Philip Corso's Notes - Dawn of a New Age

a reply to: Jukiodone

The neurological principle you are discussing is called "confabulation" among other things.

Yes, that was one of my first guesses.

Of course there wasn't a cloud in the sky..
And the "craft" was nearly direct overhead for part of it's trajectory with no barriers or disruptions to perception.

I've only mentioned part of the situation around this event, but in short I'm convinced that the entire viewing was projected into my mind, before, during, and even somewhat after the whole episode occured.

Now was "something physical" involved in some manner? That's possible.

Was something "not physical in the usual sense" involved? I find that more likely.

Remember, I don't even "believe" in UFOs...not in any usual sense, and this is the only such "sighting" I've had in 55 years.

Kev

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Electricity going through wires (or leads on a circuit board) is not as fast as light going through wires (fiber optics).

The advantages are greater economy, less resistance, and more signals that can be sent along each frequency of light (different signals being sent in the "blue" band and "orange" bands at the same time).

P.S. -- Oh, and resistance to EMP interference (except IR heat, of course).

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Check out the link in my edit..it's not confabulation.... its the same process that allows a driver to see a pedestrian walk behind a phone booth and not be surprised when he steps out in the road from the other side.

The brain is constantly creating a predictive future and it will fill in the gaps if the input is stifled.

If you saw something real yet highly confusing that suddenly "stealthed", "shielded" or otherwise "scanned retinas for observers then emitted a photonic phase gradient pulse as a countermeasure" (!made it up!): all bets are off .
The article suggests that the brain uses past imagery in an entirely NORMAL cognitive process (whereas confabulation is considered dysfunctional).

A flying triangle that suddenly stealthed/activated visual countermeasures surely appeals more than the space pixie??

originally posted by: JimOberg
I ran through the notes for space-related material and found it a hodge-podge of garbled notes with no evidence of first-hand familiarity with the topic.

Exactly. His writings are nothing more than an imaginative writer with halfway decent research skills could come up with after reading a pile of the UFO books available during the 1990s. Actually, there are plenty of science fiction writers who probably have a better handle on the whole subject than he did.

Does anyone here besides me also get a "dated" feel about the writing? For somebody supposedly dealing with materials and other items from "the future," it all seems kind of old and tired in the 2010s, only a couple decades after he wrote it. Some topics, such as advanced artificial superintelligence, are much more at the forefront of UFO speculation these days, but barely warrant a mention in this book. In his writings, there's still a lot of discussion about somehow modifying human beings for space/time travel, but these days a lot of people are more convinced that our advanced AI progeny will make it there (and back) long before we will, if we ever do.

As for the poor grammar and spelling, this is obviously just a set of cobbled together notes taken from a variety of sources, possibly as a beginning draft for a follow-up book. I don't count that as a negative. Not as much as him not really having anything unique or insightful to contribute that would verify that he wasn't just talking out of his butt.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
Industry and invention/ R&D were not taken from zero to 100 by Roswell crash or other crash information, but instead were added into what was known and could be done, helping to advance the science a few more steps down the road faster than would otherwise have happened. "Artificial acceleration" of what we were already working on, in other words.

The funny thing is, if we are living in an artificially accelerated timeline because of incursions from beings/craft from the future, our technology might already be in advance of the timeline we got it from -- except perhaps the time travel technology, which seems to involve some kind of "psychic" energy we don't know how to work with in our reality. We couldn't (and still can't) make sense of the technology, and don't have anything like it, so it was never seeded into existing research. This seems particularly true with the biological versus artificial developments. They somehow used modified humans to achieve time travel, while we're moving rapidly forward with non-human intelligence?

As a way of woodshedding a possible "explanation," maybe that's why Corso's stuff seems to worn out these days. Because it's from the "old future," and not the one we're building in this timeline. Intelligence -- and therefore technology -- moves sideways through time, and not necessarily in a straight line?

a reply to: Jukiodone

It appeals more to you.

That's all you can say.

Personally I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever in support of a more "wishful thinking sort of consensus" opinion.

Now that said...there are numerous possible explanations other than the two we have discussed.

Kev

a reply to: gortex

And that very well could be, gortex!

I'm not treating it like a fundamentalist believer, so to speak, but more delving in out of curiosity.

If something is in there that is real, then I want to know about it. If its all bunk, then I want to see that for myself so I can then shrug and say, "well, check that one off the list..."

Anyway, I really appreciate you taking the time to jump in here!! It is fun to do the research for me, though time consuming.



- AB

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: AboveBoard
Industry and invention/ R&D were not taken from zero to 100 by Roswell crash or other crash information, but instead were added into what was known and could be done, helping to advance the science a few more steps down the road faster than would otherwise have happened. "Artificial acceleration" of what we were already working on, in other words.

The funny thing is, if we are living in an artificially accelerated timeline because of incursions from beings/craft from the future, our technology might already be in advance of the timeline we got it from -- except perhaps the time travel technology, which seems to involve some kind of "psychic" energy we don't know how to work with in our reality. We couldn't (and still can't) make sense of the technology, and don't have anything like it, so it was never seeded into existing research. This seems particularly true with the biological versus artificial developments. They somehow used modified humans to achieve time travel, while we're moving rapidly forward with non-human intelligence?

