Jim Dilettoso, president of Village Labs, defends the Billy Meyer UFO case and Phoenix Lights as credible, citing 1970s–80s photographic tests by experts like Wendell Stevens and Lee Elders, but Kal K. Korff counters with claims of manipulated negatives and misrepresented credentials—including Dilettoso’s admitted fake Ph.D. from McGill and NASA letterhead misuse in 1991. Dilettoso admits errors but insists his scientific methods remain valid, while Korff accuses him of undermining ufology’s integrity. Listeners overwhelmingly (85%) favor Korff’s victory, exposing deeper credibility crises in UFO research despite unresolved tensions. [Automatically generated summary]
CB From the high desert in the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening, 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 Pole and worldwide on the internet.
This is Ghost Ghost AM.
I'm Mark Bell.
A Little Difference, which is kind of what we do every night on this program, Britt.
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 am going to tell you right now, there are three main areas that I think we're going to cover.
There certainly may be contention would be the Billy Meyer case.
Billy Meyer, of course, the gentleman in Switzerland who many years ago took many ships.
Cal Corf, in fact, has written a book about the Meyer case entitled Dutch.
And so he is one half of this debate.
Reading from the jacket of his book, Cal Corf, is dedicated to studying humankind's most enduring mysteries and phenomena.
He's also a popular author and lecturer on topics ranging from USOs, UFOs rather, and space exploration to political and social issues.
He's appeared in newspapers, radio, technology analysts at Lawrence Livermore National Labs, and is a former member of the Claris 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 Dela Toso.
Jim De La Toso is president of Village Labs, a computer company.
His background includes 15 years, as a matter of fact, as CEO, president of that computer company, and prior to that, about 15 years in the entertainment industry.
That's Jim De La Toso.
There have been many words flying between these two, mostly not together, not in a conversation with each other.
I don't know that it's...
But rather on the Internet, back and forth, in the news groups.
And it has been pretty contentious.
So we're going to...
The Phoenix Lights situation, which brought the two to loggerheads.
And then finally, probably the most contentious of the issues, the allegations made by Cal Corf against Jim De Latoso and no doubt the other way around.
Fights about credentials.
Fights with regard to the allegations.
Police will 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 a link to Jim De La Toso's website, or at least one of them, 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 click on Jim De La Toso's name or Cal Corse's name.
Now, in addition to that, I would like to tell the audience that we have set up a special voting system.
We have going to be a debate.
Keith Rowand, my whiz of a webmaster, has set up a voting tonight that will allow you to vote in degrees of obligation as you listen.
And so all of that is on my website at www.artbell.com.
We will get underway in a moment.
Just one other note, and that is that 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 clinches.
That would be when you can't hear anything because everybody is talking at once.
And I base 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.
Well, first of all, I don't believe very much in Kalkorf's book as 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.
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 in ourselves in the project.
As an outside consultant contractor at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Coral Lorenzen and Wendell Stevens, and they were interested as to whether or not we would be interested in investigating techniques for testing pictures.
Yes, what they're purported to be, they are pristine and stellar photographs.
I have a background or interest.
I mean, you know, true.
I was a 60s child, so I had interest in many dimensions.
But looking at different UFO pictures, I had a background in looking at signal-to-noise ratios, in particular audio and digital audio and things of that nature.
So I spent the first six months or so in the UFO community with the Lorenzens and Wendell Stevens and a number of others, Rick Gertie's and lots of people that were connected with APRO, in defining for them what I had found in my investigation about testing procedures for image processing.
The pictures that we tested by taking them to many different guys 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 it was legitimate.
And the state of the art of image processing at that time was such that the tools that are commonly available in everyone from Art Bell to facilities today was generally out of reach 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.
Well, the difference between Jim DeLatoso'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 you'll find that there were no original negatives that were examined.
And Jim De La Toso and no one else can, you just can't analyze a photo scientifically and say it's real if you have no original negatives.
Very quickly, Cal, is there any way looking at the older set of photographs that Jim is talking about, without the negatives, without going over there, can you still examine them and declare them, in your opinion, to be a hoax?
But if you find no evidence of a hoax, just that doesn't mean they're real because without original negatives, you can't.
But 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 if best and clearest photos, which are in the book.
There's over 115 of them in there.
And these came From Billy Myers' negatives from an individual that used to manage Myers' photo albums, and that's the best copies we have until if and when the negatives ever resurface.
Well, Jim, if you look in the book, a page from the photo binder is in there.
