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 -> Mar -> Here

From: Ufojoe1 <Ufojoe1@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:01:16 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 09:23:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Jim Dilettoso Finally Exposed for Good?

>Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 13:04:15 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Jim Dilettoso Finally Exposed for Good?

>Joe,

>I may not agree with Kal on a lot of things, although I find
>myself agreeing with him more than with many on this list, but
>the important point is that Dilettosa is one of those who doesn't
>know Jack.

>This has nothing to do with whether the Phoenix lights were a big
>UFO or not.

>Dilettoso is not an expert on anything photographic, and his work
>gets the laughter it deserves when shown in knowledgeable
>photographic circles.

>Anyone can buy a computer and some software and make "purty
>pitchers" with lots of colors and such, generate graphs, and
>connect dots.

>This makes them an expert at ----- what?????


>Bob


Bob,

I don't get it, You read my posting and then quote from it
and still comment about Dilettoso. I thought I made it clear
that I didn't care what he had to say about the videos of
the "flares". Did you also read the whole Phoenix Times
article? There was A LOT more than just comments &
facts about Dilettoso.

Please, anyone on this list correct me if I'm mistaken but,
Kal K's original posting failed to bring up the fact that the
article in question states that the 8:30pm sighting was
probably a formation of jets. Does Kal agrees with this?
If he does, then he must also agree that all of the
eyewitnesses were totally unreliable as the article
insinuates.

Kal does conclude, along with the author of that slanderous
article, that the later sightings were flares. He doesn't bother
to explain how they stayed in the air for so long. At least he
didn't in his original post. They may turn out to be flares
but nobody knows yet. Except Kal & the author it seems.

Kal states that he has proclaimed 1998 the year of
accountability. Proclaimed? What is a King now?

I'm sorry, but Kal along with stating what he did about the
article, should have also told us that the article makes fun
of abductees who claim that some sort of hybrid program may
be going on with us and "them". Whoever "they" are. Why didn't
he say he was disappointed in that aspect of the article? Maybe
because he thinks the abductees who tell that type of story are
dilusional? I would be curious to hear his view on some of the
negative things that were inferred in that article regarding some
of the people that have claimed to have experiences. That
includes a jab a Steven Greer's experience. I guess Greer made
it up too huh?

Please, anyone please tell me if I'm the one being unobjective
here. I may be wrong but I consider myself very open minded,
objective & a critical thinker. I don't know what to think of the
whole ET, UFO, Abductee and Secret Gov't claims. I do want
to keep searching for the truth and not come to any conclusions
until we have concrete evidence.

Maybe Kal is good for the UFO community. You tell me. At
this moment, I don't think so.

Joe in Tampa