Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 17, 1998 - Art Bell

03:15:29

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Jim Dilettoso - UFO Debate

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	TV.
	From the high deserts in the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening or good morning, wherever you may
	be in this Great world of ours.
	And that's just about what we cover right now from the Tahitian and Hawaiian Islands in the west, eastward to the Caribbean and the U.S.
	Virgin Islands.
	Good morning in St.
	Thomas, north to the bowl, and worldwide on the Internet.
	This is Ghost to Ghost AM.
	I'm Art Bell.
	A little different, which is kind of what we do every night on this program.
	Follow any specific format.
	I guess I don't want to be tied down to any specific format.
	Who have very, very diverging views on many things, set up to have a debate.
	And I'm going to tell you right now, there are three The main areas that I think we're going to cover, there certainly may be much negative contention, would be the Billy Meyer case.
	Billy Meyer, of course, the gentleman in Switzerland, who, many years ago, took many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, Reading from the jacket of his book, Cal Corf, he's dedicated to studying humankind's most enduring mysteries and phenomena.
	He's also a popular author and lecturer on topics ranging from UFOs and space exploration to political and social issues.
	He's appeared in newspapers, radio, to journalists at Lawrence Livermore National Labs, And is a former member of the Clarus Corporation's HyperCard development team.
	And I suppose he would have to tell us what that is.
	The other side of this debate is going to be a gentleman by the name of Jim DeLaTosso.
	Jim DeLaTosso is president of Village Labs, a computer company.
	His background includes Uh, 15 years, as a matter of fact, as CEO, president of that, uh, computer company.
	And prior to that, about 15 years in the entertainment industry.
	That's Jim Delitoso.
	There have been many words flying, uh, between these two.
	Uh, mostly, uh, not together, and not in a conversation with each other.
	I don't know that... Uh, but rather on the internet, back and forth, uh, in the news groups, and it has been pretty contentious.
	So, We're going to... And that would be the Billy Meyer case, which Kalkorff has called a blatant lie.
	The Phoenix Lights situation, which brought the two to loggerheads.
	And then finally, probably the most contentious of the issues, the allegations made by Kalkorff against Jim DeLaTosso and no doubt the other way around.
	Fights about credentials.
	...fights with regard to the allegations... ...hold that for last.
	Just in case somebody, metaphorically, gets thrown in the water.
	Now, I would like to tell my audience that we have made a special arrangement on my website.
	First of all, you will find... ...website.
	You will find a link to Jim Delitoso's website, or at least one of them.
	Uh, on my website right now.
	So if you want to do background reading about these two men, you may do so on my website now.
	Simply scroll down to the guest names and, uh, click on Jim Delitoso's name or Cal Korse's name.
	Now, in addition to that, I would like to, uh, tell the audience that we have set up a special voting system.
	We have a... It's going to be a debate.
	Uh, Keith Rowland, my whiz of a webmaster, has set up, um, a voting system tonight, that will allow you to vote in degrees of, um, obligation as you listen.
	And so all of that is on my website at www.arkbell.com.
	We will get underway in a moment.
	Uh, oh, just one other note, and that is that, uh, my intent this evening, Is to not run this debate the way the presidential debates are generally run.
	Which is boring.
	With the exception of moments when, like a referee, has to pull two fighters apart in a clinch, I'm going to leave them alone.
	And allow them both to develop their points at each other.
	Interjecting only every now and then.
	And only pulling apart the apparent flinches.
	That would be when you can't hear anything because everybody is talking at once.
	So, that's how we're going to set it up.
	That's how we're going to do it.
	And it will begin in a moment.
	Real talk is a way not to... Look.
	Five, seven, two.
	All right.
	Here they come.
	Let's introduce them one at a time.
	Jim Della Tosso, good morning.
	Good morning.
	Enjoy the morning.
	Well, in some portions of my listening audience, actually, the bulk, it's morning.
	So I just choose that.
	Welcome to the program.
	And Cal Korff, are you there?
	Yes, sir.
	I'm here.
	Thank you.
	And Cal is in California someplace or another at the moment.
	Yes.
	Alright, gentlemen, welcome to the program.
	What I suggest we do, I guess, Cal has said of the Meyer case, which is one of the most famous UFO cases of all time...
	Yes it is, and I based that conclusion after having gone over to Switzerland undercover to study all of the evidence and try to include, and I do include a lot of illustrations to try to take the reader along the investigation with me so they don't have to take my word for it.
	That's why I include in the book over 500 footnotes so that they can check the data themselves.
	Alright, Jim, what is your view of the Meyer case?
	First of all, I don't believe very much in Cal Korff's book is true, although he does make some very good points and at times he has demonstrated some good intentions.
	But let me go to the very beginning of the Meyer case.
	Alright.
	1978, May 23rd to be exact.
	I really didn't have any background or interest in UFOs at all.
	And it was not actually about the Meyer case.
	It was about developing a testing procedure for a UFO group called APRO.
	The Aerial Phenomena Research Organization.
	And I met these people through a connection at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
	We had been in the concert touring business for some time.
	Hate touring in the winter.
	Look for other things to do.
	We were a high-tech touring company.
	We knew a lot about All the aspects of the most complex levels of touring.
	So when we found Winter Work, it would frequently be, and we found ourselves in the project, as an outside consultant contractor at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Coral Lorenzen and Wendell Stephens, and they were interested as to whether or not we would be interested in investigating techniques for testing pictures.
	Okay, that's what this, the core of the disagreement here I think is all about is the photographs.
	The Meyer case produced some of the clearest photographs of UFOs I think ever seen.
	Is that, you probably both agree on that?
	Yes.
	They are purported to be, they are pristine and stellar photographs.
	No background or interest.
	I mean, you know, true, I was a 60s child, so I had interest in many dimensions.
	But, back then, looking at different UFO pictures, I had a background in looking at signal-to-noise ratios and particular audio and digital audio and things of that nature.
	So, I spent the first Six months or so in the UFO community with Lorenzens and Wendell Stephens and a number of others, Rick Gerdes and lots of people that were connected with APRO, and defining for them what I had found in my investigation about testing procedures for image processing.
	All right, to cut to the chase, Jim, I think everybody would acknowledge that you are a photographer, but you do, after all, do that work.
	That is what you do.
	Now, in your opinion, are the Meyer photos legitimate?
	The pictures that we tested, by taking them to many different sites in the late 70s and early 80s, none, not one, of the experts that we went to found any evidence of a hoax.
	In fact, Those people in facilities that we, quote, penetrated, each with a different mechanism, ranging from jet propulsion laboratory to manufacturers of equipment, all felt that the equipment was legitimate.
	What do you mean by penetrated?
	Well, you know, we're talking about 1978, 79, 80.
	And the state of the art of image processing at that time was such that the tools that are commonly available and everyone from Art Bell to facilities today was generally out of reach.
	He had me in a variety of ways as I think back on it.
	Generally, I can't believe sometimes that we actually got in some of the places that we did.
	Anyway, again, cutting to the chase, you then found them and the experts found them to be legit.
	No, no evidence of a hoax.
	Right.
	Now you have Village Labs, and I assume that in recent years you have re-examined photographs.
	I do it all the time, yeah.
	You do it all the time, and you still feel that there is no evidence of hoax.
	Well... Is that fair?
	There's two families of photographs in the Meyer case.
	Okay.
	There are photographs in the 70s and early 80s.
	Yes.
	There are photographs in the modern era.
	And some of the photographs in the modern era, I am genuinely susceptible to.
	And what we're debating, we're debating the older photographs, which you still sort of stand by and saying that you see no evidence of hoax.
	That's correct.
	All right.
	Cal, you've called it a blatant hoax.
	How is it a hoax?
	Well, the difference between Jim Delitoso's investigation and mine is that I've gone over to Switzerland to the actual locations A lot of which are mislabeled, by the way, and I show you the real locations in the book.
	And in order to do a thorough photo analysis, you have to visit the location and take measurements where the photos were taken.
	If you don't do that, then keep in mind that there were no original negatives that were examined, and Jim DeLaTosso and no one else can, you just can't analyze a photo scientifically And say it's real if you have no original negatives.
	Alright, uh, Cal?
	I don't agree with that.
	Alright, uh, Cal?
	I don't believe it is a position.
	Very quickly, Cal, is there, um, any way, looking at the older set of photographs that Jim is talking about, uh, without the negatives, without going over there, can you still, uh, examine them and declare them, in your opinion, to be a hoax?
	And if so, how?
	If you find evidence of a hoax, yes.
	But, if you find no evidence of a hoax, just, that doesn't mean they're real because without original negatives, UFO photographs by themselves are not necessarily proof of extraterrestrial spacecraft.
	If you don't find a string, it doesn't mean one isn't there.
	The film itself has limited resolution, and it could always be some large model.
	You don't know, but you'd need original negatives.
	In the clearest photos, which are in the book, there's over 115 of them in there, and these came from Billy Meier's negatives, from an individual that used to manage Meier's photo albums.
	And that's the best copies we have until if and when the negatives ever resurface.
	Well, that's your allegation that he used to manage because isn't he now deceased?
	And you met with his wife.
	Well, Jim, if you look in the book, a page from the photobinder is in there.
	It's not even looking at the book, but I suggest you look at it because the illustrations from the photobinder with the original Meyer numbers are in there.
	But you wouldn't know that unless you look at the book.
	Well, the book is not Something that I have the time, nor have you sent me a complimentary copy.
	I'm not under any obligation to send you a complimentary copy.
	You know, I have to say that this whole thing has been very interesting to me.
	We went into the Meyer case investigation and I was a second and third tier person in the investigation.
	Everyone that I had contact with, the scope of the work, whether it was the colorful Wendell Stevens or the people
	who were involved in the investigation, as a junior member, as a rookie member of that team in the
	late 70s, I only observed people that everything that they told me they were going to do, they did, whether it was a
	paper thing, were true and honorable.
	And I developed a sense of trust in these people that they wanted the truth.
	And that what they wanted me to do was to assist them in finding the absolute best places.
	No one said, let's find government contractors that we can pull a fast one on and then get them to say something we can take out of context and sell a book.
	That was not the intent at the time as has been Alleged in Cal Corp's book, etc.
	These were people who were willing to look the other way.
	Or were willing to parchment of photographs and other evidence that was very compelling.
	All right.
	We'll hold it there.
	Cal Korff responds when we get back and we're going to let this be as interactive as we can get it.
	I suggest it will get that way as time goes on.
	We're discussing the Billy Meyer case.
	Cal Korff thinks the early photographs, even the early ones, were a blatant hoax.
	He'll tell us how he determined that.
	Jim Della Tosso thinks they're legit.
	We'll be right back.
	Oh, leave me just the way I can't say goodbye.
	You can dance, you can fly.
	You can dance, you can fly.
	We are just beginning a debate that is occurring between Jim Della Tosso and Cal Forth.
	at area code 702-727-1295. That's area code 702-727-1295.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	Well, alright, good morning everybody. We are just beginning a debate that is occurring between Jim Della Tosso
	and Cal Forth.
	We'll get right back to them.
	You've got nothing to lose but the pain.
	Once again, Jim Delatoso of Village Labs, Cal Korff, back on the air again.
	All right, Cal, you're saying that the Meyer photographs are a hoax, an obvious hoax, based on what?
	Based on having analyzed them and finding evidence of a hoax, which I go through in painstaking detail in the book.
	That's why there's Well over 100 pictures in there.
	But do a little bit of it here.
	I mean, give us the blatant examples, if you would.
	I realize we can't, not everybody can sit out there, you know, and look at photographs right now, but give us radio examples.
	Okay.
	One quick thing again, as a background to this, when you analyze a photograph of a UFO, if you find no evidence of a hoax, that doesn't mean it's a real alien spaceship.
	That is science.
	On the other hand, if you have no original negative and you find no evidence of a hoax,
	then you're stuck even at a more greater level.
	In the case of the Billy Meyer photos, I had heard the claim, especially by Lee and Britt
	Elders over the last few years, that the later Meyer photographs were hoaxes in their opinions,
	the wedding cake photos, things like that, and the earlier photos were real.
	Well, it turns out, as I show in the book, we got a hold of the original Meyer photographs,
	the very first ones he took during his first meeting with the Pleiadian cosmonaut named
	Simeonzi.
	And when you look at those photos, you can tell that they're a hoax and it's very simple.
	Meyer's camera was jammed short of what we call the infinity setting, which is 6 feet away from the camera and over 50 feet away will be more or less in what we call perfect or good focus.
	And when you look at the Meyer photographs, where the UFO is supposedly hovering above a German truck in the background, you see the UFO in perfect focus, but the tree, but the truck in the background is blurred and out of focus.
	Fixed lens setting.
	That is a constant that can be calculated.
	And in the book, you see four formulas.
	That can be used to calculate the true size of an image.
	The object is in focus.
	The background is out of focus.
	That is definitive proof that the object can't be large.
	That it's a small model close to the camera.
	And that's just basic science, for lack of a better term.
	But I want to come back to the crucial point here.
	Without original negatives, you can't say they are genuine.
	You've got nothing, unfortunately.
	And if Jim says that he can still authenticate photos without original negatives, I invite him to share that knowledge with the rest of the world so he can win a Nobel Peace Prize.
	Jim?
	Well, that's Nobel, not noble.
	Depends on where you're from and what part of the United States, Jim.
	Okay, expense taken.
	You know, a couple things here.
	Cal, I applaud your attempts at trying to do image processing.
	Can you tell me who was your consultant back then and where you got these formulas from?
	I'll be happy to, Jim.
	Everyone from Dr. Bruce McAbee to Dr. Bob Nathan.
	Yeah, I talked to Bruce McAbee today.
	Both of them, by the way, Jim, have gone on record and they're in the book as saying that your analysis is not correct and that the Meyer photographs are a hoax.
	They're quoted and they have the books and I thought Bruce 10 days ago.
	I talked to Bruce McAbee today.
	He said he hasn't talked to you for a number of years and that you vanished.
	And that you were, as you've said on videotape, working with him.
	He doesn't recall that.
	Jim, I was at a meeting with Bob Kiviat and Bruce McAbee 10 days ago in California.
	If you don't believe me, I can arrange for Bob Kiviat to call you and confirm that I was with Bruce McAbee 10 days ago.
	In fact, I gave him a copy of the Meyer book.
	He has emailed me.
	And I would like to say that we should call Bruce Harding.
	Let's go back to the testing.
	And if Bruce goes ahead and says... Alright, alright.
	Hold it, gentlemen.
	Let us return for the moment to the testing.
	Yeah, the testing.
	The testing that was done back then.
	And I know that you had gone to Ground Saucer Watch and that they had done testing for you.
	They did their testing and we didn't find the same results.
	But it was interesting to me that you were able to find threads of information about inaccuracies and testing that we had done at U.S.
	Geological Survey and a variety of places that we published where we went, that you alone were able to find flaws that determined that these were small models because we were interested we all had spiritual and metaphysical situations where we had evidence evidence of something that gave us even a fraction of a clue about the reason that we were living but that was terrific and we should pursue it so when I read your report and this was we went to those sources and investigated them ourselves and I just didn't find
	What you were claiming that you had found, and in fact, I found that the non-disclosure agreements that we had, well not we, remember I was second tier, that the Elders and Stevens had had people sign agreeing that they would not talk to anyone about the fact that we had penetrated their facility.
	Okay, sorry.
	I had a problem, John, too.
	As an outside, objective third person, those results did not match yours alone.
	And it looks like I have a 19, 20-year-old, IQ 200 by his own admission person, Cal Korth, who that leaders in the image processing field had not discovered.
	Maybe we should take a look at that.
	I never, GSW never did any testing for me.
	They had done it years ago.
	And in my original Meyer expose, I simply quoted an analysis they'd done.
	As I mentioned before, the whole reason I started from scratch was to try to rectify all the discrepancies and all the claims.
	There were parts of GSW's analysis that I could not duplicate.
	So I started over, went to Switzerland.
	You've never been there, Jim.
	And in order to analyze photos properly, you must go to the locations where the photos were taken, and take proper measurements.
	You've never done that.
	Let's bear that in mind for your Phoenix Lights expose you will do later.
	Continue.
	Well, as I was saying, you have to go to the place in question, and secondly, without original negatives, even if you find no evidence of a hoax, you cannot say the photos are real.
	That's the problem I have with your conclusions.
	Without original negatives, you've got nothing, and yet you're saying they're genuine.
	But see, we don't have my conclusions.
	My job was to find the finest hardware, software and facilities, and to escort the key investigators to those places.
	You keep referring to my conclusions, where I was the escort.
	Jim, you are on record in many interviews, you were even saying this in the Encounters debate on Fox we did that Bob Kiviot produced years ago, that the Meyer photographs are genuine.
	And I'm simply saying, you cannot make that statement without original negatives.
	It is not science.
	I wish it were that simple.
	Mr. Korf, can you cite me a paper, a photographic or scientific paper that says that you cannot extract data out of 2nd and 3rd generation pictures because remember you use 2nd and 3rd generation pictures in other cases so please cite for me this position that you're so hell-bent on.
	Now I would ask what happens if you're not able to declare it a hoax?
	There's two issues here.
	First off, when you analyze a photograph unfortunately you have to look for evidence of a hoax.
	If I had found no evidence of a hoax I would have to say, I have not found evidence of a hoax, but because I have no negatives, I can't say anything more.
	In the example photo that I just discussed, which is in the book, and you can look at it, it is a simple fact that this object that is supposed to be 7 meters in size, that's 22.75 feet in diameter, it's a large object, it's supposed to be that big, and because it's very small in the photograph, It should be in good focus, which it is, and so should every object beyond it because of the limitations of Meyers' camera.
	Now, is this your scientific experience or the advice to you of a consultant or two?
	No, Jim.
	You know darn well, even with what you know about photography, that if you set your lens just 1 32nd of an inch short of infinity, that if you have a large object, And it is in focus.