At this page, I'm not even looking at the book, but I suggest you look at it because the illustrations from the photo binder with the original Meyer numbers are in there.
But you wouldn't know that unless you look at the book.
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 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 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 Corf's book, et cetera.
These were people who were willing to look the other way or were willing to partake of photographs and other evidence that was very compelling.
When you analyze a photograph of the 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 Semiazzi.
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 keeps you 60 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 truck in the background is blurred and out of focus.
A 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.
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.
Yeah, the testing, the testing that was done back then that you had gone to Brown Saucer Watch and that they had done testing for you that 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 situation where we had evidence, evidence of something that gave us even a fraction of a clue about the reason that we were living, that that was terrific and we should pursue it.
So when I read your report, and this was because 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 that I had a problem 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 Corf, who that leaders in the image processing field had not discovered.
Mr. Korf, can you cite me a paper, a photographic or scientific paper that says that you cannot extract data out of second and third generation pictures?
Because remember, you use second and third generation pictures in other cases.
So please cite for me this position that you're so hell-bent on.
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 seven 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 Meyer's camera.
You know darn well, even with what you know about photography, that if you set your lens just 1/32 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 And if you have to ask that question, then you are not the expert you profess to be.
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 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.
Well, 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 to take measurements.
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.
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.
So all I'm saying 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.
I'm not even sure you know which one I'm referring to, Jim.
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 Simiazi, 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 in the future.
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.
I'm sorry I don't have them handy, but exactly to measure the edges for its quality of focus and determine its degree of in focus and out of focus and determine that it's a small model.
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 is 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 De La Toso, who is a photographic expert, is currently CEO, president of Village Labs, and that's been for 15 years now.
And 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, from Switzerland, I would suggest to all of you provided the clearest photographs of UFOs ever taken.
We are debating the early UFO photographs taken by Billy Meyer.
And of course, Kyle Corf's position is they are a latent hoax, his words, and Jim De La Toso, who thinks they are genuine.
Neither one of these gentlemen have been or have had availed to them the negatives of these photographs.
We will again pick up on one specific photo we're discussing so you're caught up in a moment.
So all of that, continuing in a moment, have to lose, but the fact.
All right, 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 four, 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 and endorsement from Bruce McAbee.
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 Meyer's 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 Myers 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.
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 know I thought that's very interesting, but your credential that you used a few moments ago, Bob Kiviat, told me, which I then checked with Bruce, that Bruce had never really tested the pictures.
The issue wasn't testing the pictures, Bob.
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.
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.
And I just didn't find any experts who, using the most advanced tools available at the time, drew the conclusion that Mr. Korth 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.
When Billy Meyer says he went to the planet Venus and took photographs of it while orbiting that planet, and those photographs match the Mariner 10 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 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.
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 Eliason and others, who all signed nondisclosures 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.
Well, I don't have the book in front of me, but 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.
Well, the 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 tests.
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 were essentially correct.
And he was responding specifically to a statement made by Wendell Stevens in the Mufon Journal that my analysis was not correct.
Why don't we collect all these Meyer photographs, put them on R. 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.
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, Kalcorf and Jim De Latoso, in just a moment.
And then we'll get to the rough stuff.
So, one thing at a time.
First of all, the light, though, is after dark.
All right.
Again, we will leave the Meyer case in their place.
I will invite both of these gentlemen, and I will repeat to them, if necessary, my webmaster's address.
We'll be examined by all of you out there.
We know that I'm voting on it.
If you wish, let us now move to another topic, and that is the light market a little better than a year ago.
We have a contemporary UFO and you notice I'm not saying alien craft or anything else.
I'm saying UFO, unidentified flying object 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 10.30 sightings.
Well, I don't know what Cal Corps' 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 Pauldon, 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 in a V formation.
For the next three hours, reports not only came in to Peter Davenport, but came into 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 headlights, 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 and players and objects seen by air traffic controllers, not on radar, citizens, astronomy classes, and the controversy of the late a year and another decade.
I stand by the winter of aerial lawyers and aerial phenomena that I have ever seen.
And I stand by that moment, including the skepticism from with all due respect astronomers like Dr. McGowan who say that my techniques are less than adequate because they don't understand them fully.
I stand by my contention that something important happened, not just relating to Phoenix, Arizona, but to our entire understanding of the UFO phenomena on this planet.
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.
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 let's try and settle this.
