From: TotlResrch@aol.com [Kal K. Korff]
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 05:26:23 -0500 (EST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 23:04:16 -0500
Subject: Tom King's Comments About Kal Korff
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>From: email@example.com (Tom King)
>Subject: Discovery channel special.
>Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 18:12:11
>By Tom King
>The episode was not a bad in my opinion. However it contained several added
>in effects to spin the end of the show.
>The first half was right on track, but it seemed to attack Village Labs and
>take the flare theory. This might be because of Richard Motzer and Kal
>Korff, giving their approach which the producers bought. Kal was cut out of
>the episode mostly likely because of him discrediting himself recently.
You are WRONG about why I was cut out of the Discovery show. I
would appreciate it in the future that when you choose to
SPECULATE, that you leave ME OUT OF IT!
Most of my footage was "punted" to the upcoming Area 51 show and
even then, it may not be used. It is not uncommon to have footage
cut...I spent all day filming at Fox recently and my footage was
cut to 15 seconds. This is part of the industry of TV in that you
never know how things work out until the broadcast airs. How many
interviews have you given to the evening news, only to have a ten
second snippet used? Several, Tom.
Frankly, I liked to show, and although I believe the later lights
that were filmed that night were flares, I still have NO
EXPLANATION for the earlier, V-shaped object and I told the
Discovery Channel this. However, the V-shaped objects ARE
consistent with various "Star Wars" toys. My objection is how
people try to cram EVERY sighting that night into one big, UFO
event and make this whole thing so very black and white. If only
the Universe were this simple!! The TRUTH is, there were MANY
things going on that night, INCLUDING FLARE DROPS and Hale Bopp,
etc. There also remain a very core group of impressive,
Have you accounted for the flares, Tom, and HOW MANY WITNESSES
WHO REPORTED THE FLARES AND WERE SURE THEY WERE FLARES, HAVE YOU
INTERVIEWED? These should be people who lived near the front side
of the mountain, right??
I would not be surprised if the number was zero, Tom. I hope this
is NOT so.
Finally, I have not "discredited" myself, Tom, except perhaps in
the eyes of those for which I never had any "credibility" in the
first place. You know the type, Tom, those Meier/Pleiadian nuts
you hang out with. I got LOTS of mail over the Art Bell thing and
it was very supportive and I have lost no credibility with the
media. That's why I was back on Sightings a few days later, after
apologizing to Art Bell where the whole thing got started....duh,
Tom! I have also done many interviews since then but won't really
be back in the media spotlight or too active on the internet
until my new projects come out. However, on November 21, you may
watch me on the widely-syndicated Leeza show if you so desire.
Who knows how that one will be edited, but the Phoenix lights are
covered briefly if I recall correctly.
Getting back to Art Bell, you see, Tom, my sources had confused
the legal threats made against radio stations and the attempts to
censor me with the activities of Art Bell. I quoted my sources
and they turned out to be wrong upon closer investigation.
Unlike certain UFO "researchers" both you and I know, Tom, I
ADMIT when I am wrong. Even on national radio, and I did so on
The TRUTH is, Art Bell did NOT threaten anyone over me, but JIM
DILETTOSO did. I even sent Mr. Corbis, Bell's radio station
affiliate's President, copies of Dilettoso's threatening material
but it was never mentioned or even cited on Bell's show nor
referenced on his web site that I know of.
However, how Bell cares to edit the information he presents about
this issue is his right and privilege of course. I felt I owed
Art Bell an apology and he deserved it. I was wrong about Art
Bell, but Jim Dilettoso is another story entirely, Tom.
This is a FACT THAT YOU IGNORE AND OTHERS who have tried to use
the Art Bell episode against me.
Finally, Tom, if you wish to continue to allign yourself closely
with Dilettoso so be it. However, I would prefer rather NOT to
quote or cite the "expert" opinions of those like Dilettoso who
go around LYING about claiming to have a Ph.D. Do you CONDONE
THIS, TOM, AND HAVE YOU EVER ASKED JIM DILETTOSO ABOUT WHY he did
If I have become so "discredited" for being wrong about something
(the Art Bell incident), Tom, what does that make Jim Dilettoso
then in your eyes?
Or do you believe, Tom, that people who LIE about having Ph.D.s
are more credible than those researchers who make totally human,
albeit very visible, mistakes?
Are you saying that Jim Dilettoso has NO credibility problems?
I look forward to your sharing with all of us here, Tom, the
details of those conversation(s) you have had with Dilettoso
regarding his bogus claims about his bogus background.
I am sure that you have done the proper personal introspection in
yourself and have searched your soul and have a perfectly valid
reason you will now all share with us as to WHY you continue to
hang out and endorse someone who makes up the schools he claims
he attended and the degrees he earned.
While I have been accused of having a "vendetta" against
Dilettoso, this is NOT true. Wrong. VERY WRONG. However, as long
as the UFO field CONTINUES TO IGNORE AND NOT SPEAK UP ABOUT THOSE
PHONIES WHO MAKE UP THEIR IMAGINARY COLLEGE DEGREES AND
UNIVERSITIES ATTENDED, I feel I MUST speak up.
After all, if I DIDN'T say anything, many more of you would
actually go around CLAIMING Jim Dilettoso actually has a Ph.D.
because NONE of you EVER BOTHERED to do some simple checking and
would never know to the contrary!!
If I have any "vendetta," it is to get to the truth. Even if it
means I must admit I am wrong, like I was over the Art Bell
When are YOU going to ADMIT YOU were WRONG about the Dilettoso
Kal (Hoping you will leave me out of your future, written and
very public theorizing) Korff
BACK TO EXPOSE