Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books 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 Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1998 -> Feb -> Here

From: Scott Hale <shale@columbus.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 15:18:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:40:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Some Questions about Korff's Book on Roswell

Phillip Mantle wrote:

> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 00:09:40 +0000
> From: Philip Mantle <el51@dial.pipex.com>
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> Subject: Some Questions about Your Book on Roswell

> Forwarded Message:

> From: JBONJO@aol.com
> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 19:52:26 EST
> To: TotlResrch@aol.com [Kal K. Korff]
> Subject: Some Questions about Your Book on Roswell

> I am the Roswell UFO Crash Photographer that you quote in your
> book, 'The Roswell UFO Crash -- What They Don't Want You to
> Know'.  Since we never have met or had any conversation I am
> curious and therefore am requesting the basis for several
> statements published in your book:

These statements are a compilation of various conspiracy theories
reported to have taken place in association with the Roswell
crash. Mr. Korff's book sets out to show that a weather balloon
was the culprit in this series of events. It doesn't appear as if
you have even taken a cursory look at the rest of the material in
his book. I don't particularly believe either theory about
Roswell is substantial enough to call the case solved, but you
should at least take a look at what the book's thesis is.

On page 16 of Korff's book: "In constructing the Roswell
'timeline' of events presented in this chapter, I have combined
all the divergent claims that exist among the seven major books
that have been written about the topic." Korff doesn't support
the UFO theory, so you're actually being critical of someone who
holds your view of the case at hand.

Hope I helped,
Scott K. Hale