I believe that I've heard Cal make allegations that Eugen fraudulently took some of the 8 o'clock material, we'll call it that, and morphed it into 10 o'clock material.
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-based reports of V-shaped objects.
There was also a V formation 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 merits.
As best as I can recall, okay, and if I'm wrong, please correct me, a long time ago, months ago, because I haven't really talked about this since 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 thinks.
I think that's unfortunate.
But I do believe that the events caught on video that got so much attention were 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.
If you really feel that way, Cal, about our government, in a letter that you wrote on the internet, in part, you said, are you listening, Bob Dean, Wendell Stevens, Michael Hessman, Billy Meyer, Jaime Mossan, Liam Britt Elders, Tom Welsh, Tom King, Bill Hamilton, Francis 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.
Well, then why would you include Emma Barwood, for example, who did nothing more than simply request that the government act as you just suggested it should?
No, what I'm saying is that, and I say this in the Internet Post, 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 Dela Toso's analysis.
And he wrote a piece of both of these people saying that there are problems here.
And I know for a fact that there are other similar type exposure coming out.
And, you know, like if you look at what he quoted from me, you just looked at the quotes from the book.
There wasn't 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.
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.
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 CalCorp for ourselves and many thousands of millions of others,
what if extraterrestrials said, let's go to a hierarchy 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 skepticist, so therefore I'm a soptimist, what if, and I'm just saying what if, we should look at the truth of the chief of the Elo 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 flights.
Cal, I forgive you for convincing Erskine and Matzer to go to all of the local media and attempt to discredit me.
We all know that you were behind Erskine and Motzer 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. Scowan, who challenged my procedure, knows that it's correct.
And I felt good today as I talked to my peers, Dr. McAfee, Dr. Cornette, Dr. Carlado, 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.
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 De Anza 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.
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 reach some compromise and try to go ahead and get that information?
The debate horrors are Cal K. Corf, who is said by many, though he would probably deny it, to be something of a debunker.
Cal Corf 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 Dela Tosso.
Jim runs something called Village Labs in Phoenix, or in the Phoenix era, I guess 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, and 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.
All right?
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's 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 easy to use.
You don't have to wire anything.
It uses three AA batteries, and it goes in between two seconds slap to plug it in.
The Seacrane company has them.
If you would like one, which, of course, you would promise to use with all due ethics and morality and all the rest of it, right?
And I can assure you, by noon, they'll be sold out, gone, gone.
So, if you want one, call Bob Train 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 Speak Crane Company.
As you hero, tell them you want the ignition system Art 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.
All right, before we leave the Phoenix question, is there anything either, any points either one of you would like to make with regard to Phoenix?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 the person was upset that I didn't send it to him literally two days later.
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.
I had posted a internet open mail, which was to you and the public saying that there were some people who were sandbagging you, and I didn't like that, okay?
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 space.
That 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 think that's the problem.
And you stated less than 10 minutes ago on this program that reported to me.
Whatever is the case, that is dead wrong.
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.
What we will do is go back through the tape of this program, listen to what you said less than roughly 10 minutes ago, and establish whether you were saying it was an email communication or we got the distinct impression you were talking to me.
I'm sorry, but I did send you that email, Peter, and you never asked me which reports you sent me because I have never received a direct email from Cal Corf.
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 recently with.
Look, we're not going to be able to settle whether or not you could argue about that until the Cals 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?
That's where we're going to break here at, the half hour.
And when we come back, 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 Calcourt made against Jim De Latoso 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 with regard to who you believe is quote AM.
unidentified
The End
Call Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nigh on the wildcard line at Area Code 702-727-1295.
I've been looking for your email or your phone number for about a year to invite you to one of our monthly MOOFON meetings up here, Cal, and I could not find either one of them.
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.
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.
I was told verbally, on your website, you use a letter from my attorney to that radio station that won a K3 radio station claiming that there was some affiliation with Art Bell in the letter that was written, and there was no such thing.
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 blunder.
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.
So they write you back, and they essentially said that roughly that they were going to 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.
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, where 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.
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 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 this 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.
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 Anthosystems, where some Meyer enhancements were done.
I sat Dinwoody 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.
So much to my surprise, when the story comes out and I end up getting a copy of it, it turns out that Dinwoody did talk, and you'd have to ask Tony Ortega for the full stuff he said, but what Ortega did is he lifted verbatim quotes from my book and simply noted that Dinwoody 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 fashion that De Anza systems provided the images that better illustrate, that better illustrate our testing procedures.
And 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.
