Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Apr -> Korff Challenges Deardorff! (Hey, that Rhymes!)

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: TotlResrch@aol.com
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 05:10:14 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 00:02:14 -0400
Subject: Korff Challenges Deardorff! (Hey, that Rhymes!)

To: updates@globalserve.net

>Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Kal Korff Admits He's NOT A Spy! [Jeroen Jansen]

>The thing to notice in Korff's Fig. 66 (a blowup of a portion of
>his Fig. 65) is the thin, roughly horizontal line above the
>beamship that looks like a scratch or brush mark, to which his
>4 arrows point.  He claims it is a supportive device (for a
>model UFO).  However, the brush mark has a slight curve to it
>-- it is bowed upwards.  Anyone who has hung clothes from a
>clothesline knows that only a slight weight suspended from the
>line will cause that line to bow downwards, not upwards.

>This line terminates without proceeding to the left side of the
>blowup, another feature not mentioned by Korff in his book.

>I thought I'd point this out before being placed on Korff's
>"to-ignore" list along with Bob Shell and Michael Hesemann.


Dear Jim,

As usual, you are WRONG in this matter. The line does indeed go
across the ENTIRE LENGTH of the picture in the book, it's just
that the halftone process used to reproduce the photo in the book
does not show this unless you look VERY carefully. Maybe you
should use a magnifying glass. This is the REAL REASON it is not
mentioned, Jim, so there's no "mystery" here -- although I
congratulate you once again for trying to make something out of
nothing.

Furthermore, the suspicious line cannot be a "scratch" (as you
rationalize) because the same "scratch" shows up in many of
Meier's photos taken that day -- a FACT I note in my book that
YOU CONVENIENTLY IGNORE!! For your info, Jim, this fact is
mentioned two pages previous in my book to the one you selectively
cite from.  For shame!!

I don't think that I need to remind you, Jim, that selective
choice of data does no one any good - especially yourself in this
case.

Moreover, Jim, since you do NOT have the ORIGINAL PHOTO as I do,
nor copies of ANY of these enhancements, YOU ARE IN NO POSITION
to comment on any part of this -- although you can always
speculate, which you seem to be very good at.

However, there is often a distinct difference between speculation
and reality. I prefer reality myself.

I have not put you on any "ignore" list, but the reason I have
not been in correspondence with you is because there's no point
in debating the merits of religion. I believe that Meier's Talmud
Immanuel (or Jmmanual) is a fraud, you seem to think it's real,
despite the fact that there's no original manuscript
(conveniently, of course, like there's no original Meier
negatives to his 'UFO' pictures around) for science to test.

Despite this fact, people like Hesemann and Wendelle Stevens keep
saying that Meier's photos have been "proven" to be real
(nevermind the fact there's no original negatives). By this
"reasoning" and their "standards" of "evidence," a photo of the
Easter Bunny would constitute "proof" that the Easter Bunny does
indeed exist!

If you choose to believe that Meier is the messiah, or is Jesus
reincarnated, or travelled back in time and met Jesus, well,
whatever you choose to believe it's your right and I have no
quarrel with this. Just don't try to tell me there's "scientific
evidence" to back all of this up when I know better. It's bad
enough you give UFOlogy a black eye in doing this, but do you
have to blacken the eye of science as well?

I find it curious, and most revealing, Jim, that you BLATANTLY
IGNORE the SMOKING GUNS in my book which prove that the Meier
case is a hoax. Therefore, I CHALLENGE YOU to REFUTE the
following illustrations in my book on pages: 149-151, 153,
156-158, 161-162, 167-168, 169-193. Also, please DISPROVE my
comments on Meier's "dinosaur" pictures and his photos of Venus,
and the prehistoric "Cave Man". Do you believe that Meier
actually ravelled back in time, Jim, and that his photos of
dinosaurs, Venus, etc., are of the "real" thing?? What IS your
opinion, for the record???

Instead of writing a paper attacking me and posting it on Meier's
WEB page and hiding behind his cult, I really wish you had
checked with me first. And WHY do you IGNORE these SMOKING GUNS
like the one's I've mentioned??

I'm placing a bet in Vegas that you won't be able to refute any
of this, and for the sake of the UFO field and what little
credibility it has managed to eek out, I hope I lose this bet. I
would rather be proven WRONG, and have the UFO database of cases
be inviolate and trustworthy.

This is why I choose not to correspond with certain
individuals...Hesemann, Mantle and Shell amongst them. However,
if and when ANYONE (even these gentlemen) bring something to the
table that is CREDIBLE, I am all ears and would of course listen.
Just like if you could refute some of the smoking guns in my
book, Jim, I would certainly admit to you or anyone else where I
erred, if indeed that's what I did.

Better luck next time,
Kal