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 over these 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, but doesn't want to do it, or he actually, we thought that maybe he was actually trying to build the case stronger and waiting for Hailbob to come out the other side or whatever.
unidentified
In which case, it wasn't careful.
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.
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.
unidentified
Either now or in the next life, because I'm not going to go back to this guy.
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 grave, 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.
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 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.
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 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 ETs is a fraud.
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, he had a collection of information, and this was one of that collection, and it could have been given to him from a senior colleague.
And then I went back and I talked to Krudence about it.
And to the best of our recollection, it does appear that what you originally said is what we really, is what we believe actually was originally told to us.
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, so it's always a group picture because there's a lot of, you know, 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 to him 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.
I think I've explained myself well, and I don't know if it's good to explain myself, but I'm not.
unidentified
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 all that's there.
Now, that may or may not be a true impression, but if it isn't a true impression, please, for the sake, for your own sake, help us to believe you've got to release the other pictures.
And to go on and say, oh, it's a big can of worms and so forth is just ridiculous.
It's not.
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.
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.
And, 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 Whitley and Prudence.
All right, this is typical of the faxes coming in.
Art, obviously, Courtney 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.
A FedEx receipt is not a tie to a specific role of film.
That does not something.
It could be any role of film.
Now look, Art, let me just say one thing.
You only gave me one minute, so let me just Go ahead right here.
Let me just remind you of how sincere we were, evidence of how sincere we were with regard to this from the beginning.
When we went on your show, I made this stupid assumption that it was my fault to actually think that it was even remotely okay to go on somebody's show and talk about somebody else's data.
We should never have actually talked about the astronomer's 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.
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.
unidentified
We were very, very much convinced that he was going to come through in a week.
Then it ought to be the motive, Courtney, for you to straighten this out and let the public realize that it was not you or it was not prudence or it was not somebody else that created this photograph.
But the point that I want to make right now is when we said that the astronomer had told us he's going to try to come out within a week, did I just tell you right then and there how absolutely thoroughly convinced we were that this was an authentic piece of information that was going to be.
What you're doing, Courtney, by refusing to give any information is you're leaving some little fraudulent person who will do it again and again in place.
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.
And since you never gave us the name of this astronomer, Yeah, but Courtney, you're doing nothing to defend yourself and everything, to defend somebody who defrauded you.
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.
unidentified
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 does not really something I'm taking too seriously now.
unidentified
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 in conference.
I mean, I know I don't make that judgment.
You've already said that, but 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.
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.
Take care, and we'll be back in a moment with Whitley Streeber.
All right, back now to Whitley Streeber, 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.
Do you have any comments you want to make, Whitley, before we proceed and begin to take some calls?
unidentified
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 hail 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.
Whatever else we've talked about tonight, whatever judgments the public will make, and they will, 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 Scheramek's photograph, poor Chuck, who simply rendered up a photograph and said, hey, what's this?
And we put it up on the webpage.
And the rest of the amateur community, including Mr. Hale of Hale Bop and Mr. Sypes and others, just came down on him like a ton of bricks.
Well, there's a wonderful webpage, the Defense of Chuck Shrannock webpage, which can be linked to through my webpage, through the Hale Bop article on my webpage, that 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 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.
Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Art Bell and Whitley Streeber.
unidentified
Hey, Whitley, how's it going?
Okay.
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 it even there?
He's lost, to me, he's lost all his credibility.
And I'm a remote sensor 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, and we will have one heck of a big meteor storm.
But nothing as outlandish as what he said about the object behind hailbombs.
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, but it is for me impossible to understand why at this point he will not release these roles of film or seems hesitant to, and I don't know.
unidentified
They should go to the University of Hawaii.
If the roles 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.
Yeah, the man who made the astronomer who made the legitimate photograph, which is the one without the apparent object near the Hale-Baugh 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.
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.
It makes no sense.
I've thought it over a million ways, Whitley, and it makes no sense.
unidentified
Well, let's hope that he delivers those roles of film and the prints to the University of Hawaii as soon as he decides that it's clearly the course of action he should take.
Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Whitley Striber and Art Bell.
unidentified
Hi.
Hi, this is Vicki in Honolulu.
Hi.
Hi.
Hi, Vicki.
My question went back to what the lost collar 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?
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.
unidentified
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 flaps, 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 crisis-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 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.
unidentified
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 the way people can, I must tell you that I'm not sure exactly which one it is, people can find out by going to my website, www.streever.com, and go to Whitley's Corner and to my schedule, and you can find out everywhere that I'm going to be.
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, 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, is 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.
unidentified
Well, absolutely.
I feel like that you and Mr. Streeber 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 aren't authentic.
And I'd just like to say that I've been waiting with great anticipation following this story.
And I'm really kind of let down, and I could hear in your voices when you're talking to Professor Brown that you were, too.
I'm afraid that listening to him and the account, and 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.
And I don't know, 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.
unidentified
Well, I do know both Courtney Brown and Prudence Calabrizi 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 to them.
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 at nothing more than the rumor stage.
And I don't think I'm, 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.
unidentified
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'm...
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, and there's nothing I can do about it.
I think that it's, I mean, I don't know whether the university name that was said is not the real one, and so on and so forth.
There are 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 of him is essentially guesswork.
I've been listening for about an hour and a half to your show, and I kind of got the impression that the guys, Professor Brown, told 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.
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.
unidentified
Well, the thing is, if he was set up 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, is if he goes forward with trying to pursue it, it sounded like he was afraid that it would get even worse for him.
And that's exactly what the person who set him up wants him to do, is to pursue it so he can be damaged further.
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?
unidentified
Well, we saw what happened, I forget her name, but the reporter that wrote the story about the supposed street person and got a two with her prize, and then it turned out to be a hoax later.
Yeah, I think her career was pretty much in the toilet accident.
Well, all I can say in conclusion is that I surely hope that Prudence and Courtney can see their way to making it very clear that this other evidence, the photographs and the roll of film, the six prints, is entirely real by sending it to a neutral party for further examination.
That's, I think, the next step that has to be done.
And again, it's worth saying to the people that although this photograph is obviously a hoax, that does not necessarily end the controversy with regard to sheramics and other photographs.
That's very true.
So I'm going to pray, Whitley, and 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.
unidentified
No, absolutely not.
I'm going to pray for them and on behalf of the right of the public to know the truth.
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.
unidentified
If you've missed any part of tonight's debate between Professor Courtney Brown and Whitley Straeber and you'd like to have a copy on TIP, dial toll-free at 1-800-917-4278 and ask for tape number 97-0210C.