Thanks are given to the ANZA systems for whatever it says I have in front of me.
For there are computer systems that ever illustrate our test procedures nowhere in any documentation anywhere that we ever claim that the ANZA systems did testing.
You alone discuss it and claim that we claim that we did testing at the end of the day.
And you know that that is not true.
In the subsequent process 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?
I am claiming that Ken Dinwoody 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 to allow us to for that afternoon use their systems.
Jim, or publishing, 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.
Only you claim that, and you found one lone Confederate who would collaborate with your misuse of the English language.
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 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.
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 De La Toso 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 are words equivalent to that, have backed out.
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.
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 story that you extracted.
Cal, we can prove this.
Jim, I will read what you have extracted, and you claim things different.
There is a debate going on between Cal K. Corp and Jim DelaToso.
It will continue in a moment.
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 votes.
They're on the web now at www.play.com.
That's P-L-A-Y.com.
Well, all right.
Back now to our guests, Jim Delatoso and, of course, Calcorf.
Gentlemen, you're both back on the air, and just before we proceed to have Jim read the actual words, I would like to bring...
Jim is a liar, pure and simple, because Cal Corf never once said, hey, shop 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 Corf never told me to take a book to anybody.
I know Cal Corf.
I like Cal Corf.
I've had him on a number of times on my show, but I never was told one time by Mr. Corf to ever go take this to some of the local media and expose Jim Del Tosa.
Never, never.
Never, that's an absolute lie, Jim, and prove it, baby.
Ersten, didn't you brag to, at the time, Councilwoman Frances Farwood that you were going to get me and expose me and you had things to demonstrate to people that would do that?
unidentified
No, I may have told her that you were a liar, and I may have done that, and I had things to prove that, and I'm proving it right now.
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 my rest of my footage to the Area 51 special, which I was actually very happy with.
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 a lot of people.
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 De Latoso, 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 Dela Toso and Meyer and found, grant, that Dela Toso is 100% guilty of doing everything from lying about having various degrees from assorted universities to outright swindling millionaire Jordi Hormel to the tune of several million dollars.
The reporter also proves, according to recent court records, he cites that Jim Delatoso and Village Labs have been running a scam all along over these years.
I've never seen people that have all of that, and they had no record of you.
But in any case, she explained 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 Harmel, about these conditions that his wife had stated allegedly for the New Times.
A death traitor, 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 you have a question, There was no investment of $2 million on Jordi Hormel's part.
Well, then why don't you see the Dunham Brad Street report that anyone who subscribes to that service can find?
I put up $2 million 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.
You said that Tony Ortega's story alleged that I had swindled people out of millions of dollars, including Jordi Harmel, and you knew that when you wrote it.
Did you stand by my story that came out days later?
Let me continue here.
To outright swindling Jordi Harmel 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. Corf, that Jim De Latoso 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.
Mr. Korf, did you not contribute to the adjectives that allowed this story to be written?
And are you not in collusion with Mr. Kiviat right now that this radio show that we are doing proves that there is a controversy so that Mr. Kiviat can sell a television show to Fox based on yours and my controversy?
Is it not a fact that Bob Kiviat 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 facts I don't understand the question.
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 truth on your side.
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.
The debate continues between Cal K. Corf and Jim De La Toso.
Now back to my guests and the debate, and I want to give Cal Corf 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 artists.
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 De La Toso'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.
That he said he had a Ph.D. from McGill University.
Well, I checked it, and according to McGill, and their facts is in my book, they said that isn't true.
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 Ph.D. 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.
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.
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. Delatoso, I would, or Dr. James Toso or Dr. James Tos, I would participate.
The channel 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. Dola Coso came up.
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 an advance in my career, whether it's Village Labs, Computer Graphics Lab, or any of the others, by being Dr. Deletoso.
It was only in the circumstances where we had to penetrate facilities, and I terminated it as immediately thereafter as those facilities in one circumstance flew out of control.
And claims of expertise, which is if I can be candid for a moment, how and why I dismissed Cal Corf 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.
When I study all the people that are contentious about me, whether it's Dr. Scowan, who has not yet seen my papers, he reviewed a videotape brought to him by Erskine and Monster, and perhaps Cornet and McAbee will review it for the RBL 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 they can get recorded data.
Okay, 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.
Well, I'm not Jim Liberal later or not.
Let me tell you.
Okay?
I'm also not the one who endorses photographs that later on are admitted to be fakes by the people who took them.