	Everything behind it will be in focus.
	So if you have a... Is that your personal experience?
	No, it is not, Jim.
	And if you have to ask that question, then you are not the expert you profess to be.
	Again, the fundamental issue is... I know the answer.
	I'm just asking you.
	I think I've answered that question and answered your question, R.A.
	I had first-generation photos made directly from Myers' negatives given to him by many people... How did you do that again?
	...in Switzerland.
	All right, let me just jump in and clarify what I was asking, Cal.
	Sure.
	You said to Jim, you cannot, without the negatives, declare the photographs to be legit.
	Yes.
	And so then I'm asking on the other side, since you have declared them to be a hoax, how are you able to do that without the negatives?
	Because when you take a camera and set it for infinity, objects have to be a certain distance away to be in focus.
	So imagine that your camera's stuck at that setting and it's That's it, it's stuck because according to Myers people he dropped it and it broke at that setting.
	If the UFO is in perfect focus, but yet the objects behind it like the trees and the trucks are blurred, it can't possibly be a large object far away from the camera because the camera doesn't put something in focus and then the stuff behind it out of focus if everything over 50 feet away is supposed to be in focus.
	Have you held Billy Myers' camera?
	It doesn't exist anymore, Jim.
	Didn't you say in an interview with Mr. Tom Tulane, in order to analyze photos which present a challenge to study, we not only need the original negatives and camera, which we must study because no two cameras are the same.
	What I was referring to, Jim, and I think you know this, is If you analyze a photograph and you find no evidence of a hoax, the next thing you have to do is look at the camera that took it.
	In my case, there was no camera to look at, and I never said the photos were real.
	You have done that, saying they're real, and you've had no negative, and you've never been to the location.
	You have to take measurements.
	You also don't know because you've never been there.
	I am a member of a team and five members of the team spent many, many, many hundreds of days at the location.
	That's not the same as going there, Jim.
	Also, if you had gone to the location, you would know that some of them are not where the books say they are.
	So whatever data you got was wrong and the only way you can know is to go over there and see it yourself.
	The Meyer case is over 20 years old.
	You've never gone to Switzerland.
	And if you had saved as little as $100 a month during this entire time, you could have gone there back and forth many times.
	But you never have.
	I felt very confident that Lee and Britt Elders, Tom Welch, Wendell Stevens, and others going there, as the lead members of the team that I was on, were more than qualified to do the things that You alone went and did, and I commend your effort.
	Jim, I wasn't there alone, and I think you know that.
	Well, you had one other person there, yes.
	Yes, as a neutral witness.
	Okay, so why do you say I went there alone?
	Well, forgive me.
	Okay, so let's stick to, you know, the fact that you know... Back to one thing.
	Can you tell me, when you put back the report, how did you determine What hardware, what software, where did you go to determine that they were a hoax?
	Jim, there's more than one answer to that because there's a wide variety of pictures.
	Again, let me finish and please don't interrupt me.
	I'm trying not to interrupt you.
	Can you tell me what hardware you use, where and what software?
	That's very simple.
	Excuse me, Art, I'm trying not to interrupt him and I can't really hear him when he's interrupting me because I can't talk and listen at the same time.
	Okay.
	All I'm saying is, is that if you take the very first photo, you don't need a computer to look at that.
	Your eyeballs tell you by looking at the photo, is that I'm not even sure you know which one I'm referring to, Jim.
	Now let's nail that down.
	What are we referring to?
	Which photograph?
	The very, if you look in chapter four of my book, the very first photo series that Meyer took in January of 1975, when he first met Semjazi, okay?
	That's a key sequence of photos, because if he faked the very first pictures, One has to wonder whether he had a contact at all.
	And, you know, I don't have a problem with people claiming they're in contact with aliens.
	Not at all.
	My concern is if somebody makes claims that they are and takes pictures of the said event, And those pictures don't hold up because the object is in focus and everything that's behind it is... Hold tight, both of you.
	Thank you.
	In order that we might understand, since not everybody has your book or can see the photo... The bottom side of it primarily, there's a couple of them that he took, so sometimes it's on the edge.
	And in the background are trees and a large German Mercedes truck that is out of focus.
	A later photograph.
	No, it was taken the very first contact and that's in the Meyers' own books.
	I cite his photo catalogue and the dates are on the pictures.
	That's not correct.
	That's not correct.
	Well, it is correct.
	It's in Switzerland.
	That's not the series we're talking about.
	Well, perhaps I am confused, but I would just like to know how you tested that picture to arrive at the conclusion that it's a small model.
	Good question.
	It's a valid question, and again, I've already answered it, but I'll be happy to repeat it.
	Jim, if your lens is jammed just a hair short of infinity, 1 32nd of an inch, the object has to be at least 50 feet away, or 4 to 6 feet away to be in focus.
	Yes or no?
	Um, Art, you'd have to look up the footnotes.
	I'm sorry I don't have them handy, but... Exactly, to measure the edges, I did not need to go to a lab for that, Art.
	and determine its degree of in focus and out of focus and determine that it's a small model.
	It's a simple question.
	Okay, that is a fair question.
	Yeah, and if you look at the photo, Art, look at the photo you're seeking.
	How many of you got the analysis?
	In other words, your own observation, or did you go to a lab?
	I did not need to go to a lab for that, Art.
	If I look at a photograph of Santa Claus that is not in focus, unless my eyes are going bad,
	Are you a trained photographer?
	Have you been to... I'm not an expert in this, although I've taken tens of thousands of photographs.
	I just wonder where you went to draw this conclusion.
	All right, that's a fair question.
	We'll deal with it when we get back.
	What hardware and software and who?
	Both of you, relax.
	Hold it right there.
	We'll be taking a breath before we...
	Well, let's put it this way.
	We have miles and miles to go.
	Jim Delitoso and Cal Korth in debate on Mart Bell.
	Well this is Coast to Coast AM.
	It's time for the Mediation Minute.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	Make your long way home.
	Make your long way home.
	you When you look one day, it's all unbelievable, unforgettable, unbelievable.
	But then you want to think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, you think, If you have a fax for Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nine, send it to him at area code 702-727-8499.
	702-727-8499.
	Please limit your faxes to one or two pages.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	Now, here again is Art.
	Good morning, everybody.
	We are in the middle of a debate.
	The debaters are Cal Corp.
	Cal Corp.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	Now, here again is Art.
	Good morning everybody. We are in the middle of a debate.
	The debaters are...
	Calhorff.
	Calhorff is...
	Well, I'll read from the back of his book.
	Many regard Cal as a debunker, a UFO debunker.
	He would probably deny that.
	The back of his book says he's president and CEO of Total Research, a think tank dedicated to studying humankind's most enduring mysteries and phenomena.
	He's also a popular author and lecturer on topics ranging from UFOs and space exploration to political and social issues.
	He's made many TV and radio appearances.
	In recent years, he has been regarded by many as a debunker.
	On the other side of the coin, we have Jim Della Tosso, who is a photographic expert, is currently CEO, President of Village Labs, and that's been for 15 years now.
	Prior to that, he was in the entertainment industry for 15 years.
	There are three areas of debate.
	We are still talking about the Billy Meyer case.
	The Billy Meyer case, of course, uh, from Switzerland, I would, uh, suggest to all of you, provided the clearest photographs of UFOs ever taken.
	We are debating the early UFO photographs taken by Billy Meyer, um, and, um, of course, Kalkhorff's, uh, position is they are a blatant hoax, his words, and, uh, Jim Delitoso, who thinks they are genuine.
	Neither one of these gentlemen have been, um, or have had availed to them the negatives of these photographs.
	We will, uh, again, pick up on one specific photo we're discussing, so you're caught up in a moment.
	Uh, so all of that, uh, continuing in a moment.
	Happy to lose, but the fact... Alright, again, we are going to agenda-wise finish up with the Meyer case, then move on to the Phoenix Lights, so-called.
	And then finally, the toughest area of all, the allegations, very serious ones, flying back and forth with regard to credentials, and that's where it's probably going to get to be a little rough.
	But right now, what I would like to do is, again, invite anybody in the audience to go to my website, where we have a very special setup.
	As you listen to these gentlemen this evening, you're able to vote that you think one or the other is prevailing in the debate.
	And by the way, I would remind my audience that if you change your mind as the debate goes on, you may change your vote.
	There are also links to both of these gentlemen's websites.
	Now, gentlemen, you're both back on the air again, and Cal, I would like to ask you, I've got your book here, Cal.
	My webmaster is very efficient and of course you can go to some of the Meyers sites.
	I went to chapter 4, Cal, and the first photograph I find is of a saucer behind some trees.
	I'm looking at it now, Art, and you'll notice the chapter begins with an endorsement of my formulas from Dr. Bruce McAbee.
	Aren't they his formulas?
	From Bruce McAbee.
	All I want to do right now, Cal, is determine which photograph we're talking about.
	We're talking about the photo on page 144.
	144, okay.
	That would be then the second photograph in Chapter 4, correct?
	That's the second photo, yes.
	Yeah, okay.
	And that shows a disc against some clouds with what appears to be a truck or something in the lower right-hand corner.
	Right, and if you look at the illustrations on 145, it shows how the UFO is in much sharper focus, is in actually very good focus, much to Meyers' credit, and you can see the edges of the large Mercedes truck in the background, and you can see how it is, you know, out of focus, and if it weren't for a background point of reference, if you will, this indicates that the Meyers camera was focused for an object close to the camera, because if it Had been jammed at infinity, like he says.
	The truck is so far away it should be in focus along with the UFO if it really is a large object far away from the camera.
	Alright, the very key question that I thought that Jim asked you was the analysis of this.
	In other words, the analysis actually is yours.
	In other words, Cal, you really did not go to Any sort of photographic expert to make these determinations?
	Actually, Art, that's why Bruce endorsed the front of it, because I double-checked the formulas with him, and if you look at the way the chapter opened... But he doesn't remember it that way.
	Well, you know, he's right here, and he's quoted, and he's footnoted, and if the date of the endorsement... I know, but he's quoted, but he doesn't know the way that you use the word processor.
	I talked to him today, and he doesn't remember it that way.
	Jim, the actual date that he wrote this...
	is in there, and it was January 6th, 1982, and it was in response directly to allegations you and Wendell Stevens made when you claimed that my methods were unscientific.
	I checked with Bruce on it, he supplied a quote for it, it begins the book, and that's it.
	I know, I find that very interesting, but your credential that you used a few moments ago, Bob Kiviak, told me, which I then checked with Bruce, That Bruce had never really tested the pictures.
	The issue wasn't testing the pictures, Jim.
	And then Bruce McAbee told me that, and you are taking things out of context, exaggerating them to fit your own beliefs and publishing them, which I think is very unfair.
	Okay, that's not true.
	Here's the statement from Bruce.
	There's no way I could take this out of context.
	The statement regarding the optics of Meyer's camera, which you, Cal, have called to my attention, is essentially correct.
	Now, how could I mistake that?
	I've got the letter.
	It's essentially correct.
	Now, you're talking about being very scientifically precise, and you say... Alright, I don't want to have to jump in here, so I think that you two can be interactive without tromping on each other too much.
	In other words, let one conclude a statement, even though it'd be a short one, and the other one pick up.
	Was there a computer program used here, or was it some measurements, or some... Was it subjective or objective?
	Do we have a report with this, or do we have a comment?
	It's, you, check the book, it's in there, Jim.
	I just want to know if you have a report on it.
	Don't interrupt me.
	If you haven't read it, Jim, you would know that the answer, the answers to the questions you're asking, if you would read the book, it's in there.
	There's over 500 footnotes.
	You have never just proven anything in the book.
	You claim you've never even read it.
	Okay.
	Bruce has not come out to say I quoted him wrong.
	That quote goes back many years, because as you know, this has been an issue for many years now.
	Then Bruce and I will talk about that, because Bruce has agreed to do a peer review on my processes.
	Cal, I award you on your approach to all of this, but I just need the data that you claim is so essential and so important in all of this.
	Then Jim, why don't you get the book and start?
	Then why don't you start by looking at what I've published?
	You haven't done it.
	So until you do, you're not in a position to try to tear it down, Jim.
	I am, because you have made allegations, including slanderous, against me, and I just want to know if you're for real.
	Jim, if you haven't seen the book, unless you're psychic, how can you tell what's in it?
	Well, I'm a good judge of character, and I'm a good judge of intentions.
	Jim, I'm just trying to get some data or some numbers, that's all.
	The question was, since the data is in the book, if you haven't seen it, how can you critique it?
	Let alone say it's not credible.
	But is there a report or is there a comment?
	Well, Jim, what's 439 pages worth of text?
	Alright, but we know he hasn't read the book, so we're not going to get anywhere.
	We were very precise.
	We were very exacting.
	I went to more than one lab and I went over and over and over because at the time, having a rock and roll background, I wondered if I wasn't on a mission from God and the Blues Brothers were my role model.
	There was humor.
	precise. We were very exacting. I went to more than one lab and I went over and over
	and over because at the time, having a rock and roll background, I wondered if I wasn't
	on a mission from God and the Blues Brothers were my role model. There was humor, there
	was intent, there was diligence in what we were doing. I just didn't find any experts
	who, using the most advanced tools available at the time, drew the conclusion that Mr.
	Korf did.
	And with all due respect to Dr. McAbee, who over the years I have, I believe, achieved an ability to have a dialogue with him, I just don't see where the proof of the scale model and the fraud lives.
	It just is not obvious to me.
	Is this the pot calling the kettle black?
	Alright, where is the fraud?
	Okay.
	Uh, which particular photos?
	Any photos.
	The photographs that Meyer shot of the planet Venus are Mariner images from NASA.
	You said, you said blatant hoax.
	Sorry.
	When, when Billy Meyer says he went to the planet Venus and took photographs of it while orbiting that planet, and those photographs match Mariner images from outer space, that's obviously proof that Meyer was not telling the truth.
	Okay, when Meyer photographs dinosaurs and they are stills from a B-movie... Well, you claim that they are stills from a B-movie.
	Do we know the producer, the director, and the distributor?
	Rent the movie King Dinosaur, Jim.
	Again, get the book and look at it.
	If you can disprove it, go ahead.
	I will, as Art knows, go on and apologize and admit errors.
	I admit when I'm wrong, okay?
	And nobody has come through here And has shown it.
	Jim, you haven't even looked at the book.
	At least I've read all the other 14 Meyer books.
	I just... I am a very busy person.
	I have many things to do.
	And when I investigate your contentions, Cal, and I just don't find any merit in the methodologies, I excuse you from my agenda and I continue on.
	Fine, Jim, but what kind of investigation are you doing if you don't even open the book?
	If you read it every time you sat down on the bathroom, you'd be done with it by now.
	It's been out for a few years.
	I would give more regard to your book than my bathroom.
	Well, apparently not, because you haven't even opened it, Jim.
	All right, but again, we're arguing about, we know he hasn't read the book, and you've both seen the same photographs, one believing they're absolutely genuine, the other believing they're absolutely a hoax.
	And people that are known skeptics ranging from Michael Malin to Eric Eliasson and others who all signed non-disclosures that we went to in an attempt to understand what we had here.
	And I don't think that I could get Michael Malin to lie for me.
	Michael in the book Light Years said that he thought I was optimistic, jovial, a believer, But he didn't say anything that he could find to be a hoax in the Meyer case, and I find that very revealing.
	I find that very revealing.
	And if we were trying to create a hoax, or if Meyer was perpetrating a hoax, and we were all naively entrapped by it, What a wild thing we did.
	Jim, there's no question about the credentials of Dr. Malin.
	Now, did he make a specific statement, as you just suggested, that he found nothing in the Meyer photographs to suggest hoax?
	That is correct.
	Okay, Art, let me tell you what Malin said, and he's quoted in the book.
	Have you talked to him?
	Yes, a long time ago.
	It says here, and this is also in Lightyears, by the way, so you might want to quote Lightyears more accurately.
	Okay.
	It says here, The, quote, the important thing would have been to have the original film.
	Without the very detailed information about the originals, there's almost nothing you can say.
	Then I, then, according to Malin, he had requested from you, Jim, quote, the stuff that actually went through the camera.
	I don't own that, but Cal, you found it to be a hoax.
	Well, I'm quoting Malin, okay?
	You found it to be a hoax on the same thing that Dr. Malin could find no evidence of.
	Yes, that does seem rather telling.
	In other words, Cal, you have declared these photographs to be a hoax minus the negatives.
	And Dr. Malin said it was not possible to make that judgment minus the negatives.
	Now, where is that quote that Malin said that?
	I'm not familiar.
	That's the first I've ever heard of that.
	No, I'm taking that from Jim.
	Jim?
	Well, I don't have the book in front of me, but... What book is this, Jim?
	...in the overall body of work for Michael Malin.
	And Michael and I... Michael is not a friend of mine.
	He's not an enemy of mine.
	He is an acquaintance of mine.
	And I sought him out as an expert.
	Remember, that was my job.
	My job was to find people that were... quality credentials.
	That were experts that we could go to and I have no silver mind control or capability of hypnotizing these people to state our opinion.
	They state their opinion.
	I did not write the books.
	I did not publish the books.
	I was the scout.
	I found these people, and their comments are their own.
	They are not saying my words.
	They are saying their words.
	Even you, Cal, a moment ago, I believe, quoted Malin, and I didn't hear any portion of it that suggested he said it was a hoax.
	No, all he said is that without the original negatives, there's nothing you can say.
	But you, Cal Korf, have said something without the original negatives.
	Yes, because the photos you're referring to, Art, I've got over 115 in there.
	The photos that Delitosa's referring to, they tested four pictures.
	Four.
	Well, we had more than that, but we used four as a control group to take to many, many different laboratories.
	And the very photo, Art, that we were arguing over earlier, the very first series, was not among the four.
	I looked at more than four pictures.
	You went to a dead man's wife and got pictures.
	Excuse me, Jimmy, please don't interrupt me.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	The photographs that Malin looked at are not the ones that, we're not talking about the same pictures.
