Part One

By Earl L. Crockett


In humankind's last noble effort to shift into a new cosmology of being, circa the late 1600's, thinking, as consciousness, was deemed "unreal". We are still suffering today from this denial of the one true distinction of "being human" we have. As will be revealed below, and in the papers to follow, this has relegated our species to identifying ourselves as physical bodies (human) without full credit and acceptance being given to our ability to think ourselves into existence (being). Before anyone jumps to conclusions, this is a scientific assertion that will be proven out as we progress. 

****************FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE**************

Dr. Oliver R. Hainaut
Institute Of Astronomy
University of Hawaii

The following message was received From Dr. Hainaut on March 14, 1997:

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 97 17:02:13 HST
From: hainaut@lupus.IFA.Hawaii.Edu (Oliver Hainaut) To:
CC: hainaut@lupus.IFA.Hawaii.Edu,

I'm sorry to say your newsletter is full of nonsenses that prove that you really don't understand what you are talking about. One thing is to complain about NASA, an other to talk about physics of comet. The first can be successfully done with some rethoric talents ONLY, while the same talents are ridiculizing you on the second.

Remove me from your mailing list.

Olivier Hainaut

Dear Dr. Hainaut:
Thank you for your timely reply. It gives me the opportunity to address some important outstanding issues. First I included you on the mailing list, because of the ethical standards by which I conduct my business, and my personal life, require me to include you, and the professional astronomical community that you have been publicly representing, if I am taking issue with your scientific rational. To not do so would be a breach of integrity; something akin to "talking behind" someone's back. It is also in the spirit of free, and open, communication that was so courageously pioneered by your predecessors, Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo; who did not have the luxury of openly practicing there trade with substantial public support and financing as you, and your astronomy colleagues, enjoy today.

I have been a student of the inner workings, and development, of the cosmological principles of quantum physics for many years. If this arena of physics is unfamiliar to you it is probably due to the fact that little has been published to date; my own work will not be out in final form for several years. It is, however, consistent with the open discourse engaged in by Bohr, Hiesenberg, Dirac, Pauli, Shrodinger, Einstein, and many others prior to it's sudden halt; precipitated by the beginning oppressions of WWII, circa 1936. It is from this vantage point, or place of observation, that I have viewed the questions surrounding the origins and nature of C/1995 01 Hale-Bopp. This process can be termed "meta-thinking" or "thinking about thinking"; or rigorously spoken, as an ontological inquiry.

I am intimately familiar with the cosmological distinctions that were required to transition from the paradigm of "Faith" of Galileo's time to the beginnings of the Scientific Method; ushered in so grandly by Newton's "Principa" in 1692. I have also examined closely the Golden Rule of reality or "realness" of our Scientific Age:

"Objective, Independent, Verifiable, Existence"

We have prospered, in the technological sense, from the application of this Golden Rule for the last 300 years. My, and other's, communications with you and your colleagues of the past several months, however, has led me to conclude that this once useful and productive Scientific Method, as applied to Astronomy, has geriatrified into a dogma that is as solid as that in existence in the Middle Ages; and dogma is dogma regardless of the paradigmatical origin.

What is presently little understood is that "Objective, Independent, Verifiable, Existence" has a built in trap door through which one can fall. For all of it's often quoted superiority to matters of faith and/or spirit (or the quantum), one only has to look to a reigning scientific principle of the 19th Century, the "Luminiferous Ether" to know that this "trap door" does exist. The trip wire to this devious device can be found in the "Webster's Dictionary" definition of "Objective" which includes: "...(1): existing only in relation to a knowing subject or willing agent (2): existing independent of the mind..." What this means in the simplest of terms is that we can not decide "truth" or reality by ourselves with our own minds, and individual experiments, if we adhere to the Golden Rule of the Scientific Method; we must enlist knowing subjects (as opposed to the object in view) and/or willing agents. If the "objects" in question happen to be as out of view as the quantum entities were to 19th Century science then what would otherwise, and later, be called wild speculation has a way of presencing itself as "reality". This "reality" then begins to take on a life of it's own as degrees and honors are given out, and denied, on the basis of one's facility with this now "accepted" truth. To the best of my observations this is the official state of the Science of Astronomy in 1997. And, this does not mean that there are not many of those in the field that are following what I would term a "quantum path of thinking". It does mean that those handing out the degrees, and the money, have little, or no, tolerance for other than that agreed to by their "knowing subjects and willing agents" in power; what we identify in Galileo's times as being "The keepers of the Faith."

