Friday, February 27, 2009
Kal Korff MELTDOWN!!
Well well well it has been rather fun reading the comments here. I do indeed like the one posted by Brad Hudson where Kal "Conniving" Korff sends a blathering and dizzying response to an e-mail where this chap Brad Hudson asks a few simple questions that require nothing at all but simple answers. But do we ever get a straight answer from Conniving Kal? Instead we are given this delightful email reply from Kal where Brad's eloquently constructed message invites a full on MELTDOWN of epic proportions from Kal!!! Read on and watch how little it takes to make Kal come unwoven like a cheap suit!! Kal Korff is just like a thin skinned tire on a truck crusing down the interstate when it suddenly BLOWS OUT!!! BOOOOOOOMMMM!!!! Kal's UTTER MELTDOWN is PRICELESS!!!!! ahahahaahahahahahaa!!!
Brad Hudson wrote this, "Wow, Kal, you've outdone yourself today. I don't even know where to begin dissecting the rant you've gone off on, but let me try:
1. What the hell does Don Ecker have to do with anything? He used
to own UFO, now he doesn't. He's not selling anything, so why does he
2. Kevin Randle, again. You need to get over this one. Randle will have more credibility than you until the end of time (and I don't believe everything he prints, either). Plus, you know there's a difference between slander and libel, right? Because judging by your site, I don't think you do.
3. Stanton Friedman. Ask for my money back? Really?? Mr. Friedman has done more to advance the study of UFO's than anyone else currently alive. I think I'll take the word of a nuclear physicist over a non-college educated ex-pat any day. I think we also need to point out that you were once Mr. Friedman's protege and now he has distanced from you so far that it would take light at least 10 years to get to him. He (along with Phillip Mantle) pretty much describe you as someone who can't be believed on any topic.
4. Paul Kimball. You know he's distanced from Stan Friedman, right? And that he's publicly disavowed any belief in the ET Hypothesis. Oh, wait, he's put together a movie about you. That's why you're so desperate to trash him. And that's why I'm so desperate to see the finished project. Did you not realize someone was trailing you around town with a camera? And you call yourself an intelligence officer?????
5. Royce Myers III. He hasn't done anything with that site in years. Why are you so up in arms over it? Does it mean that much to you? And don't give me any consumer crap, either. Royce doesn't sell anything, so how could I be a "consumer" of his product? (Notice that I used quotes correctly, something you still need to work on). Or is it because he said your brother would be guilty? He was guilty of assault, was he not? And he is in prison? Just checking.
Kal, you really are nothing more than an enormous joke. Just last year you claimed you were going back to the USA to work on your brother's trial. That didn't happen. You said you had signed a 5 year contract with Voijtek, and we all know how that little escapade ended up. then it was F1 racer being arrested, deported, having his YouTube account suspended. How much of that happened? Zero, mi amigo!
You need to get a job and leave all this behind. You are so bitter that those of us who dabble in Korff-dom don't need any help in making you look like an ass. You do all the work for us.
Best wishes on your final meltdown,
WOW! Brad Hudson is one hell of a psychic as he predicts the coming MELTDOWN from Kal and hold on your to your seats because the response from Kal should be a case study piece for any asylum staffers! This gets UGLY and don't get too dizzy reading Kal's CRAZY CRAZY CRAZY response and here it is "Dear Brad Hudson,
Thanks for writing, let me now respond to your various points.
1. Thanks for "thinking" for me and "telling me" HOW I feel. Problem Brad: I helped write that piece, but am NOT the piece's sole author. But you would not know this, because you didn't bother checking. I assume you know that you do NOT "think" nor "speak" for me, so you might as well stop trying.
2. I NEVER said Royce has done anything with his web site recently, did I?
Instead, YOU did. You ca ask yourself why you lie about this, it is not my problem.
I also did not largely write that part. The FACT remains that a thorough
systematic expose of Royce has YET to be done. I am NOT doing it, others are. I care not what you "believe".
3. You say I was a "prodigy" of Friedman?
Since you were NOT there, you CANNOT say I was.