	Meyer has taken like something like over a thousand pictures.
	The numbers changed here and there, but he's taken quite a lot.
	And I admit, and I'm very honest about this, that I have not analyzed every single photo Meyer ever took because... Have you ever analyzed any photo?
	I'm sorry, what was the question?
	Have you ever analyzed any photo?
	Yes, and the book is 439 pages, Jim, of that analysis and then some, including the photos of the dinosaurs, climate changes and so on.
	Don't you wish we had a snappy back then?
	Wouldn't it be great if back then we would have had a snappy?
	What is the resolution of the snappy?
	Oh, it can go 1024 by something or another.
	You can go way up.
	How many lines per inch is that?
	Well, I'm not exactly sure.
	You tell me, Jim.
	You're the expert.
	Well, a Snappy can go 1024 across the whole screen, but usually S-Video is 400 lines across the whole screen, but a Snappy would have been great.
	In any case, I just wondered, Cal, if you personally had ever tested any of the pictures or Whether Richard Haynes, as you have said in the video, helped you sneak into NASA to test pictures, which he doesn't remember, or Bruce McAbee, who I have a high regard for, or GSW, were the sole basis for your test.
	Jim, if you read the book, you would know that that information is in there, and the answer is no.
	And, uh, Dan Maccabee's endorsement is in the book.
	It begins the chapter that starts analyzing Meyer's pictures.
	He endorses his own formulas, or he endorses your findings by applying his formulas in your own way?
	No, he is saying, and again, you have to read the book, Jim, that the formulas regarding optical physics and calculating distance that I use to make my determinations on way more Meyer photos than you ever studied We're essentially correct, and he was responding specifically to a statement made by Wendell Stephens in the Mufon Journal that my analysis was not correct.
	Ooh, ooh, I have an idea.
	Why don't we collect all these Meyer photographs, put them on Art Bell's website, and have a variety of people download the pictures and test them again?
	I am more than happy to upload images to Mr. Bell's website, especially of planet Venus and the dinosaurs and other stuff that I don't even think you would endorse.
	Well, I did invite both of you to upload photographs prior to the debate this evening, didn't I?
	Yes, that's correct.
	I was not a major participant, I must say.
	Cal, did I not invite you to upload photographs?
	You asked me for images of the cover of the book.
	No, Cal.
	I gave you my webmaster's address and I said send him any photographs you would like supporting your story.
	Okay, then I will be happy to do that.
	Do you recall that, Cal?
	I guess so, yeah.
	I mean, I'll be happy to do it and if I don't do it, then feel free to Tell the world I haven't done it, but I'll be happy to.
	Well, at this point, I'm only telling the world what our discussion was prior to the program tonight.
	It was the same with you as it was with Jim.
	Well, I'm sorry, Art, if I did not get the invitation to upload all these photos.
	I gave you my webmaster's address.
	No, I understand that.
	I still have it on the posted notepad here.
	I'm happy to upload any image.
	All right, you two.
	That's how we'll settle it.
	When we come back, the Phoenix Lights.
	This is Coast to Coast AF.
	Her lips sweet as pie Her hands are never cold
	She's got Betty Davis' eyes She's got her music on
	You won't have to think twice She's pure as New York snow
	She's got Betty Davis' eyes Betty Davis' eyes
	Betty Davis' eyes Betty Davis' eyes
	Betty Davis' eyes Well.
	To talk with Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nigh from east of the Rocky Style World,
	1-800-825-5033.
	West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, 1-800-618-8255.
	1-800-825-5033. West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico.
	1-800-618-8255. 1-800-618-8255. Now again, here's Art Bell.
	It was about a year ago, actually we just passed the anniversary, it was March 13th, a little better than a year ago, when shortly after 8 o'clock in the evening, a series of events occurred in Phoenix, or over Phoenix, depending on your point of view, which still are absolutely astounding.
	Now this is a case, this is a contemporary case, it is A case which we have significant photographic evidence of, and significant eyewitness evidence of, and we will find out the areas of disagreement in this case, the Phoenix Lights, what's called the Phoenix Lights case, with our two guests, Cal Korff and Jim Delitoso, in just a moment.
	And then, we'll get to the rough stuff.
	So, one thing at a time.
	First of all, the live show is after dark.
	All right, again, we will leave the Meyer case in this place.
	I will invite both of these gentlemen, and I will repeat to them, if necessary, my webmaster's address.
	To send photographs to be examined by all of you out there.
	In fact, we can even set up voting on it if you wish.
	Let us now move to another topic, and that is the Phoenix Lights.
	March 13th, a little better than a year ago.
	It's the biggest contemporary UFO.
	And you notice I'm not saying alien craft.
	Or anything else.
	I'm saying UFO.
	Unidentified flying object case that we've got in modern times as far as I know.
	So I would like to hear a discussion between the two of you in the areas which you disagree.
	Shortly after 8 o'clock people began seeing things in Phoenix.
	Big things.
	Jim I know that there's an argument and a difference between the 8 or 8.30 sightings and the 10 and 10.30 sightings.
	Where do the two of you differ?
	Well, I don't know what Kalkorff's contention is other than he claimed that he had video that showed flares with smoke and things like that which have yet to be demonstrated.
	Let me tell you what happened.
	About 8 o'clock, 7.50, There were reports that got sent to Peter Davenport.
	The first one was in Paulden, Arizona, in the northwestern part of the state, by a former retired policeman, who was calling this number for the first time because he was seeing something that was startling to him.
	And it was a large array of lights and a V formation.
	For the next three hours, Reports not only came in to Peter Davenport, but came in to every television station, police station, and government agency in the state.
	As this array of lights flew from the northwestern part of the state to the central part of Phoenix, Arizona, right through the central corridor, over the air traffic corridor, down to Tucson, and turned around and came back and left the state and was last seen in Henderson, Nevada.
	We took over 400 reports in 10 months.
	We built a map that connected the dots and showed that the flight path was consistent and that there was not two events, five events, eight events, ten events, but one event.
	One event.
	With an object that morphed, had lights, join it, leave it, dock it, fly around, wait, come back, hover, disappear, reappear, and it was unusual.
	At the same time, reports of airplanes, flares, objects seen by air traffic controllers not on radar, citizens, Astronomy classes and the controversy of at least a year, if not the decade, spoke.
	I stand by the reports of the witnesses who saw formations of light different than any cluster of airplanes, flares, and aerial phenomena that they had ever seen, and I stand by to this moment.
	Including skepticism from, with all due respect, astronomers like Dr. Scallon, who say that my techniques are less than adequate because they don't understand them fully.
	I stand by, by contention, that something important happened.
	Not just relating to Phoenix, Arizona, but to our entire understanding of the UFO phenomena on this planet.
	There are many, many, many people who would agree with Jim Della Tosa with regard to the Phoenix Light situation.
	Cal, what are your criticisms of Jim's work in this area?
	Well, before I address that, I need to make one thing very clear.
	I think that what happened that night, and I got very interested in it because it happened to be my birthday, so my birthday got interrupted.
	Oh, cool.
	It was one of those things.
	It happens.
	I think there was a hodgepodge of events that night, and I am very honest in saying that I do not have an explanation for the earlier reports.
	The reports of this V-shaped object?
	I don't know what to make of that.
	The only bones of contention I have had are with the fact that the squadron commander that did drop flares at the precise location of the 10 o'clock event.
	I think those were flares, but I think people saw a lot of things that night, and a lot of those reports remain unexplained, and unfortunately, our government's attitude towards the UFO subject and the American people is one of apathy.
	They don't care.
	They didn't come out and say, hey, here's what happened.
	People had to go digging for it, and that's inexcusable.
	Do you remember the name of the squadron commander who dropped the flares?
	He was in the Discovery Channel documentary, Jim, where they disproved your flare analysis.
	Yeah.
	Do you remember that?
	Lieutenant Colonel Tanaka was not in Arizona.
	Well, according to his testimony in the Discovery documentary, he was.
	Yeah, that has been subsequently denied by himself and others that he was not actually in Arizona when he said, we did this and we did that.
	He was representing the affairs of the squadron, as had been reported to him, and I invite anyone who is interested to call the Maryland Air National Guard and talk to Lieutenant Colonel Tanaka and ask him.
	All right.
	Let's try and settle this.
	I believe that I've heard Cal make allegations that you, Jim, fraudulently took some of the eight 10 o'clock material, we'll call it that.
	And Morse did into 10 o'clock material.
	Is that accurate, Cal?
	No, all I'm saying is that there were a lot of events going on that night and that it's not possible scientifically to say everything seen up there was all due to a UFO.
	Hellbop was out that night.
	There was a refueling operation.
	There are unexplained evidence of reports of V-shaped objects.
	There was also a deformation that seemed to change shape and there were flares that were dropped.
	There was a hodgepodge of things going on, Art.
	And I think you have to take each individual case on its own individual merit.
	Okay, so you have never said that he took 8 o'clock early material and tried to present it as later material.
	As best as I can recall, okay, and if I'm wrong, please correct me, a long time ago, a month ago, because I haven't really talked about this since I've I was filming with the Discovery Channel production that to say that the 10 o'clock event were flares, or were not flares, I disagree with that.
	I think the earlier reports remain unexplained and should be researched further.
	I'm ashamed as an American citizen that our government doesn't seem to care what its own people think.
	I think that's unfortunate.
	But I do believe that the events caught on video that got so much attention Uh, we're flares at 10 o'clock, and that's a separate event from the earlier reports that remain unexplained.
	And I want to remind everybody that I, myself, did see a UFO years ago, and I don't have an explanation for it today.
	That's one of the reasons... Alright, Cal, if you, if you really feel that way, Cal, about our government, in a letter, uh, that you wrote on the internet, uh, in part, you said, are you listening, Bob Dean, Wendell Stevens, Michael Hessman, Billy Meyer?
	Jaime Mason, Liam Britt Elders, Tom Welsh, Tom King, Bill Hamilton, Frances Emma Barwood, Stephen Bassett, who often borrows Jim's car.
	The list is much longer because the UFO field is overloaded with con artists and people who have an agenda that is not based on the truth.
	Did you write that?
	Yes and the UFO field does have con artists in it.
	Why would you include Emma Barwood, for example, who did nothing more Um, then simply request that the government act as you just suggested it should.
	In what sense, Art?
	Honesty and openness and be willing to investigate these sorts of things.
	In other words, you seem to be taking on Emma Barwood.
	No, what I'm saying is that, and I say this in the internet posts, that there are a series of exposés coming out by journalists.
	One of them came out last week in the Phoenix New Times.
	Where the UFO subject has gotten so much attention, Art, that it's got the attention of the journalists, and this is great!
	Now the burden is on the UFO field to present its best evidence.
	And what has happened with the Phoenix New Times is this reporter went and double-checked
	some of the claims in my book, started to go back to scientists that had problems with
	Delitoso's analysis, and he wrote a piece that quotes these people saying that there
	are problems here.
	And I know for a fact that there are other similar type exposés coming out.
	And you know, like, if you look at what he quoted from me, he just looked at the quotes
	from the book.
	He didn't mention any single quote from me.
	And I don't want to get involved in those things.
	I want to focus instead, as I mentioned on the Internet, that I'm trying to see if we
	can get the government to declassify UFO documents that I think we have a legal right to have
	in our possession.
	If we can just learn what the government knows about UFOs, we'll certainly be way more knowledgeable
	than we know now, which is not very much.
	Well, I don't see how that position differs from Miss Barwood's position.
	I don't know of any active campaign from Barwood to write a bunch of letters to Air Force representatives I know she has called for an investigation.
	Oh, she has written to her state senator.
	She has tried to initiate all kinds of investigations, Cal.
	Yes, she's contacted several people, but she has not gone back systematically, and I think it's because she's not a UFO researcher, which is not her fault at all.
	She's running for office the way that we're starting to do, in that we're approaching the same agencies like the NSA and saying, look, the Supreme Court ruled years ago That you guys could withhold this UFO data for national security reasons.
	Well, now that the Cold War is over, can we go back to that decision and can you let us have the data?
	We're not interested in compromising national security.
	I'd like to think there's a way for them to say, yeah, it was an unidentified event, but we don't need to know the names of agents that might have reported those or compromised their safety.
	All right, but again, Cal, to be fair, these are your words.
	You talked about all these people and then said the list is much longer, meaning names.
	Because the UFO field is overloaded with con artists and people who have an agenda that is not based on the truth.
	Now, that puts all of those people, your own words, into that category, Cal.
	Well, I don't think it does, Art.
	I don't have that in front of me, but... These are your words, aren't they?
	The UFO field is overloaded with people like that.
	I also stated in my entire book that every other area of scientific inquiry has its problems, and what we need to do is raise the standards of evidence and science pick out the data for peer review. That's why I put over
	500 footnotes in my book so that people could check it and that's just the way you document things.
	Do you do you take issue, uh, Cal, with what Jim said that, uh, it was not two events
	or separate events but one event?
	I think that there were several events that night.
	Everything from Hellbop to a military operation to flares to unidentified flying objects.
	Well, Hellbop was visible to everybody with a clear sky all across the country.
	But it was still an event that night.
	A lot of people were out that night watching Hellbop.
	But my point, Art, is that several things were seen that night, some of which remain unexplained.
	And I have no problem admitting that I'm baffled by those reports.
	But one interesting thing to think about is if If, if there are extraterrestrials, as we all have been following a passion in our lives to find out, whether it's Cal Core for Art Bell and many others, thousands of millions of others, what if extraterrestrials said, let's go to a higher octave of an attempt to communicate, not just with human beings,
	But with government, military, and many other officials, and did something.
	Now, we are doing what we agreed we wouldn't.
	Throw out the baby with the bathwater.
	And we are purposefully attempting to discredit, for personal reasons, aspects of a Rosetta Stone.
	And, I'm not saying that that is it, I'm saying that, as an optimist, Combined with my skepticism, so therefore I'm a scoptimist.
	What if, and I'm just saying what if, we should look at the truth of the chief of the Gila River Indians, who says that the lights were directly overhead.
	Not 30 miles away at the Gunnery Range, but directly overhead.
	And that there were pilots and military people And National Guard and cross-section of humans like the day the Earth stood still.
	Wondering.
	Confused.
	Interested.
	Looking for collaboration.
	And all of a sudden we have the dichotomy that has prevented them from overt communications materialized live and in front of us.
	And here we are manifesting it live on the radio.
	Discussing things that are trivial in their view of trying to have humans understand that here they are and we have petty collusions collaborations and conspiracies trying to discredit something that was really interesting really interesting and really important being cast aside In favor of some earlier agenda.
	And that is what has happened in the Phoenix Lights.
	Cal, I forgive you for convincing Erskine and Mottzer to go to all the local media and attempt to discredit me.
	We all know that you were behind Erskine and Mottzer parading your book to every local media here in town.
	Let us not forget That we all hope, hope, that there are extraterrestrials, whether they're part of our spiritual nature or not, looking at us, wondering what we're going to do.
	Just pretend that for a moment.
	And here we are, discussing flares or not flares.
	Everyone knows that extraterrestrials come here, Everyone knows those were not flares.
	Even Dr. Scallon, who challenged my procedure, knows that it's correct.
	And I felt good today as I talked to my, uh, peers.
	Dr. McAbee, Dr. Cornett, uh, Dr. Carlotto, hopefully Dr. Malin will agree to review my procedure.
	Everyone knows that my procedure was correct, but we have a duty to be a
	skeptic.
	And to adhere to a prior agenda and throw mud at all this, and hope that once again, we can prevent any further
	understanding that extraterrestrials may really come here, and this may
	have been an event.
	So...
	Joe?
	Well, it's kind of hard to respond to that.
	If Jim wants to think that I've got people out doing whatever, that's his right.
	Maybe he's going to blame me for the Tony Ortega article.
	We all know it already.
	Why do we have to blame you?
	It's all known already.
	Alright, Jim.
	Give him a chance to respond.
	Thank you, Art.
	You know, whatever Tony Ortega wrote and what those people said about you, Jim, I had nothing to do with that, okay?
	In fact, I was shocked.
	To find out that Ken Dinwiddie of Deenza Systems even went on record because he had turned down numerous interviews and I was shocked to find out that he validated what I had quoted him in in my book about you.
	Why were you shocked?
	Jim, let me finish.
	I am all for the scientific study of UFO reports.
	Okay?
	I'm for that.
	I have seen something that I still can't explain.
	I'm fairly familiar with a lot of what flies in the air.
	And I'm still stumped years later.
	And, you know, I'm trying to get to the truth.
	And that's why I want to, you know, I'm not going to go ahead and write another Meyer book.
	I'm going to go ahead and try to focus my efforts, working with a small group of people, to go ahead and try to put pressure on the government through the media and in correspondence with them to say, hey, all the records are not declassified on UFOs.
	Can we, you know, reach some compromise and try to go ahead and get that information?
	The CIA, for example... Jim, Jim, you're interrupting me again.
	Excuse me.
	Gentlemen, let me interrupt both of you because we are at the top of the hour.
	And when we get back, we will jump into the meat of this.
	There was an article in the Phoenix New Times recently that got all of this going afresh.
	Uh, which was an expose-type article, and we will discuss that article, uh, when we get back.
	Al Gorth and Jim Delitoso, a debate underway.
	I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AF.
	day out.
	Good morning, everybody.
	bell. First time callers may reach out at area code 702-727-1222.
	Now, here again is Art.
	Once again, here I am. Good morning, everybody. We have a debate well underway at this hour.
	The debate horrors are Cal K. Korff, who is said by many, though he would probably deny it,
	to be something of a debunker.
	Calgarth has a book called The Billy Meyer Story, Spaceships of the Pleiades.
	And again, for those of you just joining, he is president and CEO of Total Research, a think tank dedicated to studying humankind's most enduring mysteries and phenomena.
	He is a popular author and lecturer.
	Now, on the other side, we have Jim Delitoso.