I know from the tone of your message above, and from first hand reports of your communications with Gary Goodwin and Chuck Shramek, that you are taking this matter of potentia outside of the accepted paradigm "Is Comet" very personally; as in someone attempting to make you wrong. I wish to assure you with all of my being that that is not my purpose, or my intent. Further, I am committed to all parties in this inquiry being left whole and complete as the good people they are; a change of thinking possibly if my views hold up, but by no means anyone being made wrong. I also know that those that have spoken out so far have been attributed with less than complementary labels under the general category of "unscientific". This causes me to further assure you that I wish my assertions to be judged by the most rigorous applicable scientific standards, and nothing else.

To lighten things up a little, and to communicate my observations of the existing official astronomical view of Hale-Bopp, I offer the following parable. Keep in mind that I'm not stating that this is "the truth". What I am saying is that it best fits what I presently see; as I have done above.

The Blind Rabbit Farmer

Once upon a time, long long ago, there was a blind rabbit farmer who detected a new creature in his barnyard. For many years the blind rabbit farmer had steadfastly maintained that all that could possibly occupy his barnyard were rabbits. So he set about correlating this new creature to his existing model. Happily he had achieved nearly a 60 percent correlation; mammal, four legs, nose, tail, hair, eyes, internal organs, genetics, etc. So he proudly pronounced to the world that the new creature is a rabbit, but something tells him that it's size/mass is in the range of 3 to 5 times larger than his existing rabbits. The one thing that he can't resolve is the actual size/mass, but he has skillfully extrapolated his model for rabbit on to the new creature, and is firmly defending his estimate. It appears, however, that new information is starting to come in that now has the farmer proclaiming, "We believe that this is the first determination, ever, of six-foot-long-ivory-tusks on a rabbit." The farmer's neighbor Mr. Hubble has sight, and can see, but he's not talking.

To begin the establishment of my premise that all is not known, decided, and quantified in the official world of astronomy I offer the following:

SL9 Impact Surprise

* Astronomers were discouraging the public from expecting too much.

In the days before the event, astronomers all over the world were discouraging the public from trying to see the comet crash through a small telescope.

* Some predictions gone awry.

Donald Savage July 7, 1994 NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

"Because of its small size, most scientists do not expect to witness significant visible effects from the impact of the first fragment, nor to detect significant after-effects in the planet's atmosphere."

Paul Weissman July 13, 1994 in _Nature_ July 14, article titled: "The Big Fizzle is Coming"

"Each snowball will individually ablate and burn up like a meteor in Jupiter's upper atmosphere. Lacking the momentum and the structural integrity of a single solid body, they will likely not penetrate deeper into the atmosphere where they might explode with multi-thousands of megatons of energy.

Thus the giant impacts will produce a spectacular meteor shower, but not the massive fireball explosions that have been predicted by some researchers. The impacts will be a cosmic fizzle."


* World's astronomical community thrown off its feet.

When fragment A hit Jupiter at more than 200,000 mi/hr shortly after 4pm EDT, July 16, 1994, it threw up a fireball so bright it seemed to knock the world's astronomical community off its feet. The event was visible in even a 2 inch refractor at 75X magnification.