For the record, I NEVER was, in fact in at least ONE of the articles that showed Friedman and I together, you can clearly see me frown and stare at him right after he made the "certain prediction" that the Space Shuttle would "bring down the UFOs."
My comment was "Do you REALLY think so?" and of course this has proved NOT
to be true.
4. You say that Friedman has done "more" for the "study of UFOs" than anyone
else has. I respectfully DISAGREE. Brad Sparks kicks Friedman's ass sideways, and 24 hours a day.
Let's "review" Friedman's track record:
A. He endorses MJ-12. Despite the FACT it is a hoax. He has NEVER come clean
B. He "endorses" the infamous Rex Heflin photos from Santa Ana, California,
in 1965. These photos show a TRAIN wheel.
C. He "endorses" the Trindade Island photos from Brazil in 1957 which ARE
D. He "endorsed" in his movie UFOs Are Real, the Santa Catalina "UFO" film
of 1966, which shows a CESSNA Airplane.
E. He "endorses" the Betty and Barney Hill "star map" — DESPITE THE FACT
THAT THE STAR MAP IS NOT A MATCH FOR ANY "ALIEN" SYSTEM, and Charles
Atterburg's "star map" is a BETTER match. The FACT that more than one
"candidate" exists, PROVES and REDUCES the Hill case to "just another story."
F. Friedman "endorses" Roswell — enough said.
G. Friedman "endorses" the Cutler-Twining Memo, deliberately and selctively
quotes from it, FAILED to "understand" that it was a HOAX and FRAUD and does
NOT say what he claimed it said.
H. I (Kal Korff) have SEEN a "UFO" — Friedman has NOT.
I. Try to find "alien worlds" in the star system of Zeta Reticuli, etc., and
the other stars in the Hill map. THEY ARE NOT THERE! FACT! So WHERE is "ET"
hiding out? On a death star which cannot be tracked by red shift light
studies nor Hubble? Yeah, right.
J. He "endorses" the NSA "UFO" memo, which has since been declassified — it
does NOT prove any such thing. Friedman was wrong, and NEVER had the right
to "profess to know" what content was in those redacted portions. Instead,
he projected his ideas into it, just like MJ-12.
5. Paul Kimball has NOT FULLY "COME CLEAN" about his Uncle Stan — it would
cause more disruptions in the family. Instead, he has done DAMAGE CONTROL
and "spin" which is very different. The key word is FULLY, but you MISSED
THIS, DESPITE THE FACT IT IS ON THE WEB SITE.
You have NO "excuse" — your "open mind" is ALREADY made up!
6. Kimball quotes Brad Sparks over the Rb-47 case, never holds Randle
accountable, Sparks says RB-47 case involves "real aliens" or ETs...so NOW Paul says he doesn;t buy this 'explanation" for UFOs? What a hypocrite. Can't have it BOTH ways, but Paul does. And of course Paul (like Stan) will still take your money. FACT. If I endorsed a FRAUD and as THE MAIN PROPONENT OF THAT FRAUD, I WOULD REFUND PEOPLE'S MONEY.
7. We predicted YEARS AGO Paul would eventually produce a video "hit piece"
on me. Accordingly, we filmed TWO YEARS AGO interviews about this. We will
air them AFTER Paul strikes first. Our whole strategy to expose Paul, is based on him behaving like the "Little Big Man, Gotta Get You Back" syndrome we say he DOES suffer from. We will not and cannot release anything until Paul "fires first." It also fits perfectly into my thesis on human psychoses and biases. UFOOLogy is a perfect study lab for people's foibles, just like Islamofascists are.
Honestly, I do NOT care about Kimball. The exposes of him are largely ALREADY done, (thanks to Martina) and since Paul has NEVER had the ethics, morals nor decency to contact me directly, (that makes him certainly NOT a journalist) that's Paul KimBULL for you, as his nickname is, most appropriately.
8. Randle - Yes, Randle both says and writes that law enforcement and military personnel have threatened to kill Roswell eyewitnesses. I notice YOU DO NOT HOLD RANDLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS. Instead, we or I am "evil" for
pointing this out and trying to do so. Writing and saying it IS both libel and slander, look it up.