	Jim runs something called Village Labs in Phoenix.
	Or in the Phoenix area, I guess you really ought to say.
	Jim has been at that for about 15 years.
	Prior to that time, he was in the entertainment field for 15 years.
	That represents their backgrounds.
	Thus far, we have discussed the Billy Meyer case with a resolution culminating In an invitation to post photographs on the website so the audience can decide for themselves, which I hope will occur.
	We have been discussing the Phoenix Lights situation, the anniversary of which just passed.
	Coming up, we're going to get into a bit more, if you can imagine that, of a contentious category.
	I'll sort of make that clear to you, or how that's going to be clear to you will be apparent in a very few moments.
	First, I want to talk to you about something fun.
	Alright?
	It is fun.
	I do it, as I said last night, with some trepidation.
	But nevertheless, I do it.
	I refer, of course, to my famous trepidation changer.
	My very famous voice changer.
	I can... trepidation is the right word.
	I can suddenly go like this and I can make my voice sound any way I want.
	And I usually use this to, well, you know, sound like the guy who's down there.
	But I can sound any way I want, and so can you.
	Now watch this.
	All of a sudden, if I don't want to talk to somebody, I can run it right up on here and I can say, I'm sorry, Mr. Bell is not home right now.
	Call back later, please.
	I can literally make my voice sound any way I want.
	I can slowly lower it to a point where you can barely understand it.
	Or anything in between.
	That's what I can do with my voice changer.
	And that's what you can do with your voice changer.
	That's right.
	Now there are a lot of uses for a voice changer that I would not consider to be particularly moral.
	Or proper, and we urge you not to do those.
	Moreover, those of you who get one and call my show with it, will be struck by a bolt of moral lightning.
	However, having said all that, if you want to have more fun than you've had in your whole life, we've got it right here.
	The Telephone Voice Changer.
	A digital processor that uses 16-bit digital technology to do to your voice what you just fucked up.
	It's easy to use, you don't have to wire anything, it uses three AA batteries, and it goes in between your phone in two seconds flat to plug it in.
	The Sea Crane Company has them.
	If you would like one, which of course you would promise to use, um, with all, um, uh, uh, due, um, ethics and, uh, morality and all the rest of it, right?
	And I can assure you, by noon, they'll be sold out.
	Gone, gone.
	So, you want one?
	Call Bob Crane in the morning.
	Again, $69.95, and they will not last.
	The number is 1-800-522-8863.
	You can begin calling at 7.30 in the morning, Pacific, 10.30 Eastern, at 1-800-522-8863.
	The number is 1-800-522-8863.
	You can begin calling at 730 in the morning, Pacific, 1030 Eastern at 1-800-522-8863.
	The Sea Crane Company has you zeroed.
	Don't you want the ignition system Mark Bell has on his hot rod Metro.
	It's like a heart transplant for your car!
	That's 1-800-627-8800 and www.jacobselectronics.com Alright, before we leave the Phoenix question, is there anything, either, any points either one of you would like to make with regard to Phoenix?
	Well, this is Jim Note.
	Excuse me, I'm feeding my cat.
	That's quite alright.
	Uh, Cal stated to a number of people that he had a video of the Phoenix Lights event that clearly showed smoke and evidence of flares that, according to Mike Fortson, he was going to post a few days after they met during the show, which has yet to show up on the net.
	I wonder if Cal had that forthcoming.
	Cal?
	I, uh, am I am not writing a report on the Phoenix Lights with the Discovery Channel and the Area 51 special.
	There is a report being written by the MUFON group.
	I've turned all the data over.
	There's some other stuff that I'm digging up that I'm going to send over, so I'm sure that information will come out, but I am trying to focus on the government document effort.
	That's where my focus is, and since the government has started to send memos, that's why I've had to abandon Phoenix stuff and go over there.
	That's... No, you did say that you were going to post that.
	It was my intention to post it, yes.
	But if you have the video, why don't you just spend the ten minutes and post it?
	It's not as simple.
	I don't like to post images that, legally, I might not have exposed.
	But you do it all the time.
	No, I don't, Jim.
	Well, who's poking?
	If I was back in the home state of Washington, I could tell you exactly who the two people were.
	I'm sorry, I haven't bothered to memorize data that's over a year old.
	Hey, that's fair.
	Do you recall how you came upon this video?
	Yeah, what happened, and I posted, and I told Peter Davenport this, because this upset me, Art.
	There are some people out there that seem to enjoy calling up Peter Center, which, you know, he has no idea these people are not telling him the truth, and they're sandbagging the database, and that really upsets me.
	And, Peter, if you want to know, you know, which incidents I'm talking about, I'll give you that data.
	I haven't heard from Peter, I know he's very busy, but, you know, Art, that's why I wrote the Meyer book, because there's nothing wrong with cleansing the UFO database of cases that are spurious, just like if we find something that is unexplained, like some of these Phoenix reports, we have to call it like it really is.
	Okay, again, though, the question was, do you recall how you came upon That piece or that clip.
	It was sent to me just like I've received maybe five or six copies of this Mexico City footage that's going to air on UPN.
	I mean, I get stuff all the time.
	So you're saying it was sent anonymously?
	No, it wasn't sent anonymously.
	It included a letter by two people, one of whom didn't even give their last name.
	And that's anonymous.
	Huh?
	That's virtually anonymous, if you don't have a name.
	Well, no, because there was a first and last name on one and just a first name on the other, and the person that wrote the letter was just referring to his friend by the first name.
	That's all.
	So, unlike the Mexico City footage... Excuse me.
	Unlike the Mexico City footage, where we have no names at all, at least that I know of, I wouldn't call it anonymous.
	Anonymous, by my definition at least, is when we don't have... Somebody who said something like, Jim gave this to me.
	What?
	I'm going back and reconstructing what you just said.
	This footage from somebody who sent you a letter, and signed it with a first and last name, and said something like, Jim or Frank.
	No, what it was is this person said he was out with his friend, gave the first name, didn't give the last name, and that we, quote unquote, I don't know whether he means literally we as in a literal sense or we as in a royal we sense, said they shot this.
	Also, the letter claimed that they were the originators of this video.
	They said that they had shot it, but they didn't really have any more info other than they shot it.
	And it shows smoke.
	I'm sorry?
	And it shows smoke.
	It shows some lights going in and out of focus, and when they're out of focus, you see what looks like smoke.
	But I can't even tell whether what Part of the country it was shot in.
	There's nothing there that shows you anything.
	It's like looking at a photograph of a pond that only shows water.
	You can't prove where it was shot.
	So your discussion with Mike Fortson during the Lisa Show taping where you said you had proof that the Phoenix lights were flares because you had video with smoke has since diminished just a hair.
	No Jim, I think that's an inaccurate characterization.
	What happened is Because I was behind in even posting the stuff, because one of the problems when I post stuff on the internet is that the person was upset that I didn't send it to him literally two days later.
	That was six months ago.
	But at the time, I had a higher priority, and I'll tell you what that higher priority was.
	I was on the road doing the Lisa Show, as you know, when Art Bell was rightly on me for incorrect information, when I had said that Art was trying to censor me from radio stations.
	Well, I prioritized everything I did to give Art the data he needed and as you know Jim, you're
	the one who sent letters to the radio stations saying that if they put me on KFYI you were going to sue
	them.
	Alright, we're going to get to all of that in a moment.
	Just before we do, we have an opportunity to verify.
	Joining us is Peter Davenport from the UFO Reporting Center in Seattle.
	Peter, welcome to the fray.
	Thank you.
	Nice to be here.
	What do you have to add?
	I just wanted to get one comment in here briefly.
	I just, a moment or two ago, heard Cal Korff state that he had ...reported such and such to me... I have not talked to Cal Korff since July of 1995.
	That was the last time that he and I ever spoke.
	I just make that point.
	He did state definitively that he and I had spoken.
	We have not... Peter, where did I say you and I spoke?
	I believe I said that I posted on the internet... No, you just stated...
	Huh?
	I just heard you on the program state that you had reported to me, you had talked to me, and so on.
	Which was to you and the public saying that there were some people who were sandbagging you and I didn't like that, okay?
	So, what you said was you were very disappointed.
	You've twisted the facts.
	I have a copy of your email that is not what you said.
	What did I say?
	You said that you were grateful that Mr. Gribble had done a better job.
	That's what the email says.
	Uh, Peter, why don't you read, instead of just the selective part, why don't you read the part where I mentioned... Well, okay, but, but, but, Cal, did you say that in the email?
	I mean, let's...
	Let's stick to one thing at a time here.
	Are we going to address the other issue, Art?
	We can get to it indeed, but let's take them one at a time.
	Did you say that?
	I said that I felt they were more objective.
	I did say that, and that is my personal opinion.
	Because what I have seen in the UFO field, Art, which does bother me, is that it used to be in the 70s that nobody had a problem with most UFO reports remaining unidentified.
	Or rather, Most UFO reports being honest, simple mistakes.
	What I've seen a lot of researchers now do is tend to defer to the UFO explanation as the default when we have to be very careful.
	I don't have a problem with 5 or 10% of the reports being unexplained or worthy of scientific study.
	Most people make honest mistakes, report honestly what they think they saw, But not every UFO report is an extraterrestrial spacecraft.
	The debris that was Russian rocket debris decaying, when he was convinced that those were UFO reports, well, I had a problem with that, and it did bother me that that position was taken.
	And I expressed that, but I also... I'm calling on another matter, and that was a matter less than five minutes ago.
	I heard you, Cal, state that you had talked to me, you had reported such and such to me, and so on.
	I immediately went to the telephone.
	Let me finish my point, if you would please.
	I immediately went to the telephone because you and I have not talked since July 1995.
	We have not talked on the telephone.
	We have not talked in person.
	We have had no direct communications, Cal, since July of 1995.
	Then, what was the email to you, Peter?
	What was that?
	No, that was an email sent to me by another party who said, this is what Cal Korf is saying.
	I didn't send that to another party, Peter.
	Pardon?
	That email was sent to several people, one of which was you, and you never got back to me to say, Cal, which report?
	Cal, it was not back to me.
	It was sent to me by another person.
	You're dead wrong.
	And you stated less than 10 minutes ago on this program, reported to me, that is never the case.
	That is dead wrong.
	Peter, if you disagree with what I'm saying here, please state the precise date and time that we spoke, or under what conditions, And we will test that theory.
	Peter, I went ahead and made it very clear that I had communicated with you via email.
	If you want updates, you can look at the archive.
	That's not what I heard on the tape.
	There were people who went ahead and said that they had told me that they were calling up and making up reports.
	And I think that that's a horrible thing to do.
	What we will do is go back through the tape of this program, listen to what you said less than roughly ten minutes ago, And, uh, establish whether you were saying it was an email communication or we got the distinct impression you were talking to me.
	We can run the tape back if necessary.
	Let's do it.
	Feel free to keep on talking to you now.
	I'm sorry, but I did send you that email, Peter, and you never asked me which reports were you sending me a copy of the email you sent me because I have never received a direct email from CalCorp.
	It's that simple.
	Well, Peter, it's in the record, and if you're aware of it, obviously you are, because you're citing it.
	How come you never asked me for which report you made up?
	I just stated, Cal, I just stated that the email was sent to me by a third party who intercepted it and said, this is what Cal Korff is saying about the hotline.
	Intercepted it?
	The reason I think this is an important issue is because Cal has said, Cal, you've mentioned, in the same vein as you mentioned your discussions with Peter, Um, so it makes this issue rather important.
	Do you agree at this time, Cal, that you and I have had no conversations on the telephone or in person?
	I didn't say on the telephone.
	I didn't say I had a conversation on the telephone or in person since July of 95.
	Yeah, you can answer that, Cal.
	And I never said I did, Art.
	No, I'm asking you now, Cal.
	You do agree, Cal, that you have not talked with him since July of 1995?
	I agree that I have not talked in person on the phone with him.
	I did send him an email.
	It also went to UFO Updates.
	And if he didn't get it and someone intercepted it, which I don't understand what that means, that's not my problem.
	I haven't ever received an email from you, Cal.
	Well, I can't control that.
	If I send an internet email, I can't control if it does or doesn't get there.
	I have people send me emails and AOL will bounce them.
	Sometimes that happens, Peter.
	We're not going to be able to settle whether or not he could argue about that till the cows come home.
	However, Peter, if you would like to... I presume you're taping, Peter?
	Yes, I am.
	So if you would like to take the opportunity between now and the bottom of the hour break to rewind that tape and play back the segment in question.
	Would you like to do that?
	Yeah.
	That sounds like a good idea.
	I'll see if I can find it.
	All right.
	I'm going to put you on hold, Peter.
	Very good.
	All right.
	In the meantime, Cal, you're back on with Jim.
	Jim, do you want to interject something here?
	Yeah, this is great.
	I wonder if I should order some popcorn.
	Peter, and you're playing a tape that, whatever it is, I mean, I sent that email.
	This is going to be a way of settling that.
	Well, it's in, it's archived in the updates archive.
	Yes, but the reason that he called, he was saying that you had just stated on the air that you had talked to him.
	And I explained what I just meant by that, Art.
	I use the word talked as internet and I'm sorry maybe I should have said I typed an email to him okay?
	Well this is a very important distinction because you have quoted several people Cal that you said you talked to and and so when you first were confronted you said no I didn't say that well are you now saying you did say that?
	I'm having trouble following the bouncing ball here.
	Excuse me, but what is your exact point?
	I think you said you had an IQ up around 200.
	It's not bouncing that high, Cal.
	Art, if you ask anyone who knows me, I don't believe in IQ tests.
	So if anyone wants to use that... This is a very simple matter.
	Sending an email is not talking to someone.
	That implies what you and I are doing right now, along with Jim, having a discussion.
	Either on the phone or he allows direct interaction.
	And Art, I will say this for what I hope is the last time because I hope it's very clear.
	If I use the word talk, I am sorry.
	I'm telling you I sent an email to him and UFO updates and in there I mentioned that people were sandbagging his database and that is just wrong.
	And if he wanted to know what reports I was referring to, please contact me and I'll tell him.
	And as far as I know, he never did, but I can't prove he never contacted me.
	And even if he never contacted me, so what?
	That's his business.
	All right.
	That's where we're going to break here at the half hour.
	And, uh, when we come back, uh, we'll try and settle this.
	We'll see if we have the audio immediately available.
	And then we'll move on from there because there is a lot more material.
	There are allegations that Calcorph made against Jim Delitoso that I have here on paper.
	So, we'll come back with that in a moment as the debate continues.
	Reminding my audience, you can vote on the website, um, with regard to who you believe.
	Approaching 12 AM.
	Call Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nigh on the Wild Card Line at area code 702-727-8.
	Call Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nigh on the Wild Card Line at area code 702-727-1295.
	That's area code 702-727-1295.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	It is.
	Good morning, everybody.
	Jim DeLaTosso and Cal Kors are locked in debate.
	With us, as well, right now, is Peter Davenport from the UFO Reporting Center.
	And we'll get back to all of them in a moment and settle this.
	Are you on 800-704-8844?
	Of course, risk is involved and you could lose all or part of your initial investment.
	Only risk capital should be used.
	Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.
	All right, back now to my guest, Cal Korf, Jim Delitoso, and with us now, Peter Davenport.
	And let us Quickly try and set it up.
	Peter, are you online?
	I'm with you, Art.
	Alright.
	Do you have a recording?
	I do.
	It's just about 15 seconds long.
	It should resolve.
	Go ahead.
	Here we go.
	Data that's over a year old.
	That's fair.
	Do you recall how you came upon this video?
	Yeah, what happened, and I posted, and I told Peter Davenport this, because this upset me, Art.
	There are some people out there that seem to enjoy... Dead wrong.
	Alright, I told Peter Davenport this.
	Right, I didn't say I talked to him, I told him.
	And the internet is one way to talk.
	In fact, Art, I thank you for conducting this poll because it shows 70% according to the chart and 24% in favor of... Well, listen, the poll, first of all, is not complete until the program is.
	I understand that, Art.
	Secondly, in fact, you did say that.
	I did say what?
	That you talked.
	Where's the recording saying I talked?
	I thought I just heard the word told.
	Told?
	Alright.
	Calcorp and Peter Davenport have never ever had any direct communication either over the telephone or by email.
	My record of email will show it very clearly.
	I don't even know how I can contact Cal.
	Peter, the very email that you just quoted has my return email on it.
	So that is not true.
	No, I've never received an email from Cal Corp is what I'm saying.
	Well, I can't... I've been looking for your email or your phone number for about a year to invite you to one of our monthly move-on meetings up here, Cal, and I could not find either one of them.
	Then why don't you look at the email you quoted from that has my return email and the header and footer information.
	It's right there, Peter.
	That was not available to me.
	It was only a second-hand quote of what Cal Korf had said about the National UFO.
	Maybe you can go on UFO Update.
	Gentlemen, on the radio, we are not going to settle the question of UFO.
	There is no way we can do that.
	Peter, I thank you for the recording.
	Thank you very much, Art.
	All right, take care.
	That's Peter Davenport.
	Now, you mentioned, I wasn't going to mention it, Cal, but you mentioned it.
	There was, between you and I, Cal, a very severe incident.
	Yes.
	You, in fact, wrote that I had been putting pressure on my radio affiliates to censor you, to keep you off the air.
	In fact, you went so far as to say that I had threatened to cancel my affiliation with, for example, KFYI and another station in the Northwest.
	If you were allowed on the air, is that correct?
	Yes, Arden, I think we've been over this.
	Well, you brought it up, I didn't.
	Yeah, I understand that.
	And the reason I now bring it up, and you were absolutely incorrect about that, weren't you?
	Yes, Arden, I apologize to you.
	And once again, the information that I had been told was wrong.
	The least I can do is apologize.
	Because I was wrong, and when I'm wrong, I admit I'm wrong.
	Yes, you apologized after a long, very difficult ordeal with you, in which I threatened to sue you.