As a way of woodshedding a possible "explanation," maybe that's why Corso's stuff seems to worn out these days. Because it's from the "old future," and not the one we're building in this timeline. Intelligence -- and therefore technology -- moves sideways through time, and not necessarily in a straight line?

Whooee! Mind. Blown. (see previous Tsar Bomba video for a visual)

The whole time travel thing does tend to get messy. IF that is a true component of all this, then its even harder to pin anything down or understand it in a meaningful way. Now, I obviously don't have any evidence that time travel is true in relation to UFO's but I love the mental gymnastics!!!

If the Others like playing with us and pitting us against each other, how much more challenging (and entertaining) if they do it with time travel thrown in the mix? 4-Dimensional Chess!!

- AB

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: lostgirl

Thank you! I was very excited to see that this has only been in earliest development since the 1990's and higher applications are now possible because of it, such as the use of lasers with the fibers, quantum computing potential, etc.

I don't know, obviously, if this is PROOF of anything (in fact, technically speaking, its not) but it sure made my spidey sense tingle... Or maybe Batman is better? As in "Holy Fiber Optics, Batman!" lol!

- AB

Please take this in the spirit it's meant (friendly discussion), but don't you think you are at risk of reverse engineering something to make it meet the comments Corso made? HG Wells talked about a rocket to the moon at the turn of the last century and then only a mere 69 years later - we sent a rocket to the moon!!!! Was HG Wells aware of alien involvement, or did technical evolution inevitably lead to the developments that allowed this? I'm pretty firmly aligned to the latter.

Well, yes, this is a possibility. It is always possible that in doing "detective work" one finds clues to fit a predetermined outcome or bias rather than letting the clues determine the answer.

Again, I just found it exciting that there was something NEW that better fits the description of the technology he claims was found from a crash site.

It certainly doesn't prove anything, and I know that, but it is interesting, no? Well...at least to me.



I take your comment in the spirit of friendly discussion and welcome more. Thanks so much for participating in the thread!

- AB

Awesome, thank you for sharing. I had just sifted through Tom's AMA and noted down Corso's name to look up

a reply to: AboveBoard

I remember a story that at the crash site there was a surviving alien that had a device in his hand. It was described as a laser type device. Funny thing is that in one of the documentaries on Corso they show this simulated likeness of the laser pen like device that looks like a product that just came out recently. The Lazer Bond where you use a bonding agent that only hardens with UV light. Maybe this is what the alien had in his hand. Maybe he was fixing something in the craft like the fiber optic tubes? Another reverse engineered product?

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: AboveBoard

I barely try to have good discussions on ATS anymore...have barely started a post in 2 years.

To discuss interesting subjects properly and to sustain it amidst all the generalities and assumptions...is difficult.

Even on my own blog.

I say that we are part of a larger symbiotic framework. And yes, sometimes little lives form in us and breakaway... It happened to me.

But "harvesting"? Not really. Loosh? Not really.

We are more like waves than particles. Waves interacting with other waves. Saying "I am this" or "I am that" is only minimally meaningful.

If this was 30 years ago, people might meet up and talk. I might feel a desire to spend a month explaining things...demonstrating...maybe watch a BTUFO together.

But on ATS we all ponder our thoughts for many hours until they are all crystallized like armor around us, And then we clash off of each other.

Doesn't seem collaborative or interesting.

Kev

Hey Kev,

Sorry it took me so long to respond to this post of yours.

I really appreciate your comment about how "we all ponder our thoughts for many hours until they are all crystallized like armor around us, And then we clash off of each other."

I think its easy for people to try and play the game of "who is right and who is wrong" when in reality, we are all wrapped in the mystery.

For myself, if I find something I feel is worth sharing, I try my best to communicate that and put it out there. Sometimes I get ignored or shot down (sometimes because I didn't think of something or missed a piece, other times because my opinion is simply different).

I would LOVE to see a BTUFO. Unless they kidnap me or something. I don't know how I feel about what may be intelligently operating whatever UFO's are - I'm just grateful to have had an experience that let me know UFO's are real, so I don't have to get into that debate. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I'd be pretty cynical by now about the whole subject. I understand that in other folks here.

I've been hoping to have another sighting like the one that inspired me to look into all this stuff, and so far I've not been so lucky.

I'm digging in on Corso's notes. He makes a lot of claims, and that requires hunting down a ton of information / data. I hope to report back with more soon... I know the thread may be dead by then, but whatever. The point is that I can't either dismiss or uphold this document without putting some serious research into it. I am approaching this with a "beginner's mind" and trying not to draw conclusions, only gather facts as I can and present them. I hope that will lead me to a conclusion that I can feel more or less confident about.

I so appreciate you contributing to the thread, btw, so thank you!

- AB

Wow, a lot has happened on this thread since I last checked in! I think I will give myself the pleasure of starting at the beginning. But it will have to wait until after shopping.... Tonight. With a cocktail. YAY!

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

That's our girl !

a reply to: AboveBoard

That "beginners mind" is a good thing.