9. You FAIL to mention that Royce ONLY "retired" AFTER he started to get
exposed, gee, how honorable of Royce, who to this day, remains a coward who
won't admit he blew with both of his lips, the forensics in my brother's shooting. You can read them yourself, unless you think Billy Meier hoaxed them.
Royce promised in writing to "gladly eat crow" if he was wrong. FACT: he IS wrong, unless you think the forensic scientists are liars or incompetent. But notice Royce remains "retired" and ONLY has time to send a bogus newspaper article about me to (surprise!) his "good buddy" David Biedny. Most people send bogus articles to their proxies to attack others, it is the Number #1 hobby of most "retirees" — isn't it?
ASK BRAD SPARKS YOURSELF — the SJMN article IS BOGUS, please do NOT take my word for it. Brad is in the article, and the article shows me "wearing glasses" — I have never worn them in my life. Congratulations, Mr. Hudson!
10. I am not "bitter" over anything. I also hate NO ONE, not even Bin Laden. QUIT trying to "tell me" how I feel. The FACT you DO, is YOUR problem.
11. You CONfuse "bitterness" with your OWN emotional projections. The next time you decide to TELL ME HOW I "feel" — ASK ME FIRST!
12. Get a real job or words to that effect. I have always had at least one, but you wouldn't know this, and I don't respond to comments like this, because I do not need to. They are YOUR problem.
13. "Meltdown" — in your dreams I guess, since no such thing is taking place. But yes, people like YOU DO "judge" others, — I prefer to leave that "job" to God. You also project things onto me, I am not that way, and i won't defend your behavior on this, because there is NO "defense."
14. As we have made clear, Martina and others who use and post on this site, the exposes WILL stop when they are complete. In the interim there are far more important things to do — if people "criticize" me for focusing instead on nailing the rogue officers who are now the subject of a U.S. Federal Lawsuit for wrongly shooting my brother over having Randle audited at a time and date of MY choosing — well, while we all have different priorities, I will NOT "apologize" for putting an illegal shooting case (regardless of who is involved) before either NON-existent Little Grey Men, or "Bigfoot."
When you claim that Friedman has "advanced" the study of UFOs more than any
other person, since there is NO EVIDENCE of Little Grey Men, -- exactly WHAT
has he "advanced"? The answer is his BANK ACCOUNT. Friedman admitted to me
and others YEARS ago that he only got "into" UFOs because the market was
dying for Nuclear "Physicists" — despite the fact he is an Engineer.
THANKS to Friedman, the MYTHS of Roswell and especially MJ-12 are now
entrenched in our society. Gee, that's "science" for you, and GREAT "PROGRESS" — isn't it?
Obviously, I have known Friedman for decades. I was bothered in 1975 when I
first met him and he was clearly and PASSIONATELY jealous and always attacked Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who I also knew VERY well and spent much time with.
But you wouldn't know this, that HYNEK, NOT FRIEDMAN, WAS MY REAL "hero" —
ask Friedman yourself, AFTER he moved to Canada I never had contact with him
until later when I exposed him in my Roswell book. FACT. Whereas with Hynek,
I saw and stayed in touch with him up to near his death, and STOPPED the Meier people from exploiting him for MONEY after he started to lose his mental facilities thanks to brain cancer. Same with the Lorenzens, Brad Sparks and I were VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN TRYING TO PROTECT APRO from Meier's people as well. I saw Coral Lorenzen before she died, when she needed oxygen to survive and was wheelchair bound. I fed her and took care of her for a weekend, Mr. Hudson, and also Jim Lorenzen.
The photos we took together appear on the cover of the new Meier debate series.
So much for your "expertise" on these issues.
But you wouldn't know any of this, just like you may NOT know how I appear in the notes of the expose on MJ-12. Look my name up in the expose Sparks and Greenwood did, which I notice you do NOT refute.
Because you CANNOT. You also don't hold Friedman accountable, your mind is
ALREADY made up. If I blew MJ-12, you would "crucify" me.