	And I said, you know, you are damaging me, and I threatened to sue you, and you continued for days to say, no, I've got the documentation.
	Do you remember that, Cal?
	Yes, because the person that had told me this told me they were sending it, and I'd received part of it, and when I looked at all of it, because You made me get on it, and that was the right thing to do.
	I finally got it, and it turns out that it was wrong, and the least I could do to apologize... Alright, then who had... Alright, then this brings us to where we want to go.
	Who had written that?
	Who had written what?
	I'm sorry?
	Who had written the thing suggesting that Art Bell was going to pressure his affiliates and all the rest of it?
	Who... Is it Jim Delitoso?
	Is that who you meant?
	No, no.
	First off, nobody wrote anything that I recall.
	I was told verbally.
	But on your website, you used a letter from my attorney to that radio station that won.
	Yeah, KFYI.
	Claiming that there was some affiliation with Art Bell in the letter that was written and there was no such thing.
	I need to go back a little bit on this so we get something very clear.
	The information that had been verbally communicated to me... By whom?
	I don't have to identify who that is as a journalist.
	No, you do.
	No, I don't, Jim, and certainly not to you.
	By whom?
	Well, then, to the 12 million people listening.
	Uh, Jim, I am within my legal rights as an investigative journalist to protect... Okay, that's fair.
	Okay?
	Thank you.
	Now, if I can just finish, please?
	The information that was communicated to me verbally regarded Barry Young Show KFYI, okay?
	Uh, as you know... And you claimed two other radio stations for a total of three.
	That's true.
	That's the information that had been communicated to me.
	I'm reiterating that, okay?
	By whom?
	Um, I'm sorry, I couldn't hear that.
	By whom?
	Uh, again, Jim, I've already answered that question as far as what I'm doing on that issue, so I'm not gonna repeat it again.
	Okay.
	Okay, so, um, when Art, and rightly so, put my feet to the fire because the information was wrong, Art was perfectly justified in being upset.
	I was on the road doing the Lisa Show.
	I ran down those issues, got the so-called documentation, and when I got it, it did not match what I had been told verbally.
	What you presented as fact and truth on those radio shows.
	Uh, Jim, are you going to let me finish?
	Sure.
	Thank you.
	When I got that documentation, I was shocked and hurt to find out that A, it wasn't true, and it's like, okay, I need to give Art an apology, and boy, talk about making a really bad blender.
	I'd never made a mistake like that before.
	And, not only that, but here comes two letters, one from you and your attorney to KFYI saying, essentially, and it's on the web, that if KFYI lets me on the air, you would resort, it says more or less to legal action, And then they replied to you and essentially said... Well, you had made up stories in earlier radio stations, and they'd be concerned about that.
	Jim, um, please don't interrupt me, okay?
	Okay.
	Alright, so, they write you back, and they essentially said that, uh, roughly that, uh, you know, they were gonna put me on anyway, and then they started asking you questions about, did you or didn't you have a PhD, or claim that you had one from McGill University, et cetera, et cetera.
	I did have one, yeah.
	And as I noted, Jim, please don't interrupt, and as I noted, As far as I know, and maybe you have, but as far as I know, you didn't respond and didn't even supply proof about the issue of, you know, claiming you had a PhD from McGill when the truth is you didn't.
	We've been over that on other shows, like MSN.
	You finally admitted, only because I kept asking you, that that statement wasn't true.
	And it's nothing personal, Jim, but here's the issue.
	I've made mistakes.
	But, I have never gone around and said I have a PhD when I don't.
	And if anybody says that, it doesn't matter who they are.
	It hurts the credibility of the field of ufology.
	In fact, your words, Cal, let me read you your own words.
	Again, from the same letter that you have told us you wrote.
	I care very much, you say, about the credibility of ufology.
	That's why, as an objective researcher, I call it as it is, Jim Delitoso is a Voting fraud and con artist.
	Case closed.
	His photo analysis are not scientific.
	And now they have been disproven yet again for the umpteenth time for nearly 20 years now.
	People are finally waking up to this fact.
	I am on to other things.
	And it goes on from there.
	Clearly you called him a fraud and a con artist.
	Are those your words?
	Art, you know those are my words.
	And if you, as you'll see in my book, which Jim has never disputed, according to him, he's never even opened, there are quotes from him claiming he says he has a PhD from McGill University.
	There's also a letter from McGill University saying, Jim, don't interrupt me, please.
	Please don't interrupt me.
	There's a quote, or there is a letter from McGill University that is a figure in the book that says that Jim has never attended the university, ...was not awarded a doctorate.
	Jim then said he had an honorary doctorate.
	I then checked that and it turns out that there's no evidence to support that and that's what McGill says.
	And if you look at that illustration, you will see at the bottom that there is a computer file that's been opened because I'm not the only one that has called that university running down that issue.
	And the Tony Ortega article cites several people Where their opinion of Jim is similar to what I have expressed.
	And, uh, Cal, did you have input to that article?
	Through Tony Ortega?
	The only thing that I did is, um... Let's see, I'm trying to remember how it went, um... Didn't you provoke... No, I, I went ahead... Didn't you provoke Erskine Boxer to seek out local media?
	Um, excuse me, but can I finish, please?
	Well, um, we do want to allow some interaction here.
	Well, yeah, but I can't even get the point out, Art.
	I'm being interrupted, and when I talk, I can't hear him.
	Okay, well, the point is to every now and then pause and allow him to respond.
	Okay.
	The Ortega wanted to know if it was possible to interview Ken Dinwiddie to check my account, where Dinwiddie, where I sat down, Ken Dinwiddie, the technician at the end of systems, where some Meyer enhancements were done. I sat Dinwiddie down in
	his living room with the Meyer book, went through the photo analysis section, I said, comment on
	each of the captions, are they true, yes or no? I quoted Dinwiddie's statements
	that it was made up stuff essentially in the book. Ortega says, well, I want to verify that
	myself, I want to call Dinwiddie. And I said, I don't have his number, I haven't talked to him in a long
	time. I said, I don't even think he'll talk because he's always turned down subsequent interviews.
	But, right, because people know that Chuck Masters, the founder of that company, is now involved
	with the company that I work with.
	Well, okay, let me finish my statement please.
	So, much to my surprise, when the story comes out, and I end up getting a copy of it, it turns out that Dinwiddie did talk, and you'd have to ask Tony Ortega for the full stuff he said.
	What Ortega did is he lifted verbatim quotes from my book and simply noted that I did what he said that I quoted him accurately.
	But lifted verbatim from your book, which was a lie.
	Because we never stated that De Anza did testing.
	It is clearly stated in a standalone caption that De Anza Systems provided the images that better illustrate, better illustrate our testing procedures.
	We never claimed in writing anywhere, as you have alleged, That De Anza did testing, and that is a lie that you have perpetrated for your own purposes upon the general public.
	No, it's not, Jim.
	Ken didn't say that I got coiled.
	Stop.
	And he would not have said that if I lied, Jim.
	Calc or stop.
	It is clearly stated in the book.
	Calc, Calc, Calc.
	It is in print.
	Calc, you had a pretty good run at it.
	Let him just respond.
	Okay, sure.
	It is clearly stated in the book.
	It is a stand-alone caption.
	Thanks are given to De Anza Systems for whatever it says I have in front of me.
	For their computer systems that better illustrate our test procedures.
	Nowhere, in any documentation anywhere, do we ever claim that De Anza Systems did testing.
	You alone, you alone, extracted that quote, disguised it, And claimed that we claimed that we did testing at De Anza, and you know that that is not true.
	Okay, now- In subsequent books of the entire investigation procedure, all of the labs that did the testing were annotated, talked about, and qualified, and you knew that we never claimed that, and you found a confederate.
	One lone confederate.
	Are you saying that Ken Dinwiddie is lying when he says that you made up the stuff and that the captions that you included in the book have nothing to do with the photos that were included?
	Are you saying that Ken Dinwiddie is lying, Jim?
	Of course not.
	Well, who's the confederate then?
	I am claiming that Ken Dinwiddie was a worker at the facility where Chuck Masters The founder, chairman of the company.
	And Wayne Hepler, the general manager, assigned and loaned us a quality, fine gentleman.
	The man you talked to.
	Yes, and the way... To allow us to... For that afternoon.
	Fine, but the... Move their systems, and you knew, Cal, Jim, Jim, why don't you address what's in the book if you haven't read it?
	Again, unless you're talking about our book.
	Jim, you need to look at what Dean, what he says.
	But it never says, nowhere in any of our, and I am second tier or third tier, in any of our contentions do we claim that DeAnza did testing.
	And only you claim that and you found one lone confederate who would collaborate with
	your misuse of the English language.
	Uh, who's this confederate?
	Dinwiddie?
	He's the one that said that you made the stuff up.
	We never made anything up.
	Well, I'm quoting him.
	We made it up.
	We made it up.
	If your contention to him that we did testing there was correct, we made it up, but we never contended that.
	We contended.
	that their computer systems one of many places that we went many better illustrated our test procedures and as you and many who have read the test publications know that De Anza was not one of the places where we did testing but one of was one of the places where we auditioned a computer system which we later purchased I was a De Anza owner, I was a Via Video owner, each under particular arrangements, and after years of testing the Meyer case at various substantial laboratories, which you know in fact happened, you selected to isolate one particular place where you could find a confederate
	Who would collaborate with you for whatever the reason?
	Who's this confederate?
	I would like to add something here.
	Words do have consequences.
	And I'm addressing this to you, Cal.
	I mean, they really do.
	As you found out when you said them with reference to me, which was a mistake, which eventually you did apologize for.
	They have consequences.
	They hurt people.
	Now, you have said of Jim Delitoso that he is A fraud, that's a very strong word, and you have said a con artist, and that's an extremely strong word.
	Now, it's my understanding that some of Jim's backers, as a result of these words appearing in the Phoenix New Times, or words equivalent to that, have backed out.
	Is that true, Jim?
	That is correct.
	So you've lost funding?
	Well, I can regain my credibility by being absolute and direct with people in my immediate dialogue with them, but the day-to-day issues are that the New Time story was, in the immediacy after the event, very devastating.
	To you, yes.
	Cal, in messages you have clearly stated that you thought that Jim had, in essence, Built people, I'll use that word, built people out of money.
	Is that accurate?
	Um, I don't, I'd have to have those messages in front of me.
	Well, in an email that you sent out, dated Friday, 6 March, 98, 1442, 46 Eastern Standard Time, you sent an email out which I would invite you to read.
	Do you have that in front of you and could you read it?
	It's only 1,500 words.
	Well, I don't Jim, because I am not I'm here at a phone to be on the show.
	I'm not at a place where I've got all my computers.
	But Cal, you know what your words were.
	Can I read it?
	Yeah, you may.
	I send a lot of email every day.
	Alright, you may read it.
	Alright, and then Cal, hold on a second.
	We can't obviously handle 1,500 words, but let's at least get to the relevant portion.
	What did he say?
	Relevant according to whom, Art?
	Relevant according to what you said.
	With regard to what?
	If you're going to read one whatever, and not the whole thing, isn't that selective choice of data?
	The bottom line is, Kennedy, when he told me that Jim made this up, I quoted him accurately, Ortega checked it, and that was in the article.
	You provoked locals, Erskine and Monster, to seek out local media, When none of the primary media from the television to the primary newsprint would take the story and finally Tony Ortega at the New Times bit and did this story due to your provoking.
	No Jim, you need to ask Richard... The story that you extracted talent...
	We can prove this.
	I will read what you have extracted and you claim things different.
	I invite the readers.
	Look, what we can do here is, indeed, Jim, you can read the words and Cal can say, these are my words or I deny those are my words.
	It's that easy.
	Okay, but Art, he's telling me that I've got, I'm trying to convince Uh, what do you say, Erskine and Mottzer to go do whatever?
	Why don't you ask them?
	They already agreed to that.
	I'm sorry?
	And by their subsequent cross-lateralization of evidence that they have presented, it is clear... Jim, I don't know what that number means.
	...inclusion because they have interviewed you on their radio shows.
	I was on Erskine's radio show.
	I didn't think Richard had a radio show.
	Where's it at, Jim?
	What station?
	Richard has no radio show.
	Oh, you just said their radio show?
	Erskine and, uh, Montzer, right?
	I haven't talked to Richard Montzer in months!
	Ask him!
	You want my phone bills?
	There's no numbers!
	Calls to him!
	Okay?
	Alright.
	Uh, gentlemen, we're at the top of the hour, so everybody, uh, cool off a little bit.
	We'll come back and settle this on the other side of the news.
	And, uh, we will, in fact, uh, let Jim read those words, and either they are, uh, Calcorph's words, or they are not.
	Uh, this is a line that we can follow.
	We can't talk to the gentleman you're talking about now, so we can't settle it.
	This weekend.
	I had no time to get ready To realize
	what I had found I had
	been on a pill In one
	cataclysm The facts for Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nine
	Send it to him at area code 702
	Send it to him at area code 702-727-8499.
	702-727-8499.
	Please limit your faxes to one or two pages.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	Now, here again is Art.
	Once again, here I am.
	There is a bake going on between Cal K. Korff and Jim DeLaTosa.
	It will continue in a moment.
	When you... Oh, I want to remind my audience, we have a voting, an ongoing voting poll on my website with regard to how you think this debate is going.
	And I would remind the audience, you're welcome to vote, either for the first time or once you have voted, you're able to go back if you change your mind during the course of the interview.
	Either way, and change your vote.
	You can't vote twice, but you can change your vote.
	They're on the web now, at www.play.com.
	That's P-L-A-Y dot com.
	Alright, back now to our guest, Jim DeLaTosso, and of course, Cal Korff.
	Gentlemen, you're both back on the air, and just before we proceed to have Jim read, It's a pleasure to be there, Art.
	I would like to bring, I said earlier that unfortunately Mr.
	Erskine and the other gentleman you mentioned were not available.
	So we couldn't test that.
	But now, guess what?
	Here is Jeff Erskine.
	Jeff, welcome to the program.
	It's a pleasure to be there, Art.
	I'm calling right down the road from Jim's neighbors.
	And do you, what do you have to contribute, Jeff?
	Well, I'll tell you what, Art, I prefer to be called Erskine, but...
	Erskine, all right, Erskine.
	Thank you, sir.
	The amazing Erskine.
	Okay, I'll tell you what.
	Jim is a liar.
	Pure and simple, because Cal Corp never once said, hey, chop this book around, take my book to other places.
	I didn't even have a copy of the book of Cal's.
	I had a copy of it, and Richard Monster borrowed it, and I never got it back.
	That was my only copy I had.
	I did not take a book to anybody.
	Cal Corp never told me to take a book to anybody.
	I know Cal Corp.
	I like Cal Corp.
	I've had him on a number of times on my show, but I never was told one time by Mr. Corp to ever go take this to some of the local media and expose
	Jim Deltosa.
	Never, ever, ever.
	That's an absolute lie, Jim.
	And prove it, baby.
	Erskine, didn't you brag to, at the time, Councilwoman Frances Barwood, that you were going to get me
	and expose me and you had things to demonstrate to people that would do that?
	No, I may have told her that you were a liar and I may have done that and I had
	to prove that and I'm proving it right now.
	You're a liar on this.
	Didn't you go to Channel 10?
	Stick to the topic, Jimbo.
	Stick to the topic.
	You are lying through your teeth about me.
	Yeah.
	Well, you know, collaborators will do that, and I... Oh, Jim, you're a liar.
	You're lying about this.
	Alright, well, now, now... It's pure and simple.
	Alright.
	Okay.
	Now, how, how, Erskine, would you prove that he lied?
	Or give me a break.
	How are you going to prove a negative if you don't prove a negative?
	A man is making accusations which are patently untrue.
	One way I could prove it, I didn't have a copy of Cal's book.
	I kept calling him and calling the publisher asking for it.
	Am I going to go somewhere and say, hey look what's written in the book I don't have, but I'd love to give it to you if I did.
	But Erskine, didn't you go to the New Times with all of these allegations about me?
	I did not originally go to the New Times with all these allegations about you.
	Well, didn't you go there?
	I did go to the New Times and talk to Tony, but did you see my name in the article anywhere?
	Well, who originally went there if you didn't originally go there?
	Pardon?
	The concept that you said was the Cal Corp had pressed for me and Mottzer to go to the local press.
	That, I am telling you, is an absolute lie.
	But don't you all, like, talk regularly?
	As I mentioned before, I haven't spoken to Richard Motzer via email, phone, or whatever for many, many months.
	The last time we spoke was over our collective opinions about the Phoenix case, and that was roughly late last year when the Discovery Channel was doing their thing.
	My footage ended up being on the edited floor, and then they punted the rest of my footage to the Area 51 special, which I was actually very happy with.
	Well, Tony Ortega told me things about what he had been presented with to investigate that could have only come from your group.
	We don't have a group, Jim.
	We don't have a group.
	Okay.
	You have a group, we don't.
	Why is it that my words are being gone over in minutia?
	How come nobody's asking the question about why Somebody says they have a PhD and names the university and it turns out that that's not true.
	All right, let us, uh, Erskine, I wanted to let you add that.
	I appreciate you coming.
	Thank you very much, Mr. Bell.
	All right, um, now, so let's do it, Cal.
	Let's do it.
	Nobody, there's only two of you here right now.
	We've had somebody, I think, who has come on and kind of came at you and now we've had somebody who's come on and has come at Jim.
	So if you want to move into this question about Academic credentials?
	Let's rock and roll!
	Okay, but I just want to make one thing clear, Art.
	It wouldn't matter if it was the Pope saying he had a PhD.
	If it is not true, it hurts the credibility of ufology.
	And my fear is that now that the media is awakened to the UFO issue, thank God, finally, the danger we are is that if we don't put our best foot forward We're going to be laughed right out, and there's going to be more.
	I couldn't agree more.
	I couldn't agree more, but wait a minute.
	I'm sorry, Cal.