Wilson Souza in Puerto Rico, a MUFON investigator with Antonio Junees, 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.
Even in the same case as the Oliver's Castle crop circle made by Balls of Light video, neither one of those have directly proved out from the principles.
They are like these other contentions that you make where you just throw them out there, amplify them per your own intention.
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.
From the high desert, this is a contentious coast-to-coast AM.
I'm Mark Bell.
Hey, listen up.
6-5,000.
Call right now for that free brochure.
1-800-526-5,000.
All right.
Back now to my guests, Cal K. Korf and Jim De Latoso.
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 said about Jim Delatoso, that's true as well.
And I think that is perhaps an error on your part.
And when you take care to be sure that what you say you know to be true personally, then you don't make mistakes.
So that's what I would say to you, Cal.
To Jim, I would say you're losing the debate, Jim, and you're losing it 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 that were frauds.
And you admitted that 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.
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 photoanalysis.
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 Korf.
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.
What I said to you, Cal, I think deserves a response.
In other words, when they're your words, whether you're uttering them about me or De La Toso or whoever, if they're your words, Cal, then you should know it to be personally true before you say it.
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, 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 that information before I've done the due diligence, then you know it's wrong.
All right, Cal, with respect 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?
Well, I should apologize, but with a soft shoe, when Wendell Stevens came to me and asked me to replace the documents from three years earlier, I was very hesitant.
Well, if I've 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.
Anybody who doesn't know your, pardon the phrase, excuse for doing this, it would say, hey, it's by Jim De La Toso, Director of Computer Graphics Lab, NASA Industrial Applications Center.
They would assume, because you put Wendell's name on here, too, that, gee, a former Air Force colonel's involved in this is Jim DeLa Toso, who's director of the computer graphics lab years after he left.
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 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 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 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 nuts 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 book.
And you can probably get the tapes of this on Fox TV.
When I debated Jim DeToso 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 asked him, why are you asking me whether I speak German?
Okay?
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 Meyer 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.
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. Korf is stating to a reporter the issues concerning image processing, which is the basis of all of this.
Mr. Korf 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. Korf as an expert.
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.
And not only that, the day that Jim De La Toso tells me what is ethical, what is credible in the area of computer processing, is the day that the Pope becomes Jewish.
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...
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 Ultra Team.
Tell them what kind of car you've got.
And they will tell you, actually, even better than that, they'll guarantee you what Ultra Team 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 them.
Say, hey, I've got a so-and-so.
What can you do?
Seven days a week, 8 in the morning to 9 at night Central, the number 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.
Kytozan is 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 Kyto Slim.
Kyto Slim 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 KytoSlim, you'll get an antioxidant moisturizing cream absolutely free.
Call 1-800-557-4627.
It's guaranteed to worker 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 fact.
Well, all right.
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 Dela Toso winning, De La Toso leading, even Korth leading and Korth winning.
And the way it came out is only six percent of the uh people at this moment thought um a de la tozo, Jim De La Toso won, only one percent thought he was leading, seven percent thought it was even, seven percent thought Korf was leading,
and a whopping 78 percent thought that Korth won the debate for a debate consensus of 85 percent, which is staggering, on the side of Cal Corf.
Not always, but generally, a three-letter call like KEX or WLS 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 roughly or generally, but not completely, at the Mississippi.
W's on one side, K's on the other.
But the answer to your question is that generally, it would tell you it's a very old, venerable radio station.
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.
Wildhardline, you're on the air.
unidentified
Yeah, Art, earlier, relatively to the photograph that they talked about in the first hour, being 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 handheld.
And if they weren't on a tripod, the further it was away, the more chance there would be for jiggling in the picture, and it wouldn't be in focus.
I listened intently tonight to the program, and this Billy Meyer thing has been going on for years.
Oh, yes.
I think tonight Cal Corf did make a point.
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 at the end of the day.
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 always are those out there who say, oh, it was 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, an 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.
It's really sad because I always liked Mr. De Toso'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 Deutoso'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 said you asked him for photos to be put up on your website.
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, 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.
unidentified
Yes, he did.
But do we just go?
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. Korf 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.
As each person's lies were uncovered, or I shouldn't perhaps say lie, but I was hoping all of the, like, as if somebody could magically wave a wand and make all of the documents that aren't true disappear.
Well, I kind of sensed a diminishing of some egos at the end.
unidentified
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.
unidentified
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.
That is the larger overall point that I was talking about.
unidentified
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 ufology is concerned.