I would like to point out that the very same "Don Savage" that is quoted above is also given as the lead contact person on JPL/Nasa's newly listed (March 13, 1997) "Nasa Plans Comet Hale-Bopp Observing Campaign, Activities" page that can be viewed at the URL address below:

In addition, I include below the only open communication that I have received from any astronomer in the last 60 days regarding the definition of "Comet"; as applied to these never before observed in modern times objects like Shoemaker/Levy9 and C/1995 01 Hale-Bopp. I have not given the astronomers name, and I have modified the grammar out of courtesy to the privacy of the astronomer. At anytime that verification of this quotation becomes necessary I will happily open my files to an objective third party for examination:

March 2, 1997
Dear Earl:

The key argument for SL9 not being a comet is that observers never found water in it. The major difference between a comet and an asteroid is water. However, it is not always clear if an object has water or not as seen from the ground. A real comet could look like an asteroid if, 1) it is far away from the sun, i.e. it's not hot enough yet to force vaporization, or 2) it has stayed close to the sun so long that is has lost all of it's *surface layer* of ice. Since the heat is not able to penetrate into the interior of a 10km sized object, at the age of the solar system, it is very hard to say if what we see is a comet in the second case, or an asteroid when the object has a small semi-major axis.

Historically, people claim that they find comets if they can see a coma, and asteroids if they don't. They always keep an eye on those objects with high eccentricities, because they are the ones most likely to show cometary behaviors in certain stages of their lifetime.

As vast amounts of dust scattered around SL9, when it was found, it appeared to be coma. Some then claimed immediately that is was a comet; however no water was ever found so others still prefer to call it an asteroid. We now know that its coma was induced by the break-up, not by sublimation of volatile materials. And it was also determined that SL9's orbit was highly eccentric before it's captured by Jupiter ...It is a long story, and as far as I know to this day there was no agreement on this point before or after the impact on Jupiter.


It is clear from the SL9 pre-impact press releases that the sum total of astronomical science available to Nasa did not come close to accurately forecasting the nature of the event that was about to unfold. It is also evident that the existing "Is Comet, Is dirty Snowball" mind-set was in play, and it is not like there wasn't the data available from all of the devices in space, and on the ground, to make an accurate conclusion. I suspect that the "trap door" opened and all Nasa funded personal simply fell through to a very dark place from which the factual evidence could not be seen.

We can also conclude from the statement above, of a very well known, respected, and extensively published astronomer, that behind the closed doors of established astronomy that a debate rages as to the true nature of "comets". In substantiation of my assertion, I provide the following data derived from the Official JPL/Nasa Hale-Bopp Web Page through the links given below. It is not necessary to use the links as the data in question, "Appendix A", is printed below. The links are provided should you wish to confirm my statement of derivation.

1.0 Start at Charles Moore "Information on Comet Hale-Bopp for the Non-Astronomer"

2.0 Scroll To: "General Stuff About Comets" Select: "the comet section from Views of the Solar System" Or ""

3.0 "Comet Introduction" Scroll to and select: "Comet Tutorial"

4.0 "Table of Contents" Scroll to: "Main Contents" Select: "1. What Is a Comet?"

5.0 "1. What is a Comet?" Scroll to second paragraph and select: "(See Appendix A. Table 3.)"

6.0 "Appendix A - Comparative Tables"

Appendix A - Comparative Tables

Table 1. Energy comparisons.*


Energy, J

Energy, Relative

Two 3,500-lb. cars colliding head-on at 55 mph

9.6 x 10^5


Explosion of 1 U.S. ton of TNT

4.2 x 10^9


Explosion of a 20-megaton fusion bomb

8.4 x 10^16


Total U.S. annual electric power production, 1990

1 x 1019


Energy released in last second of10^13 kg fragment of Shoemaker-Levy 9

~ 9 x 10^21


Total energy released by 1013-kg fragment of Shoemaker-Levy 9

1.8 x 10^22


Total sunlight on Jupiter for one day

6.6 x10^22


*1 BTU = 252 (small) calories = 1,055 J = 2.93 x 10-4 kWh.

Table 2. Power comparisons.*

Power Producer

Power, MW

Power, Relative

Hoover Dam



Grand Coulee Dam, final plant



Annual average, sum of all U.S. power plants



Average, impact of 1013-kg fragment of Shoemaker-Levy 9, final sec

~ 9 x 10^15



3.8 x 1020


*1 horsepower = 745.7 W = 7.457 x 10-4 MW.