	Just before we do that, we'll get to academic credentials in a moment.
	I did want to give Jim the opportunity to read to you your own words.
	Jim, do you have them handy?
	I do.
	Go ahead.
	Cal, do you have them from Friday, 6th March?
	No, because as I said before, I'm at a phone where I can be on this show.
	Okay, well, we all understand that, so go ahead and read them, Jim, and then Cal can say, look, those are my words or they're not my words.
	Well, forgive me, uh, for reading Cal Corp's words, but, um, that is... Go ahead and read.
	...the denotation.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Subject, Jim Delitoso finally exposed for good, question mark.
	Let's please go.
	Yeah, I'm sorry.
	It is with a feeling of mixed emotions that I must announce to you that this week's issue of the Phoenix New Times has an extremely devastating expose of Jim Delitoso, analyst and image computer expert.
	While Billy Meyer and his unobjective religious and fanatical believers such as Jim Dierdorf Michael Hessman and good old Jerome in the Netherlands will undoubtedly find ways to rationalize the tartling revelations in this devastating expose.
	The burden of proof is on them to disprove these new allegations.
	The truth is, the investigative reporter for the New Times decided to independently research De La Tosso and Meyer and found, parenthesis, surprise, That Della Tosso is 100% guilty of doing everything from lying about having various degrees from assorted universities to outright swindling millionaire Jordy Hormel to the tune of several million dollars.
	The reporter also proves, according to recent court records he cites, that Jim Della Tosso and Village Labs have been running a scam all along over these years.
	All right, you can hold it there.
	You've already covered... Let us begin by asking, to be fair, Cal, are those your words?
	I think you know they are my words, Art.
	Okay, good.
	I doubt Jim would fake something like that.
	Okay, swindling.
	Swindling is a pretty strong, severe allegation.
	What was Ortega's adjective for it?
	I don't recall the exact word because I don't have that article in front of me, but what did Ortega say?
	Let's just settle for what you said.
	Now, swindle.
	Um, in what way did he swindle?
	Is that stated in the article?
	Um, I don't have it handy, but you might want to check it.
	I think he mentioned TRW denying your claims.
	Hormel's wife is the one that... No, Cal.
	Swindling.
	Swindling?
	Uh, let's deal with that.
	It's a very strong allegation.
	Um, it's fair to ask, Cal.
	In what way did he swindle?
	If I had the New Times article in front of me, I could quote it.
	No, you wrote the thing.
	You must have studied it.
	I had it at the time in front of me, Jim.
	I don't now because I'm not, I don't have any of that paperwork.
	But I did at the time I wrote it.
	Why don't you read for the viewer, for ART's listeners, what Tony Ortega and Jordan Cormell White said about you.
	Well, I spoke to Susan Doggett.
	I spoke to Susan Doggett of the Mensa Society about their tracking down people with 200 I've never joined Mensa.
	I don't believe in that group.
	I've never joined Mensa.
	Well, they joined people that have all of that, and they had no record of you.
	But in any case, see, explain to me the attributes.
	The attributes of people with a 200 IQ, which is a photographic memory.
	In any case, I spoke.
	With my longtime friend and collaborator and sometimes argumentative partner, Jordy Hormel, about these conditions that his wife had stated, allegedly, for the New Times.
	Three days later, he retracted and said that what he believed we were doing was legit, That there was no claim of lies or swindle as you have alleged in this story.
	Now Jim, if that... I put up two million dollars in collateral.
	There was no investment.
	There was no investment of two million dollars on Geordie Hormel's part.
	Well then why don't you... As the Dun and Bradstreet report that anyone who subscribes to that service can find.
	Why don't you... I put up two million dollars in collateral and borrowed with my assets at risk money to finance the state-of-the-art, leading-edge system that we have, by many noted sources, developed.
	Okay, Jim... You lied when you said... Whatever, Jim, why don't you go ahead... You lied when you said that Tony Ortega's story ...alleged that I had swindled people out of millions of dollars, including Jordi Hormel, and you knew that when you wrote it.
	Jim, why don't you... I stand by my story that came out days later.
	Let me continue here.
	To outright swindling Jordi Hormel to the tune of several million dollars, the reporter also proves, according to recent court records, no such thing in the story or exists in fact or in truth, Mr. Korf.
	That Jim Delitoso and Village Labs have been running a scam all these years.
	There are no court records to any such thing.
	And you know it, and it is not in the story.
	If there are such court records, uh, Cal by all means, um, quote him now.
	Uh, Art, do you think that I have court records here when I don't even have copies of my emails?
	Why don't Jim... Why doesn't Jim... I mean, these are extremely serious allegations.
	These are... Art, why don't... Why doesn't Jim read what Ortega wrote about him?
	Why doesn't he... Hold it, hold it, you can't... Hold it, hold it, hold it, both of you.
	I can't hear both of you at once.
	Can I finish my point?
	Yes, Cal, finish.
	Okay, why doesn't Jim, or you, quote what Ortega said, So we all know, because I don't have the article here.
	And, let me finish, please.
	Let me finish, please.
	Let me finish.
	And, why doesn't Jim produce a tape recording of Jordi Hormel?
	If information came out after the Ortega... It's in the newspaper stories.
	You can find it.
	It's readily available.
	Wait, wait.
	Can I finish, please?
	Thank you.
	Please.
	If new information came out, because I don't know if Jordi Hormel Did what Jim said or if Jim's telling the truth?
	I don't know, but if it came out after that article, then the point is still valid because it can only be valid up to the date of the written statement.
	Why don't you quote what Ortega wrote?
	It's his story.
	I just basically paraphrased it.
	And I am telling you the truth when I say that it does hurt that this type of story is written no matter who it's about.
	Mr. Korf, it do not contribute to the adjectives that allowed this story to be written and are you not in collusion with Mr. Kiviak right now that this radio show that we are doing proves that there is a controversy so that Mr. Kiviak can sell a television show to Fox based on yours and my controversy?
	Uh, Jim, you need to talk to Bob Kiviot.
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	Okay.
	It's no secret.
	No, Jim, seriously.
	In fact, I will have Bob call you tomorrow, and then I'll have him call Art, okay?
	Because the truth is- But is it not a fact- Pardon?
	Is it not a fact that Bob Kiviot already pitched on your behalf the dispute between you and I with proof in this radio station that you have created an engenderment To this controversy that can arrive you at large dollars from fax... I don't understand the question, I'm sorry.
	Well... What are you getting at?
	I'm getting at that you have created a controversy in order to get Fox to pay Kiviat to pay you.
	A controversy where you have manufactured No, Jim.
	No, Jim, and I'm sorry that you're so desperate that you'd say that.
	In fact, I will call Bob Kiviat tomorrow, and I'm sure he'll call you.
	He has your number.
	And I'll make sure he calls Ardella.
	All right, hold it.
	Gentlemen, I thought the words con artist and swindler were very serious words with serious
	Consequences and I thought that if you did write them what you did Cal that you would be able to tell me in what way
	What way Jim swindled okay art if you'll have doc Hilford on your show he'll give you the inside story
	Bosses here in the building. Mr. Larry G and Eddie He's a damaged boss.
	Call the wild card lines, area 708.
	Hold it, hold it, hold it, hold it.
	That I can't air.
	Okay, I'm sorry.
	That I'm not gonna air.
	Okay, uh, our Doc Hilford was with Jim DeLaTosso years ago.
	His quote is something to this effect.
	It's a lie.
	Well, fine, Jim, but he says you're a con artist and the tape is out there.
	Who is 19 years old?
	I didn't record the tape.
	I never knew who Hilford was.
	I heard a copy of the tape when he was on, uh, what, I think it was Erskine's show, if I remember, in Phoenix, his radio show.
	It was part of you being on the air.
	What?
	And court records demonstrate.
	What are you talking about?
	Then what are you talking about, Jim?
	I'm talking about what Mr. Korf and Mr. Erskine are claiming is the source of authority.
	I don't know what you're... ...who is not a source of authority because his boss is present here in the building right now.
	Uh, Jim, I'm simply telling Art, because he may not know, and the listeners may not know, that Doc Hilford has already done a radio show where he says that about you, and... Well, Doc Hilford is, uh, uh... Okay, look.
	Um, look.
	Other people may have said something.
	A newspaper may have said something.
	I don't know what these people said.
	I just know, Cal, that you said it.
	And so I was asking you, To provide proof that he swindled.
	That's such a strong thing to lay on somebody.
	Art, if you'll look at Ortega's article, or whatever the quote was, I think he says basically the same thing.
	Doc Hilford has said that.
	They're not here right now.
	You are, Cal, and you did say it.
	Now, please, if you call somebody a swindler and or a con artist, Um, you should be able to back it up.
	Not with what other people have said, but on your own steam.
	So you're saying eyewitness testimony is not to be relied on in this case?
	Why don't you get on with your show?
	I don't have an eyewitness here now, Cal.
	I have you.
	Yeah, but I'm not Doc Kilford, okay?
	But Doc Kilford was not in the Tony Ortega story.
	No, but he's been on the air talking about you being a con artist, Jim.
	And you know that.
	Hey, I'm just quoting the witness, just like, uh, when I interviewed people who were there with Meyerhoek's photos.
	Alright.
	Alright, gentlemen.
	On that note, we'll have to hold it.
	It's the, uh, bottom of the hour.
	And we will continue, uh, for another 30 minutes.
	And then we'll have open lines.
	So, um, uh, the debate continues between Cal K. Korff and Jim DeLaTosso.
	I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	Coast to Coast AM.
	To talk with Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nigh from east of the Rockies dial 1.
	1-800-825-5033.
	West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, 1-800-618-8255.
	1-800-618-8255.
	Now again, here's Art Bell.
	Once again, here I am.
	Good morning.
	Colorado and New Mexico. 1-800-618-8255. 1-800-618-8255.
	Now again, here's Art Bell.
	Once again, here I am. Good morning. The debate continues between Cal K. Korff and Jim Della Tosso.
	Now back to my guests and the debate, and I want to give Cal Korff a chance here.
	Cal, you used two words.
	One was swindler, and we sort of dealt with that.
	I would like to move on to the other con artist.
	Now, in that category, I suppose you might certainly suggest if somebody misrepresents their educational credentials, that it is a con, by the very definition of con.
	So, what do you know about Jim Delitoso's alleged misrepresentation of educational background?
	Well, I don't think it's alleged anymore because I think Jim will admit, hopefully tonight, for the first time in front of a large audience, that he had claimed on Don Ecker's radio show, the old UFOs Tonight that used to be on, And I cite this in my book.
	The interview is in there.
	You can ask Don Ecker.
	I don't think Jim will dispute it.
	We were both on that show years ago.
	Right around my birthday again years ago.
	This seems to keep happening.
	Just an irony.
	He said he had a Ph.D.
	from McGill University.
	Well, I checked it and according to McGill, and their fax is in my book, They said that isn't true.
	Well, let's, let's, let's, uh, just let me interrupt you long enough, Cal, to ask, did you, in fact, um, Jim, state you had a PhD from McGill?
	On a few occasions, indeed, I have.
	You have.
	Alright, continue, Cal.
	Okay, so then I confronted Mr. Delitoso, uh, with that information, and had faxed Don Ecker, McGill University's response, and I was shocked that they responded so fast, because, I remember in the old days you had to send typewritten notices through the letter and thank God the modern technology you can research things quickly and they and Then Jim said Something like it was a mistake.
	I can read the quote from the book.
	He meant to say an honorary PhD So I thought okay, so I went back and asked him about that and they said that they did not issue such a degree to Jim and in this Medical or whatever field he claimed it was, you'd have to ask Jim.
	He said he's done it a few times.
	Why won't Jim explain now when he has misrepresented himself that way and why he did it?
	All right, one thing at a time.
	Did you misrepresent that, Jim?
	Well, let me go to the Don Ecker Show first.
	It's a yes or no question with all due respect.
	Yeah, I think Cal's right.
	It is a yes or no question.
	And if that's where it's going to end up, you might as well give it a yes or no right now.
	Did you misrepresent your educational background?
	Uh, yes.
	You did?
	Alright.
	Absolutely.
	Alright.
	Second question would be why?
	Well, let's go to the Don Ecker Show first.
	Okay, can we make sure he answers the question?
	Well, we got a straight answer to the first one.
	Let's move on now to the second one.
	The Don Ecker Show.
	Go ahead.
	When Don Ecker called me and invited me to be on his show, I agreed and came on his show.
	And the first part of the show where he asked me about my educational background, I said I have a high school diploma, I have over 180 credits in various colleges, and I have no degree.
	And I've taught at universities and blah blah blah.
	The first caller in was Cal Korff, who slammed me with this McGill thing.
	And to excuse the situation and try to cover my tracks, I deliberately said, yeah, it's an honorary degree.
	Okay, well, that wasn't untruth.
	Well, in that case, it was the best I could do for the circumstances.
	You mean the best untruth you could come up with?
	Yeah.
	You might as well just let it go.
	It's the best untruth.
	Let me go back to the very beginning of that.
	I have never, In my activities as Village Labs, Computer Graphics Lab, or as a teacher for five years at Arizona State University stated that I have a PhD.
	There is only one single set of circumstances where that happened and it is in my infiltration of laboratories with Wendell Stevens starting in the late 70s.
	And on a radio show.
	Well, in that one radio show, yes, where to succinctly set it aside, I reacted to it as best I could.
	But... Alright, look, instead of belaboring this, you have admitted you misrepresented that.
	Cal, as you made a mistake and admitted it, Jim's now saying the same thing, that he misrepresented, made a mistake, and has now corrected it.
	Do you accept that?
	Yes, in fact, I want to commend Jim for telling the truth regarding the issue because I think it's been a long time coming.
	Let me finish, Jim.
	My book does cite three instances in which he did it, by the way.
	All circumstances connected to you.
	No, because you had a conversation that is quoted in my book verbatim.
	I'll be happy to read it to you.
	With your collaborator, Glenn Hoyer.
	Don't interrupt me, please.
	Yeah, let him go.
	Let him go, Jim.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	In my book, I cite both your misrepresentation on Ecker's show.
	I also cite another interview you did with Underground Video where that's when you first, to my knowledge, named the university.
	No, it was about the fourth or fifth.
	Okay, so now we're talking four or five times that you named McGill when the truth is you hadn't received a degree from there, honorary or otherwise.
	Is that correct?
	Well, that's a complex situation, you know, and I had no instructions.
	from first tier on how to deal with that if it would come up.
	Jim, I must confess that if that happened to me, I would never even make the claim in the first place, let alone be stumped on how to talk my way out of it several times.
	Am I missing something or what?
	The circumstance of the progression of my business, the progression of all other aspects of my life, I have never stated that.
	Well, Jim, it's also in print at the UFO West Expo where they were promoting a lecture of yours that you did several years ago.
	I apologize for that, but I did not write that.
	Okay, but who told them that information?
	Because, again, I've been a guest at that symposium and, you know, the people have to supply their own bio for the promoter to write it up, so that's now another instance Where that happened, Jim, so how many times have you done it?
	Back in the late 70s when I was part of the Moody Blues Brothers, I was Captain Toso, I was Dr. Dolitoso, and I apologize for that, but there was no progress in my career.
	With all due respect, that doesn't address the question that I asked.
	The question was, unless I've forgotten it properly, you know, that's yet another instance where you did it in print, you did it on You know, a couple of radio shows, or at least one, and then you did it in another interview with Underground Video.
	Yeah.
	How many times have you misrepresented yourself that way, and why do you do it?
	And then you wonder why people say you're a con artist?
	Tell me the logic here so I can be enlightened, because... That was a difficult time.
	I mean, when we had to, in the late 70s, go into facilities and sustain ourselves there for quite some time, and I was introduced as Dr. Dolitoso, I would, or Dr. James Toso, or Dr. James Tose, I would participate.
	But Jim, these statements are from 1981.
	They're not the 70s.
	Okay?
	And, another one was made March 12th.
	Yeah, I was surprised by that, when at an SPIE, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, we ran into people, Wendell and I ran into people we had seen at JPL.
	In the hotel lounge and they introduced me as Dr. Delatoso and it was, oh darn.
	Okay, but Jim, on March 12, 1994, day before my birthday again, you said it again on Don Ecker's show.
	Well, I didn't say it.
	Yes, it's right here.
	I honestly stated my position to Don Ecker and then you showed up as the first caller and trapped me.
	No, I'll read you the quote.
	Yeah.
	Question from Corf, let me ask you Jim, you went on record recently as saying you have what, a PhD from McGill
	University, is that correct?
	Delitosa's answer, yes. I went on record saying that.
	Yes, after I had earlier said that I had a high school diploma and 180 college credits.
	Jim, so what?
	That's irrelevant.
	The point is, is you were irrelevant.
	The first question from the host... Jim, can I finish please?
	The first question from the host when he asked me... Cal, Cal, in response to your call on that program, he has now admitted that he misrepresented.
	Okay, but I still don't know why he did it.
	Okay, alright, alright, fine.
	Let us... Okay, it's a complex set of affairs.
	In the late seventies, I understand Cal's question, Jim.
	Let me put it to you.
	Why did you do it on that program?
	Well, when he first asked me that question, and it came out of the blue, I need to dismiss it immediately.
	So I came up with the best answer I could.
	I had no training from my first year.
	Okay, Cal, that's your answer.
	In other words, he, in response to your question, he uttered a misrepresentation because it was the best misrepresentation he could think of.
	Yeah, I invite people listening to the show, and Art, you have 12 million viewers.
	No, I, well, they stare sometimes at the speaker, but they're mostly listeners.
	No, they're listeners.
	You send to your website their remembrance.
	Of my contact with them is Dr. Della Tosso.
	Okay, but then why did you misrepresent it to Underground Video and yet another interview, Jim?
	What's your explanation for that?
	You keep doing this!