My best advice to you is to STOP trying to "think" for me and "tell me" what I either stand for, or believe. I can and DO "speak" for myself.
And about Paul Kimball, yes, a man who now hunts "ghosts" — gee, THAT's
"credibility" for you.
Get a clue, will ya?
In the vague chance that you might actually LEARN something, just like Randle does NOT use nor know the definition of "Debunker" properly (and notice that Paul Kimball did not interrupt Randle nor correct him, because he is also wrong and doesn't know what the word "debunker" means, like most UFO nuts) I have pasted below the Oxford Dictionary definition for the word "rant" — notice it does NOT mean what YOU claim.
But then again, anyone who cites the "logic" that you do, I would never expect them to know the different between a "rant" versus pointing out BLUNT FACTS. I do not mince words, as you know.
You seem to be "drunk" on the pro-ET "LGM" kook-aid. You may wish to stop
drinking it, your choice.
Whatever, Mr. All-knowing, Judgmental person. Maybe you confused me with the
song "Final Countdown" — at least THAT is understandable.
For the record, it does NOT "bother" me if UFO CONspiracy or JFK CONspiracy or Bigfoot "believers" do not think I am "credible" — I desire NONE of them as "friends" and I do not subscribe to their uneven lack of standards and quite often, lack of morals.
Instead, I prefer to expose them for what they are.
The MARKET IS NOT THEM, BUT THE REST OF THE PUBLIC, AND TO TRY TO INFORM AND PROTECT PEOPLE FROM THESE PREDATORS who are merely agenda-driven personalities.
15. Regarding Vojtek, we have video of us signing the agreement, etc., which Vojtek participated in because we did intend to work together. But I (Kal) and three others changed our minds. We have many hours of video we WILL air several months from now, about what we REALLY did with Vojtek. Martina has ALL of this footage and she will release it as she sees fit, since she also worked with me with Vojtek, as did my Adjutant. Martina is in these videos a lot.
16. Regarding F1 racer, sorry I cannot talk about Mr. Underwood right now. I will not "explain" WHY, I don't have to and I "owe" you nothing on this. Just like I do not have to "explain" to you, especially, if I decide NOT to work with someone.
17. Who dies and made YOU "King"?
18. The fact you would quote or cite a person (F1) who calls others a pedophile or jew hater, claims I have images of Hitler in my living room, and other such "intellectual" things says ALL I need to know about YOU.
You keep and cite some rather hate-filled friends.
verb [ intrans. ]
speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way : she was still ranting
on about the unfairness of it all.
a spell of ranting; a tirade : his rants against organized religion.
rant and rave shout and complain angrily and at length.
ranter |ˈrøn(t)ər| |ˈrantə| noun
rantingly |ˈrøn(t)ɪŋli| adverb
ORIGIN late 16th cent. (in the sense [behave in a boisterous way] ): from
Dutch ranten 'talk nonsense, rave.'
And there you have Kal Korff's MELTDOWN!! And yes reading Kal making statements about morals is a joke. I do believe that most would agree that pretending to have a brain tumor isn't very moral or ethical as an example. Neither is promising to deliver on things for years at a time and never doing such.
Kal you should wake up and smell the coffee and realize that for all your silly efforts that it is clear to any reasonable and intelligent person that email to Brad Hudson was you dodging questions and going into a full on MELTDOWN!!! And I believe Brad Hudson brings about several precise points in his email message to you. Oh I almost forgot to show Brad Hudson's response to Kal's MELTDOWN!!!!! Here is Brad Hudson's response throwing Kal's bullshit right back in his own face, "Wow. I had no idea I had made that many points.
Wait, I didn't, but I'll be glad to go through them.
1. You didn't write it all. Right. Have the author come forward.
2. No, but you act as if the site is, in fact, still active. Additionally, if you are aware of the state of the site isn't it somewhat disingenuous of you to compare it to your site, an active one? Not mentioning the site has not been updated for some time certainly might lead readers to believe you are being actively wronged rather than the truth that RMIII removed you from his HoF and added the always witty "Kan 'o Korff" section (one of the modern classics, I assure you).
