July 5th, 2009 - Jim Dilettosso

[russhorseman]

Just had a listen, guys. Another very entertaining episode.

A couple comments:

• Love the relaxed discussions between the two of you. I wouldn't mind more of these types of shows. Though I can't stand the political discussions when they happen (I come to the Paracast to escape from all that), your back-and-forth conversations are extremely professional and miles ahead of other podcasts. No overabundance of in-jokes or walking over each other. Very entertaining.
• The sound quality on this episode was noticeably excellent on my end. Everyone was clear and understandable. Once again, Jim was a nice guest and I enjoyed all the technical talk. I'm a Photoshop novice (I illustrate "mermaids" as a hobby) and the discussion on histograms and channels resonated with me just a tiny bit. Those are two areas where I would LOVE to get better at.

Looking forward to the next couple weeks. Great way to pass the time as I travel.

Be safe, guys.

 

[Apocalypto]

Good show. Thanks again for your wonderful work.

 

[ufojoe]

So true.

Look guys, I remember seeing this years ago, I really do. I actually was taken aback when David and Gareth chimed in as if it was news to them, honestly. Whatever this was, must not have been a widely watched program and I just happen to catch it. It was several years ago.

Yep. Old news. I think it was on a TLC show about the Phoenix Lights. Way back when.

Jim D. is the kind of guy that the UFO/Paranormal field needs more of.

 

[Invading the fridge]

Good show, kinda liked the first 30minutes of it and Jim was good guest. I have to say tho I don't think spectral analysis is very good on a photograph or video.

 

[SR2]

Something is not right here. There is a disconnect. Dilettosso is in the Hall of Shame on ufowatchdog.com.

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/hall2.html

Dave and Gene kind of gave him a pass on this, and anecdotally mentioned the Meier stuff at the end of the show.

He sounds intelligent and is very well spoken -- but then again so is Hoagland.

Did Dilettosso endorse the Billy Meier photos as genuine or not?

I sort of felt the same way regarding this interview. He may have admitted that the wedding cake photos were faked, but most people consider them fakes, so that's no surprise. Dilettosso seemed to believe that the Meier photos he examined were not hoaxed.

From Ufowatchdog.com:

Endorsed Billy Meier photos as genuine. Reportedly used NASA letterhead with his name typed on it, never worked for NASA. Claimed to have worked on the movie 'Titanic', studio said "Never heard of him" and no credits are listed under his name for that movie. Dilettoso even endorsed the fraudulent Oliver's Castle footage as authentic.

I wish these points were addressed. If Ufowatchdog.com is making false claims, they should be notified and corrections should be made. I don't expect "60 Minutes" style grilling of guests, but if they're are questions about someone's past, they should be allowed to respond to the accusations. Perhaps you ran out of time. Maybe you could have him back for a part 2.

 

[spookyparadigm]

That video was part of a documentary that did a pretty good job on the case, and was I believe evenhanded.

The same folks did a documentary on the St. Louis area triangle of 2000, including hiring a forensic CGI reconstruction team to interview the witnesses, look at the one polaroid taken, map it out, take photos of the spots, and then work with the witnesses until they could come up with images of what they remember as having seen, and to plot out the course of the "object." Ala NIDS, they concluded that the object was likely real, but a military lighter-than-air-craft. I don't know if they have a NIDS connection.

They're some of the only UFO shows I've ever seen on TV that I would recommend to someone with a straight face or without an eye towards looking at them as cultural documents.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I don't know a whole lot about Diletosso but I've seen him on TV a few times and he seems to always come to the conclusion that every UFO related image he's looking at is the real thing. He gave the Phoenix lights his seal of approval as well. To me those were clearly flares (I'm talking about the later sighting of lights that were filmed by some people, not the earlier giant triangle sightings.) but he claimed otherwise. I don't know, it's just difficult for me to take him seriously at this point.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I only have one thing to say. Go here and then come back and tell me you do not know whether they are flares or not.

Fantastic! I saw that years ago and could never remember what it was called. Before seeing that I suspected those videos were of flares, after seeing it there was no doubt. That show conclusively debunked it. But years have gone by and lots of people act like it is still a mystery and I'm always like, "Didn't you see that documentary on Discovery or History or whatever? They definitively showed it was flares!" And then sometimes they ask me, "What show?" and I have never been able to remember precisely what documentary it was or exactly which channel it aired on. But since Dilettosso was on it he should bloody well know about it! That video needs to be seen by everyone interested in UFOs so that we can finally lay that matter to rest once for all.

However, I'm only talking about the later sighting. The later sighting is the one that several people filmed and that the media went on and on about and it is the one analyzed in that clip. That event was clearly flares, no doubt about it. But there were many, many sightings earlier in the night of a giant triangle and that is the true meat of the Phoenix case. I haven't yet reached a conclusion about those earlier sightings.

 

[mahigitam]

i heard the show where jim D talks on wcufo...
well wat i heard is
he said there are 2 methods,1 is mind-eye thing and 2 is analysis,tests thru technology...
did he test those wcufo photos?as far as i know opinions are a like a trash can...he said according to his experience of analysing ufo photos he says he feels its a model....well plz show me any other ufo picture where the ufo stands so close to the camera in full detail..i dont think so...so my guess is jim D's experience comes from analysing majority of fake photos which are not even as clear and as close as meier's...so defntly mind-eye thing doesnt work...

Again opinions not results from analysis....
so as to me wcufo was not put thru tests...and thers no hard evidence that its a hoax except "it looks like","it looks like its a fallen pin","it looks like trashcan lid".....as far as my skepticism goes.."looks like " doesnt worj to call something a hoax..analysis by james deardorff proves that the trashcan lid size doestn work in all wcufo 63 pics and video...so guys is thee anything gud,reasonable to look into except "looks like","similar to that"....please spare me those

 

[David Biedny]

i heard the show where jim D talks on wcufo...
well wat i heard is
he said there are 2 methods,1 is mind-eye thing and 2 is analysis,tests thru technology...
did he test those wcufo photos?as far as i know opinions are a like a trash can...he said according to his experience of analysing ufo photos he says he feels its a model....well plz show me any other ufo picture where the ufo stands so close to the camera in full detail..i dont think so...so my guess is jim D's experience comes from analysing majority of fake photos which are not even as clear and as close as meier's...so defntly mind-eye thing doesnt work...

Again opinions not results from analysis....
so as to me wcufo was not put thru tests...and thers no hard evidence that its a hoax except "it looks like","it looks like its a fallen pin","it looks like trashcan lid".....as far as my skepticism goes.."looks like " doesnt worj to call something a hoax..analysis by james deardorff proves that the trashcan lid size doestn work in all wcufo 63 pics and video...so guys is thee anything gud,reasonable to look into except "looks like","similar to that"....please spare me those

dB

 

[dyingsun]

Actually laughed out loud, thanks dB