	Well, Grant Hoyen of Underground Video, or Nathan Daniel, whichever is his real name, was your collaborator, and he lied to me and said that this videotape was being prepared specifically for Nobel Prize winners formerly of Jet Propulsion
	Laboratory, which was the first place where this entire incident of Dr.
	Dolotoso came up.
	So you felt you had to misrepresent yourself?
	So it was complex. I mean, I had to stop and think about it a lot.
	And I have the video from Glenn, which he, at that time, I don't know if he knew you or not,
	courteously sent me an offline record of it so that I could study it.
	And there was babies crying in the background and people sitting over there
	who recalled me from JPL. And it was complex. And I did the best I could at the time.
	But I have in no circumstance ever awarded myself in advance in my career,
	whether it's Village Labs, Computer Graphics Lab, or any of the others.
	By being Dr. De La Tosso.
	It was only in the circumstances where we had to penetrate facilities and I terminated it as immediately thereafter as those facilities and one circumstance flew out of control.
	No, I think it is for the purposes of this discussion sufficient that he admits that he misrepresented Cal.
	Okay.
	What do you think?
	And I've been other names.
	I mean, I admit I've been Captain James De La Tosso James Tose, I've been to universities for other people, it was complex and at that time, 20 years ago, I'm only 49, this coming Friday, I was younger than you are, Cal, and I did the best that I could for the circumstances that I was in, and I apologize, and I have not advanced my career based on a global view of Dr. De La Tosa.
	Let us not Uh, belabor that point because you know it is not the view that the majority of people have of me.
	Alright, I have something I want to say to you both, or ask you both, I guess.
	Uh, we're into this nearly three hours deep now, I'm sure everybody's getting tired, but I, I, look, the UFO community faces, um, the ufologists face a really uphill Uh, push, trying to, um, get to the truth and to get their information out.
	And I think you would both agree that ripping each other's necks open, and the UFO, uh, community is doing this generally.
	We've just had a sample of it tonight.
	Yeah.
	But it, this is going on generally all over the UFO community.
	Yeah.
	It is, um, it is a horrible thing to be doing and is doing a terrible disservice, um, to the entire subject on the other hand.
	So are untruths.
	Yes.
	Absolutely, Art.
	And claims of expertise, which is, if I can be candid for a moment, how and why I dismissed Cal Korff some time back and have not paid attention to him or purchased his book or even talked to him.
	My contention is, and you must admit, Cal, excuse me, Cal, That you really don't know anything about image processing.
	Is that not true?
	I think you're correct when you say that's not true.
	I do know stuff about image processing.
	Yeah, well, I have an unusual circumstance here.
	When I study all the people that are contentious about me, whether it's Dr. Scallon, who has not yet seen my papers, He reviewed a videotape brought to him by Erskine and Mozart.
	And perhaps Cornett and Macbee will review it for the Art Bell Show.
	But when I hear videotapes where you talk about the milestones in image processing, and they are so far off, That I can't even regard you as even near the camp of a collaborator.
	Well, Jim, with all due respect, I don't care what you think of me, and I just cannot, you know, I'm not the one who's being taken to task by the media for claiming that they can get spectral data off of... I do not want to dignify your... Jim, you interrupted me, okay?
	Currently, right now, when I run videotapes where you state things Jim, I'm not the one under media scrutiny for claiming that I can get spectral data off of video like you have with your RGB analysis of the Phoenix Lights.
	Jim, let me finish please.
	I'm also not the one who endorses photographs That later on are admitted to be fakes by the people who took them.
	In other words... No, Jim, Jim, Jim, let me finish.
	Okay, okay, that's an interesting point.
	Cal, you said photographs that later are shown to be frauds.
	What specific photographs?
	The Puerto Rico photos where Jim... That is not correct.
	Oh, really?
	Wilson Souza in Puerto Rico, a MUFON investigator with Antonio Guneas, Claims that they found a collaborator to Amory Rivera, the principal, the cousins, who, under threat of being arrested for certain things, admitted that they were present.
	But there was no direct principal, as you have claimed, proof that those pictures were fraudulent.
	Well, Jim... And in the same case at the Oliver's Castle, Uh, crop circle made by Balls of Light Video, neither one of those have directly proved out from their principles.
	They are like these other contentions that you make where you just throw them out there.
	No, Jim.
	And amplify them per your own intention.
	No, let me read to you a report you wrote, okay?
	Yes.
	First off, what year did you quit working for NASA?
	Uh, in the late 80s.
	Okay, well this report is dated October 19th, 1991, written by you on NASA letterhead.
	It is a... not a NASA document, yet you use NASA... Let me finish, please.
	Okay.
	Yet you use NASA letterhead to write a report.
	I did indeed.
	You did?
	Why did you do that?
	It's a fake memo, Jim!
	Why did you do it?
	Because I was asked by a person who had misplaced the original.
	For me to rewrite the document, and in the first two sentences, as you may know, if you read it... I'll read it to you!
	Go ahead.
	You want me to quote them?
	Go ahead.
	In late July 1991, we were shown four 8x10 color photos, four 35mm negatives, four 35mm color slides of a UFO and a jet aircraft... You skipped on the first few sentences.
	Yeah, but, but, but, Jim... You just told me to read them.
	But, Jim... Go ahead.
	But, Jim, that, that dates it as a 91...
	Yes, it's not the only one.
	There's another one you did, Jim.
	That would be, uh, Jim, that would be fraudulent.
	Yes, and here's another one dated August 10th, 1991.
	Why did you do, why did you fake two of them, Jim?
	Here's a third one, okay?
	I'll send these to Art.
	I'll post them on the web.
	They're right here.
	That's fine.
	I had a dilemma at the moment when I was approached by The person who had originally asked me to test the pictures had lost the original documents and asked me to rewrite them.
	So you faked three separate reports over several months on NASA letterhead?
	No, I restated my position from the earlier letters.
	And in fact, the first sentence, I say, this is not an official project.
	We did this in our own time.
	Doesn't it say that?
	No, it doesn't.
	In fact, do you need me to send you copies of the stuff you faked to jog your memory?
	I'll be happy to send them to Art Bell.
	And, Ben, you've got some questions, eh?
	Okay, well, there you go.
	Listen, you two, we're near the top of the hour.
	Okay.
	I can hold you both over if you want to be held.
	If you don't feel like you're done.
	I don't mind being held.
	Cal?
	I'll be happy to stay on.
	Cal, do you have a fax machine?
	Not here.
	I'm at this phone.
	Okay.
	I can try to, well, it depends on who's in the building.
	No, I understand.
	It's late.
	It's early.
	Do you need me to send you something?
	Well, I was going to suggest you fax those to me.
	I could quickly scan them and get them up, but it sounds as though we don't need to because it sounds like Jim is admitting it.
	Well, I'd rather have them up.
	All right.
	All right.
	I don't know how we can work on that unless... Jim, do you have them?
	I do not.
	You do not.
	Cal, you have them but can't send them, right?
	Right.
	Not so far.
	So there's nothing I can... We'll get them up tomorrow.
	Cal can fax them to me.
	I'll scan them.
	We'll get them up on the website.
	Agreed by both of you?
	Yeah, that's great.
	Yeah.
	Alright.
	Both of you, hold on.
	Alright.
	From the high desert, this is a contentious Coast to Ghost.
	AMI Mark Bell. Hey, listen up. It's five thousand.
	5,000 call right now for that free brochure.
	1-800-526-5000.
	All right.
	Back now to my guests, Cal K. Korff and Jim DeLaTosso.
	Gentlemen, I have an observation to make, which you can agree or disagree with, respectively, and then we'll move on.
	Cal, I think sometimes You tend to say words as though they were your own, when you have heard it from somebody else.
	In the case of the run-in you and I had, that was true, and perhaps in some things that you've said about Jim DeLaTosso, that's true as well.
	And I think that is perhaps an error on your part, and when you And when you take care to be sure that what you say you know to be true personally, then you don't make mistakes.
	Um, so that's what I would say to you, Cal.
	To Jim, I would say, uh, you're losing the debate, Jim, and you're losing it, uh, because Cal has, indeed, it seems to me, proven that you did lie, which you admitted about your educational background, and, worse yet, appeared to have put together documents Uh, that were frauds.
	Uh, if, if, and you admitted that, uh, the date 1991 was used, but obviously you were not an employee of NASA at that time.
	So, you beat each other up pretty well, I would say.
	Gentlemen, either one of you have comments?
	Yeah, I do, Art.
	Alright, one at a time.
	Go ahead.
	Sure.
	Um, Art, I realize that sometimes I'm very blunt and probably not for the best of the field of ufology.
	But, you know, I care very much about ufology.
	And, you know, let's say that Jim really does know about photo analysis.
	I think for the good of the field, that the next time he gets a UFO video, regardless of who takes it, to keep the UFO field from being tarred and feathered with a track record of fake documents, phony PhD credentials, Those analysis should be done by somebody who is above reproach.
	And don't even give them to me, because we don't want the Meyer guy saying, oh, that's just Cal Korff.
	And, you know, you asked me earlier why I call him a con artist.
	You tell me, Art, or anybody, what adjective I should use... Cal, I think you proved it.
	Okay.
	You proved it.
	End of argument.
	What I said to you, Cal...
	I think it deserves a response.
	In other words, when they're your words, whether you're uttering them about me or Delitoso or whoever, if they're your words, Cal, then you should know it to be personally true before you say it.
	I agree with you, and in the incident with you and I, Art, I was wrong and my source was wrong.
	Now, bottom line is, I'm responsible because if a source is incorrect and I pass on to you and I, Art, I was wrong and my source was wrong.
	Bottom line is, I'm responsible because if a source is incorrect and I pass on that information before I've done the due diligence, then that is wrong.
	That's how you make mistakes.
	Exactly.
	And if you look at my track record, despite what Jim may tell you, you know, go ahead and disprove my analysis in the book.
	If he's got the expertise in the background, then disprove the analysis in the book.
	If he doesn't even look at it, whether he says it's beneath him or whatever, I mean, that This is not how you resolve the issue.
	I have it on the paper here.
	to the documents that you talked about, I would suggest that if you don't recall the
	webmaster, my webmaster's address, do you recall it?
	I have it on the paper here.
	Okay, good.
	Yeah, thank you.
	So, see, you did get it.
	All right, so I would suggest that you fax those directly to my webmaster.
	I would also suggest, uh, or email, and I would suggest that you, um, fax them to me as well as a backup, and we will get them up.
	Now, in the case of, uh, Jim.
	Yes.
	Jim, um, you've been beat up pretty well here, and it seems justifiable to me.
	Um, what have you to say about these documents?
	Well, I should apologize, but, uh, with a soft shoe, When Wendell Stephens came to me and asked me to replace the documents from three years earlier, I was very hesitant.
	In fact, I deliberated about it for some time.
	Reaching apparently the wrong decision.
	Well, if I reached the wrong decision, I apologize for that, but I stated in the first two sentences of that letter from my former employer that this judgment Whether it was a judgment of that day or three years earlier, the judgment was still the same.
	That we had tested these images at that facility on our own time without restriction or without endorsement from the letterhead therein.
	Yeah, but you used that letter.
	You used NASA letterhead.
	Well, it's really difficult.
	I mean, you know... Art, it says here, by Jim Delitoso, Director of the Computer Graphics Lab, and that's years after he no longer worked there.
	Yeah.
	Three years.
	Okay, so you admit it.
	Jim has three years.
	I had done the testing.
	Three years?
	I had done the testing during my tenure.
	Well, that's not what this says, Jim.
	I had done the testing during my tenure, so I... That's not what these say.
	Anybody who doesn't know your, pardon the phrase, excuse for doing this, it would say, hey, it's by Jim Della Tosa, director of Computer Graphics Lab, NASA Industrial Application Center.
	Yes.
	They would assume, because you put Wendell's name on here too, that, gee, a former Air Force colonel's involved in this, and Jim Della Tosa, who's director of the Computer Graphics Lab, years after he left.
	I think that was a mistake.
	I would take issue with it being a con.
	Or being a sole issue that... Well, we're arguing over words that we ought not to be arguing over.
	It's a terrible misrepresentation, Jim.
	Yes, sir, I will admit to that, but... Okay, you know, I gotta... We have found probably the sum total, the sum total of my actions that were... uh... apologetic.
	Okay, Art?
	Yes?
	You know, I hate to sound like a broken record, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.
	There's another one, March 11th, where Jim says, and he was on Fox TV, they claimed he was a special effects designer who worked on the film Titanic.
	Yeah.
	Well, it says here.
	Did you say that, Jim, to Channel 10?
	Yeah, I did, and I stand by that.
	I stand by the fact that for about a year, we had meetings here at our facility involving dozens of people beyond me.
	Where we were designing and it was our design used to prototype the system which was then used by Digital Domain and Mr. Hoffman at Digital Domain and I last week had some contention about did we build the piano or did we play the piano?
	But I still stand by the fact that we alone designed and TRW built and it was prototyped to test the effects of that that was then taken over by Digital Equipment Corporation and their Systems Integrator Carrera to design and build and install at Digital Domain the system used for the effects.
	Now, in my isolation of the shred of explanation of that, I still stand by the fact that we were That we were critical, that we were central to the development of that system that was used by
	Digital Domain, as installed by Carrera, as assigned by DEC, as brought in by us, as built on our designs by TRW, and I don't want to argue about that right now.
	Okay, wait, Jim, I'm not gonna... No, I'm sorry.
	Here is a quote from the reporter you talked to, and I'll send this to you as well, Artie.
	No, go ahead, go ahead, Jim.
	It says here that Channel 10 failed to make a single call to Digital Domain.
	It says, if it had, it would have learned Uh, that, uh, Delitoso had nothing to do with the film.
	Hayden, the reporter, admits that he took Delitoso's word for his Titanic work and a lot more.
	And then he says, quote, you know, we never put anything on the air and say, hey, this is a fact.
	And I have here a list of everybody who worked on it and the effects.
	There is no mention of Village Labs or Jim Delitoso.
	We never worked on the effects.
	We worked on the prototyping of the equipment.
	Hey, but Jim, you were quoted.
	It showed you in that piece.
	That's saying that you, he says, Jim Delitoso is a UFO buff and special effects designer who worked on the smash film Titanic.
	Yeah.
	And the point is, is I'm going to send this to Art.
	You can research it yourself.
	And all I'm pointing out is what these people are telling me.
	And the thing I'm getting disgusted over over time is every time somebody comes out and says, Jim, you're not telling the truth.
	And that line's getting pretty long.
	I get the blame from you and my you're nuts.
	Just to say that, oh, Cal's behind it.
	Well, you know something?
	I'm trying to focus my effort on government UFO document retrieval to get our government to honor their constitution that this country is founded on.
	If they're saying UFOs are not a national security threat or an issue, we have a right to those documents.
	And that's where I want to focus.
	If this debate was not on such an important show as Art Bell, I would have said no.
	Because, Jim, until you address my book, disprove what I say, whatever, address the issues, I really don't want anything
	to do with you because I'm busy trying to focus on research that hopefully
	will get us somewhere. I don't enjoy getting all this paperwork saying,
	oh Jim did this this time. I don't care. But you know I get labeled a debunker
	because my publisher happened to be Prometheus, never mind the fact that I asked
	them to publish the They didn't ask me.
	Well, you do understand though, Cal, why you get so labeled because of the reputation of the publisher.
	Yes, but you know something?
	For those publishers that publish UFO books that are total bogus, there's not the same standard there, Art.
	The fact is, I am not a debunker, I am not a skeptic, I am a UFO researcher, pure and simple.
	Not every case comes up as a real UFO, and we have to cleanse the database.
	Of course, that is true.
	Okay, now, do you remember one of your staff named Franco?
	What?
	Franco who?
	Well... Who?
	Are you making up another name now?
	Who are you talking about?
	What is the, uh, rather than trying to come up with a last name we don't need to, what point are you trying to make, Jim?
	Well, a gentleman named Franco called me from, he said, Cal's house one day.
	Wow.
	And, uh, he was from, uh, close near a witch and had been engaged by Cal to translate the German into English.
	And Franco talked to me for quite some time claiming that he had been in the midst of Cal's investigation of a number of my affairs.
	And I just wondered if that was legit or if it was something that was off the wall or some... Alright, well this is your opportunity to ask.
	Absolutely Art, and you can probably get the tapes of this on Fox TV.
	When I debated Jim Delitoso on Fox TV years ago, He asked me before the filming if I knew somebody named Franco.
	Well, I don't know anybody named Franco, and the only person I know of that comes to my mind that's even famous that's Franco is Franco Colombo, Arnold Schwarzenegger's bodybuilding partner.
	That's it.
	And then when I said, I don't know who you're talking about, he dropped the issue.
	So this is a sign of desperation, if I may say so.
	I'm only speculating, I have to admit that, because I don't know a Franco and I had four years in German.
	I'll give you an example.
	No, I hope that was a clean example.
	It was.
	I asked him, why are you asking me whether I speak German?
	OK, because Mr. Edwards, my German teacher, is acknowledged in the credits of my book.
	Thank God he taught me German because it allowed me to communicate in Switzerland.
	When I was over there undercover, documenting the Meijer cult.
	And Jim, unless you go over there and do the science that a real scientist does, you can't analyze photographs of terrain if you've never been to the terrain in question.
	It's not possible, Jim, let alone when you don't have negatives.
	And you've never been to the Meijer cult.
	That's part of the team that I was involved with.
	Jim, you can't trust what they're saying.
	It's hearsay.
	And as my book proves, should you dare to read it one day, I show you the photos of the real locations.
	They are mislabeled, Jim, and you can only know that by going there.
	So when Lee Elders told you X and it was really Y, you didn't know because you weren't there to double check it.
	That is inexcusable.
	Well, let me state something that I have to say that these Situations on the NASA letterhead and my PhD which rise to the cream of the top of my problems in credibility are the result of my participation in a team where my entry into the facilities was created.
	But nonetheless, my scientific procedures And the things that happen in the back room are clear and accurate, and I would like to propose that we would play a tape wherein Mr. Korff is stating to a reporter the issues concerning image processing, which is the basis of all of this.