Table 3. Size comparisons.*


Radius, km

Volume, km^3


71,350 (Equatorial) 
67,310 (Polar)

1.4 x 10^15


6,378 (Equatorial) 
6,357 (Polar)

1.1 x 10^12

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9

4.5 (Equivalent sphere)


Comet Halley

7.65 x 3.60 x 3.61


*1 mi. = 1.609 km

Table 4. Brightness comparisons


Magnitude Vo

Relative Brightness

Largest fragment of Shoemaker-Levy 9 during last second

~ -10











Largest fragment of Shoemaker-Levy 9 as viewed today



The above data is so far out of known science that it might as well exist in a Universe other than ours. The single impact of one fragment of SL9 created an energetic force equivalent to 214,285 single 20 mega-ton fusion bombs. That's 214,285 X 20 mega-tons equals the 18,750 plus twelve zeros referenced above in Table 1. It appears that astronomical science has been so confronted by this number that they have simply turned their back on the data, and have gone merrily on their way again, chasing "Dirty Snowballs"; even to the extent of denying, as in the therapeutic definition of denial, the facts at hand; called C/1995 01 Hale-Bopp.

Before you concluded that I'm attempting to make someone "wrong" again, let's remember the historical record of considering such wild, outside of the believed, data as that presented above. After the quick establishment of Max Planck's Constant of Energy, circa early 1900's, he felt compelled to say the following " I am by nature a mild and conservative man. The problem before me was so complex, however, that I had to give up everything I knew to be true, in order to derive my solution." Max Planck's discovery opened up the whole world of the quanta, named the science quantum, and gained dear "mild and conservative by nature" Max Planck immortality. It also gave us the sum total of what we call modern technology. There seems to be no part of the sciences that has not benefited from "Quantum Thinking". I know it is generally believed that it is the "mechanics", or mathematical formulas, of quantum mechanics that has provided the benefits, but I would like to assert, for the moment, that the true contribution has been derived from what I call "Quantum Thinking".

Realness is determined in the Scientific Method Cosmology by the subject, us, observing the object, rock, in a state of separate and apartness. We then bring in our "knowing and willing agents" who verify "rock" as reality. In the quantum things work much differently. The rock (quantum entity), the measuring apparatus, and us exist in a wholeness or unseperateness; as in "we're all in this together". Within this wholeness, the data is recorded, but prior to that time we are required to think differently about what is to ensue. Hiesneberg's Uncertainty Principle, and Bohr's Complementary Principle, which were mathematically derived, require us to proscribe no "Is-ness" to the events about to unfold. All we can say is that a possibility, as in potentia, exists, and nothing else. John Wheeler describes this required state as similar to looking at a dragon, but all we can see is the head, and tail. What "is" in the middle of the dragon is forever beyond our view. It is within this "forever unknown" region that all of our modern science has been derived. It requires my asserted "Quantum Thinking" to even step into a "quantum experiment". These wonderful quantum entities will simply not come to the show otherwise.

This state of quantum being is for the most part dealt with as something practice in the privacy of one's own lab, but is never discussed in polite company in the cold hard light of day; the reason being that Quantum Cosmological Principles are so far outside of our cultural paradigm solidly constructed from Newtonian Classical Objective, Independent, Verifiable, Existence, that one could even be locked away as not being in touch with the accepted defined reality we live in. I'm suggesting that it's time to turn over that old method in the same manner that Newton and Galileo turned over the Cosmology of Faith. It also seems that the Object Hale-Bopp might be the signal we've been waiting for.

Why not throw down the walls of our separateness around Hale-Bopp, and conduct a Global Quantum Experiment. Let's invite everyone into the wholeness of the circle; You and me, Nasa, the US Military, the Eso Hale-Bopp Team, the Hubble, everyone, and everything. It can be done. The mathematics of the Quantum, and possibility as potentia, say that all that we the observer must do is to allow the possibility to presence itself by our Quantum Thinking. Why not give it a try?

Sincerely yours,

Earl L. Crockett


copyright 1996/97 The Millennium Group