Because, they're really famous books, so I wondered. To help you with the answer, here's the following excerpt from a session that mentions Corso en passant, in the May 27, 2000 session:
Q: (L) Okay, that takes care of my short questions. Now, we have a problem here with Roswell. I just finished reading Kal Korff's book "Roswell: What they don't want you to know," and it is pretty much a bashing expose of lies and confusions spread, supposedly, by the many witnesses who have come forward over the years. He takes Jesse Marcel apart, he takes the fireman's daughter's story apart; he rips the undertaker's story to pieces; he takes Phil Corso's story apart; you name it, he bashes it to bits. Pretty effectively, too, in my opinion. He seems to have located the origin of the "little sticks" with hieroglyphics on them" seen by several of the so-called witnesses. This is a SERIOUS problem with this whole story. The problem is that, despite the fact that all the stories have been dissected by this guy so effectively, there ARE things he cannot account for, and explanations that he makes that simply don't fit his thesis.
On the one hand, he claims that the Roswell base people instituted a cover up of a top secret balloon project, and on the other hand, he says that the Roswell base did not KNOW about the top secret balloon project because it was so secret! That is completely irreconcilable.
Then he quotes a general's written statement that something WAS going on that had something to do with alien interactions, and dismisses this signed statement as "hearsay."
The thing that occurs to me is that
a) either we have somebody going back and forth in time, tweaking the facts, such as Marcel's military records and such things including any records of the nurse that the undertaker claims to have talked to, or
b) we have something that did happen and either they went back in time to set a situation up so that people would start remembering something OTHER than what happened, so as to cover up the real event with more or less "false memories" that could be not stand scrutiny; or
c) they are just feeding disinformation through all of these people, and have produced a whole scenario with all kinds of witnesses and weird stuff to cover up something that happened. Could you comment on this. You have already said that the actual crash did not occur at Roswell, that it occurred on the Plains of San Augustin...
A: Try scenario 3.
Q: (L) So, they are feeding disinformation through all the so-called "Roswell witnesses."
Q: (L) To cover up something that really did happen?
Q: (L) And they are feeding the disinformation through the people so that they will come out with this whole story, make all this big splash, so that it can THEN be proven false, so that everybody will think that the whole thing was a crock of kaflooey. Is that it?
A: Not quite. Confusing stories and fabrications are used to muddy the waters in anticipation of future disclosures. And beware of authors who cast one stone and hit multiple targets. As with any conspiratorial mystery, keep focused on the earliest entries in the evidentiary train, i.e. "RAAF recovers flying disk in Roswell region."
Q: (L) Oh, the newspaper headlines. Yes. Hmmmm... Terry was saying that he thought the Roswell business was a cover-up for space-time travel by some secret U.S. group.
Q: (L) So, the other information you have already given on Roswell still stands. Is there any other comments you want to add to this information at this time?
A: Roswell did involve evidence of non-human intelligence.