	Mr. Korff is claiming That he has an expertise in image processing and the issues involved in the analysis of photographs.
	And this particular tape, which I studied a few years back, made me just dismiss Mr. Korff as an expert.
	Alright, well, I heard Mr. Korff not say he was an expert in image processing, but that he knew something about it.
	Yeah, in fact, Art, you're right, because I am only qualified to render the opinions I have rendered.
	I don't like the term expert at all, to be honest with you.
	And as far as I know, I've never said I'm an expert in anything.
	Alright, listen.
	And not only that, the day that Jim Delitoso tells me what is ethical, what is credible in the area of computer processing, is the day that the Pope becomes Jewish.
	Alright, and on that note, gentlemen, I think I'm going to end it here.
	I would like to ask you, Cal, do you feel you've been treated fairly?
	Yes, I do, Art, and you have done Your audience and the American people, a tremendous favor because regardless of who's telling the truth, Art, you asked the hard questions and you asked a lot of both of us and I'm glad that Jim did hang in there because... Okay, Cal, we're way out of time.
	Jim, thank you.
	Jim, do you feel you've been treated fairly?
	I do.
	Alright, that's it then.
	We'll let the audience decide.
	Thank you both and good night.
	Good night.
	Alright, that's it.
	We'll end it there.
	Hard nights, long days.
	We'll be back with about a half hour of open lines.
	I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	And I have left my destiny in quite a deal of waste.
	But I'm going to keep on going, yes, just as long as it's easy.
	From the Kingdom of Nile, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	From east of the Rockies, Cormorant at 1-800-825-5033.
	West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, at 1-800-618-8255.
	First time callers may reach Art at area code 702-727-1222.
	And you may fax Art at area code 702-727-8499.
	Please limit your faxes to one or two pages.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	Now again, here's Art.
	Once again, here I am.
	Rough night at the salt mines, huh?
	As you probably know, you are not listening to a mechanically inclined person.
	Actually, you're listening to a mechanical junce.
	However, even I was able to install the Jacobs Ultra Team ignition system into my GeoMetro.
	My little three-cylinder, running hard with a squirrel GeoMetro.
	The installation took about an hour, and the results are as follows.
	Here now is a car that could only go up the hill between here in Las Vegas and third gear.
	Now it goes up in fourth gear.
	That's the truth.
	Also the truth, it starts right away, it's smoother running, and to top it all off, with more power, I've got more gas mileage.
	Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
	It was about 55 miles per gallon.
	Now it's 63.
	Actually over.
	A bit over.
	On average.
	It's patented technology which optimizes the spark in each cylinder.
	Guarantees a significant increase in power, as I just told you.
	And it works on old cars and new cars.
	And look, what you do is call Ultrateam.
	Tell them what kind of car you've got.
	And they will tell you, actually even better than that, they'll guarantee you what Ultrateam will do for your car.
	And if it doesn't do it, you've got a 30-day money-back unlimited mileage guarantee, less a small 10% restock fee.
	So call and say, hey, I've got a so-and-so.
	What can you do?
	7 days a week, 8 in the morning to 9 at night central.
	The number is 1-800-627-8800.
	is 1-800-627-8800.
	That's 1-800-627-8800.
	And by the way, they're on the web at www.jacobselectronics.com.
	Are you overweight?
	Would you like to lose an average 8 to 10 pounds in the next month?
	We know that fiber helps sweep fat out of the digestive tract like a broom, reducing the amount of fat your body stores as excess weight.
	Well, Let me tell you about a revolutionary fiber.
	Kytosan.
	It's a natural fiber that comes from shellfish.
	It not only sweeps fat but also absorbs up to 10 times more fat than other fibers.
	You can get this fiber in a formula called Kytoslim.
	Kytoslim is effective because you can lose weight Without changing your eating habits, and there are no stimulants, it's a gentle, effective way to lose excess weight.
	Here's the special offer.
	When you order a 90-day supply of Kyto Slim, you'll get an antioxidant moisturizing cream absolutely free.
	Call 1-800-557-4627.
	It's guaranteed to work your money back, and it's not available in stores.
	So call 1-800-557-4627.
	That's 1-800-557-4627.
	You've got nothing to lose but the fat.
	Alright, now that the debate is complete, I can give you the figures from the website, and I will indeed do that.
	During the course of the debate, A total of, at this moment anyway, 2,141 people voted.
	The categories were Delitoso winning, Delitoso leading, even Korth leading and Korth winning.
	And the way it came out is only 6% of the people at this moment thought a Delitoso, Jim Delitoso won.
	Only 1% thought he was leading, 7% thought it was even, 7% thought Korf was leading, and a whopping 78% thought that Korf won the debate, for a debate consensus of 85%, which is staggering, on the side of Cal Korf.
	And that's how it has come out to this hour.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Good morning.
	Good morning, Art Bell.
	Hi.
	The answer to the asteroid, due in 2028, can be found in the Book of Revelation, Chapter 8, Verse 8.
	Does it happen to say by how much it's going to miss, or does it say it's going to hit?
	It's going to hit.
	Well, then it is in complete disagreement with NASA, who says it will miss by 600,000 miles.
	And interestingly, since NASA has said that, I have received, I can't tell you how much email saying, I don't believe it.
	They don't, they don't believe it.
	A wild card line, you're on the air.
	Well, good morning, Art.
	This is Bill from Portland.
	I haven't talked to you in a long time.
	Hi, Bill.
	You know, since you changed your hours, cut off at 3 o'clock, I used to get ahold of you at 3 and... Well, that's true.
	I'm off, uh... I'm off then.
	Yeah.
	3 o'clock.
	Hey, a good question for you.
	You know, you're keen on radio and all that.
	I'm keen on radio.
	Why is it that some of the stations... You know, I'm in Portland.
	We have KEX.
	Yes.
	I listen to you on that.
	Right.
	How does that handle with three letters, KEX, versus the four letters of...
	Whatever, K-something-something-something-something.
	Alright, I'd be glad to answer that for you.
	Not always, but generally, a three-letter call, like K-E-X, or W-L-S in Chicago, for example, would denote radio stations that are very old, long in the tooth, have been around a long time.
	Original licensees.
	In other words, in the beginning, they only needed three letters.
	Actually, in the beginning, people used initials, but then it moved into three letters.
	And, of course, as the number of radio stations grew, the three letters would no longer do, because they simply didn't have enough of them.
	So, they moved to four, and then divided it, uh, uh, roughly, or generally, but not completely, uh, at the Mississippi.
	W's on one side, K's on the other.
	But, the answer to your question is, that, um, uh, generally, It would tell you it's a very old, venerable radio station.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Good morning, Mr. Bell.
	Another great show.
	My name is Pat.
	I'm calling from New York.
	My question is directed to Mr. Court.
	Okay, they are now off as of about 12 minutes ago.
	They're off the air.
	You didn't mention Mr. Court's book.
	Could I at least get that from you?
	Of course.
	As a matter of fact, it's on the website.
	I mentioned his book quite recently.
	Yeah, probably in the first hour, and I didn't catch that, and I apologize.
	It's called The Billy Meyer Story, Spaceships of the Pleiades by Cal K. Korff.
	Billy Meyer Story.
	The Billy Meyer Story, Spaceships of the Pleiades by Cal K. Korff.
	Thank you so much.
	You're welcome, and enjoy it.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello?
	Hello.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Hello?
	Hello.
	We got that part out of the way.
	We're hallowed.
	Yeah.
	You got it what now?
	Let me try it.
	Let's try it like we're just beginning.
	Hi.
	West of the Rockies.
	You're on the air.
	Okay.
	Art?
	Yes.
	This is Roger from Chula Vista, California.
	I have a challenge for any of them debunkers.
	Don Ecker or whoever.
	Phillip Glass or whoever.
	Bob Lazar had a sports model craft, you know, that you could buy at Toys R Us.
	I have one right here.
	Yeah, well it had a poster, a wall poster up there and on there it explained that the portals would light up when the craft was energized and it was dark on a portal and a white Lettering on and says that there was a user.
	What is your question sir?
	Was he scrolling?
	There's scrolling designs on the portal things.
	Yes in your question.
	Okay your challenge to the question is challenges a representative from Billy Meyer I give a lecture in San Diego and he showed these slides on there and I showed a picture a slide of Billy Meyer and Uh, giving and making a photograph out of the portal of a, of a spacecraft of his, of his buildings.
	His farm buildings.
	Yes.
	And it had these scrolls on the portals that he was taking pictures from.
	And, and I thought it was a messed up, you know, uh, slide or something.
	There was, then there was two more slides after that.
	I'm not, I'm still not clear what your challenge is, sir.
	The challenge is this.
	Anybody can explain How they, how these craft, here was a craft where these humans were in, and then Billy, then Bob Lazar, sports craft, had three little seats in it.
	Had these, he explained.
	Sir, if you don't get to the challenge, I'm going to be moving on.
	The challenge is?
	The challenge is, anybody can explain.
	Alright, thank you very much.
	Can anybody explain it?
	No.
	No.
	Uh, Billy Meyer.
	He, he was there.
	You would, uh, listen to him talk.
	Bob Lazar, who claims that he had contact and saw this sports model and others.
	How would a debunker prove anything?
	We're dealing with statements people made that cannot be verified.
	So, what is the challenge to a debunker?
	I'm sorry, I don't follow that.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air.
	Yeah, earlier relative to the photograph that they talked about in the first hour, being
	in first entered in photography back in the 40s and 50s when film was real slow, one of
	the things that was never brought up was the fact that one of the reasons that the truck
	in the background and things in the far background might be out of focus is most of the cameras
	were hand held and if they weren't on a tripod, the further it was away, the more chance there
	be for jiggling in the picture and it wouldn't be in focus.
	That's certainly a possibility.
	Where the spaceship close by would be.
	Yeah, that's something that Jim D'Altoso could have brought up.
	Also, that truck, was it moving or not moving?
	If it was moving, it'd be out of focus, too.
	That is additionally a good point, sir.
	Thank you.
	Right.
	The debate stands as it was, and Jim could have brought up any of those things as and answer to Cal Corp, but he did not.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air, hello.
	Hello Art, this is Kurt from Medford.
	Kurt, you're gonna have to speak up good and loud.
	This is Kurt from Medford.
	Right.
	Hi Art.
	Hi.
	I listened intently tonight to the program and this Billy Meyer thing has been going on for years.
	Oh yes.
	I think tonight Cal Corp did make a point, the major point is that the Billy Meyer case is a fraud
	and I believe we finally got it, most of the information on it out of the way.
	I'm glad and although one thing that always seems to hold my interest is once in a while
	you'll catch a UFO photograph from various parts of the country
	that show almost the exact kinds of ships that Billy Meyer photographed.
	I know.
	I have a real problem, I will tell you, with some of the photographs that were taken.
	For example, of the alleged dinosaurs.
	Right, exactly.
	Very fuzzy, very out of focus, very unbelievable to me.
	There are additional photographs that I have a very difficult time with.
	For example, the Meier photograph of the saucer in the tree.
	I looked at that and said, give me a break.
	Yes, right.
	I totally agree there.
	Attached to a tree.
	He even showed a picture of what was alleged to be a female alien by the name of Senyasa.
	Yes, correct.
	And Kalkhorf brought out the fact in his book that that was none other than his, I believe his wife or somebody with a wig.
	Well, that may or may not be.
	I don't know.
	I would have no way of verifying that, and that may be so.
	What I do know is that if what we are doing in Ufology is trying to get to the truth, then what we did tonight is a service to that.
	There will be, there always are those out there who say, oh, it's just nothing but a bunch of noise and hot air.
	Well, no, it wasn't.
	There were many things revealed.
	Many things revealed, and I think everybody involved, those who listened, those who participated, came away with perhaps a new respect for the truth.
	So if it served to give people a new respect for the truth and understanding of why they should be searching for the truth, Then it was indeed of service to the larger community, and that's what I meant for it to be.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hey, Earth.
	Hey, yes.
	The only thing I got from this tonight is that neither one of these guys can be trusted as a researcher.
	Okay, well... I mean, don't you think they're being kind of childish?
	It was intended that you make your own judgment, and you have done so.
	Yeah, but... I mean...
	Nothing was put on the table.
	Oh, yes, there was.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	There was a lot of substance, and you now know a lot more than you knew before the debate.
	Yeah.
	Regarding these men.
	Yeah, that's it.
	And your judgment is that neither one of them can be trusted.
	The one thing I can agree with is with Cal there, that the Myers story is definitely a hoax.
	They found models in his shed.
	I've seen pictures of it.
	I mean, the guy is a fraud.
	But as far as Phoenix, you know, I don't think Cal necessarily tried to debunk that.
	Because he coins two sightings.
	I don't know what... You know, I don't... I've yet to hear you say why it is that you don't trust Cal Korth.
	Uh, well, do you trust him?
	No, don't ask me.
	You're the one who came on there and made the statement, I think you said, the only thing I learned from Zion is that I can't trust either one of them.
	Did you say that?
	Uh, yes, I did.
	Yes, you certainly did.
	So, what is it that you don't trust about Cal?
	Well, just like Jim, he makes statements that, uh, are not necessarily followed up with, uh, research.
	That are untrue.
	Alright, that's a fair answer.
	I mean, he did it to you.
	He did it to me.
	And what he did is a very unscientific thing.
	What he did with me was he took a third party's word that there existed documentation to prove that I did blah blah blah.
	Well, oh surprise surprise, it didn't turn out.
	So that's true.
	I mean, when you make a representation, and when the words come from your mouth, you have to be prepared to prove them.
	And I think that I mentioned that to Cal toward the top the last hour, just after it.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hi, it's Gail in Oregon.
	Hello.
	How you doing?
	Fine.
	It was tough.
	Mr. Korff makes it very tough to listen.
	But the man that just was talking, I agree with.
	It's really sad because I always liked Mr. Delitoso's delivery and his information.
	I didn't necessarily believe or disbelieve before tonight.
	But Mr. Korf, I find it fascinating that he can split hairs and tell you anything and everything about Delitoso's information and books and life and all this.
	And he doesn't even know his own quotes.
	He doesn't even know his own book.
	He couldn't even give you the right page for the right picture that you were looking at.
	And then, you know, you said you asked him for photos to be, you know, put up on your website.
	Yes.
	And he immediately comes back right after you said that and says, oh, I'm sorry, I didn't get the invitation.
	Excuse me, this man's thought processes, I think, were Very revealing tonight.
	I thought the whole thing was revealing.
	Very revealing.
	I mean, as I listened, and as the debate continued, I found myself swinging back and forth and back and forth.
	And then it's like, toward the end of the last couple of hours, I thought Korf, despite the problems that you mentioned, and I agree with you on that, came up with a knockout punch.
	Yes, he did.
	But do we...
	Do we just go on?
	I was a little shocked at everyone voting emotionally, swinging to that side, simply because we have evidence on the one side, because boy, Mr. Kors does not defend or represent his beliefs in any way to us.
	He gives us no evidence.
	So apparently he can win a debate by beating us all over the head.
	You know, that's what it felt like.
	Well, there was some of that, but he also won On my international line, somewhere out there, you're on the air.
	sharp points. Yeah I wish we could have you know hit him with the same kinds of
	points. Well Mr. Delatoso had actually three and a half hours to talk you know to toss his punches. Yeah and he
	didn't do it. I just wish he had.
	Okay thank you very much for the call and take care. On my international line
	somewhere out there you're on the air hello. Hello, Steven from the RIMO
	crying.
	Um, in Western Canada.
	Right.
	Um, I was just hoping, uh, beyond hope probably, that all of the so-called facts that have been disproven tonight would just miraculously evaporate.
	I was, I don't know, just thinking that.
	I'm not an internet.
	I'm not, I'm not clear on what that means.
	Well, apparently a number of issues have been settled once and for all tonight.
	That's right.
	As each person's lies were uncovered, or I shouldn't perhaps say lie, but I was hoping all of that, like as if somebody could magically wave a wand and make all of the documents that aren't true disappear.
	I see.
	Well, that's the problem with documents.
	They have a way of Unless somebody gets to them quickly with a shredder, they hang around to be hung around necks later.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Yes, this is Mitch in Kansas City.
	Hello, Mitch.
	I was calling about your guests.
	Yes, sir.
	And I had a lot of problems with them.
	The both of them?
	Apparently, they both have quite a few character flaws.
	Lying is just one of them.
	I think another one is ego problems that they have, especially with each other.
	Actually, I don't know.
	Did you hear the final hour?
	Oh, yes, I did.
	You did, okay.
	Yes.
	Well, I kind of sensed a diminishing of some egos at the end.
	Well, I think it was probably the way you handled them there at the end, giving them a little bit of a last chance to show a little reprieve, I guess would be the word I'd like to use.
	Well, I hope you found it instructive to listen to.
	Well, I think both of them misrepresented a lot of stuff.
	And both of them relied on hearsay and he said, she said type stuff, which doesn't get to the point at all.
	Well, it makes a larger overall point about the state of ufology.
	Well, I agree with you on that.
	I think the big problem is that People like this tend to lower the credibility of it, though, because of the way they come at each other.
	That is a larger overall point than I was talking about.
	Right.
	And I agree with you totally on that, because when you have someone like this who is supposed to be in the forefront, and they're arguing and bickering amongst themselves a lot of time over ego or maybe their own self-interest, it doesn't help the situation as far as the apology is concerned.
	Overall, though, sir, the message of the show tonight, I think, is a very deep and significant one that may in the long run help Ufology.
	There were a lot of people, believe me, listening.
	And I'm sure all of them took to heart what just occurred.
	Listen, my program is over.
	Okay, sir.
	And I need to go rest.
	So you get the honors.
	Well, I tell you, have a good night and get some sleep and some rest.
	That's good advice.
	Thank you from Kansas City, from the high desert.
	I'm Art Bell.

▲