3. No, Kal, I said you were his protege, not prodigy. Dear God, learn to read. And, yes, you did begin with Friedman, did you not?
4. Brad Sparks is a fine researcher, but I still defer to Friedman. (Let it go, Kal, we can back and forth all day. BTW, MUFON isn't too happy about the hotlink.). Brad's MJ12 rebuttal is compelling, but I still go with Friedman on this (and, no, Brad didn't prove the docs are hoaxed, nor does he say that in his conclusion. He says he feels they are fraudulent. That ain't proof, tubby).
Your other Friedman lines are tired rhetoric.
5. Paul Kimball has consistently stated he has problems with his uncle's work. Anything beyond that is obviously something you want but won't get.
6. Actually, Brad says that the case involves real radar signals. His own conclusions (in the document you linked to) are that he sees no evidence fully supporting the ETH, so, no, Brad doesn't say definitely that aliens were the cause of the signals in the RB-47 case
(Wow, I was pretty sure I only had 5 points in my email. How you got 18 is beyond me)
7. Care to share the date code on that tape? Hmm, I don't believe you Kal. Odd, huh? Of course, not believing you puts me in pretty good company these days. Prove you have 2 year old tape, Kal. You can't, but you'll just bellow "I don't have to". Have you ever read "A Confederacy of Dunces"? Fabulous book. You are a modern Ignatius Reilly, for sure.
8. No, actually Randle states that witnesses were threatened at the time. That is entirely believable for the time and in no way libels any current military officer.
9. Kal, RMII retired and then you started tilting at his windmill. What "expose" are you talking about?? Your crusade because he happens to think you're full of shit?? Hardly a groundswell of backlash. As for the article you mention, the author stands by it and has stated you did not ask for a contraction when it was printed. Sorry, Kal, again I'm going to have to take the writer's version here, mostly because he's never BS'd me before.
10. (This is boring) You could have fooled me as you seem awfully bitter over the fact that RMIII called a spade a spade. And I never mentioned once the word hate. You inserted that (as you are prone to do. I see how "involved you were in Brad's MJ12 piece. You were in the room for a CONVERSATION! Do you want a cookie for that? You did nothing but act as a witness that, yes, this conversation did happen. Helluva research job, pardner).
11. Just see the above statement. Normally, Kal, you would only number different trains of thought.
12. No, Kal , I said "Get a job", you added the "real" modifier. What actual job have you held in the last 12 months? None that I can see.
13. Don't defend me. I wouldn't want you on my side. BTW, your writings do indicate someone on the edge of a mental breakdown. Just my educated opinion (and my opinion is educated in these matters)
14. OK, you're kind of all over the place here. I'm pretty sure I never mentioned Hynek or the Randle audit (which you claimed in a video to be "dropping off", another of your lies). I'll just skip ahead.
15. What you really did with Voijtek was to be hired to teach English on a freelance basis and then leveraged that into receiving goods from a local Apple seller. That's what is in the public record. These "hours of video" will never surface, so don't bother talking about things you don't have.
16. Hmm, perhaps you can't talk about it because there's nothing to talk about. If you were seriously trying to stop him you would have already filed suit overt his site where he actively libels you on a regular basis. You won't because you know you'll get torched in court when the house of cards that is your web of lies (wow, two metaphors!) will come crashing down as courts require more proof than a couple of yellowed newspapers and an old science fair ribbon.
17. I think you meant "died" here, and I don't ever remember claiming a throne anywhere. Nope, I've never once claimed to be a King, Duke, or any other royalty.
18. No, that would make you a bigot for judging me by something as facetious as that.
Kal, your long winded reply failed to do one thing: answer the more salient points in my email and, just like your past email to me you have dodged the bigger issues.
PS - I forgot to ask: it's OK for you to rail on Randle via the dictionary but when Paul Kimball uses 3 of them to refute your nonsense it's not OK?? Oops, forgot who I was writing to. Double Standard Kal.
After this Kal sent me an email claiming he would reply to my points in full at a later time.
I guess it will be sometime after the audit of Randle's work gets done...."