I started out with that too when I came to ATS. I had no opinion one way or the other about UFOs at that time.. I was purely wrapped up in 'spiritual research'. All my old 'spiritual friends' gave me a hard time for coming here, as they thought I was wasting my time.

Well I found out that 'spiritual' and 'ufo' are exactly the same thing, so it wasn't a waste of my time at all. In fact I have a more useful understanding of 'spirituality' BECAUSE of my 'ufo' research and my time on ATS, by far.

I owe a lot to "The GUT', and Mirageman in particular, who pointed me in the right direction, so that I went out of found Jacques Vallee, who answered nearly all of my remaining questions.

I'm a very fortunate person.

All of us take our own weird paths in this life....

Kev

My take was that the whole Ships crashing was a set up. The technology on display was perfectly matched in statistical evolutionary development to 1947 human tech development. The Greys counterpoint of cyberized tech attacking the old world central controlled Annunaki global civilization tech. A "Jacobs Ladder" extended from Grey Central. A door to the dimensions of the mental plane.

SUMMARY OF EXTENDED FINDINGS OF FIBER OPTICS AS RELATES TO PHILP CORSO'S NOTES

Fiber Optics - illustrating the differences between the normal “solid core” version and the NEW “hollow core” version. I wanted to clearly summarize/finish this up before moving on to the other forms of tech, which I have beaucoup amounts of research to do (sweat beading on my brow).

Remember, in Corso’s notes, he said this:

upon examìnation it was found they were
not wires, but appeared to be glass or transparent plastic
tubes. They could not be broken or cut and thought to be a
quartz type composi tion *

They gave the appearance of earthly fibers, so a
descrìptive terms was applied "Optical Fibers"- In reality
they were optical tubes- Thìs evolved into what is now known
as "Fiber Optics" -

Quite a claim!! We know that our very own earthly scientists had, prior to 1947 been creating an early form of what we now use worldwide in our communications systems - glass fibers that cause light (photons) to bend and flow along the cable, thus giving us a much safer and faster means of sending information around the globe.

Where were we at with fiber optics in the 1940’s? Some history...

In the 1840s, Swiss physicist Daniel Collodon and French physicist Jacques Babinet showed that light could be guided along jets of water for fountain displays. British physicist John Tyndall popularized light guiding in a demonstration he first used in 1854, guiding light in a jet of water flowing from a tank. By the turn of the century, inventors realized that bent quartz rods could carry light, and patented them as dental illuminators. By the 1940s, many doctors used illuminated plexiglass tongue depressors...

Alexander Graham Bell patented an optical telephone system, which he called the Photophone, in 1880, but his earlier invention, the telephone, proved far more practical.

Optical fibers went a step further. They are essentially transparent rods of glass or plastic stretched so they are long and flexible. During the 1920s, John Logie Baird in England and Clarence W. Hansell in the United States patented the idea of using arrays of hollow pipes or transparent rods to transmit images for television or facsimile systems. However, the first person known to have demonstrated image transmission through a bundle of optical fibers was Heinrich Lamm, than a medical student in Munich. His goal was to look inside inaccessible parts of the body, and in a 1930 paper he reported transmitting the image of a light bulb filament through a short bundle.

LINK

WHAT ARE “NORMAL” FIBER OPTIC CABLES AND HOW DO THEY WORK?

I had to research this, as it is totally outside my domain. I thought I’d share, and provide the foundation for the next part:

Light travels down a fiber-optic cable by bouncing repeatedly off the walls. Each tiny photon (particle of light) bounces down the pipe like a bobsleigh going down an ice run. Now you might expect a beam of light, traveling in a clear glass pipe, simply to leak out of the edges. But if light hits glass at a really shallow angle (less than 42 degrees), it reflects back in again—as though the glass were really a mirror. This phenomenon is called total internal reflection. It's one of the things that keeps light inside the pipe.

The other thing that keeps light in the pipe is the structure of the cable, which is made up of two separate parts. The main part of the cable—in the middle—is called the core and that's the bit the light travels through. Wrapped around the outside of the core is another layer of glass called the cladding. The cladding's job is to keep the light signals inside the core. It can do this because it is made of a different type of glass to the core. (More technically, the cladding has a lower refractive index.)

LINK



WHAT IS THE NEW KIND OF “HOLLOW” FIBER OPTICS? WHO DEVELOPED IT??

"DARPA creates hollow-core optical fiber for faster networks, more accurate sensors" - that's the title of an online article that I found... Interesting...

The secret to hollow-core fiber is doing away with the cladding and replacing it with photonic crystals. The light shoots down the hollow core, and when it strikes the edge, the photonic crystals bounce the photons. By doing away with the plastic/glass, these hollow-core fibers have lower signal loss (allowing for longer distances between repeaters), and the increased speed of light (about 30% faster than plastic/glass) reduces latency. According to DARPA, the fact that each fiber is physically separated (single-spatial-mode) allows for higher bandwidth, and any polarization of the light is kept in tact (important for sensing, secure communications, and other interesting applications).

How did they make these???

As for how DARPA’s hollow-core fiber was actually created, we have very little in the way of actual details — probably because this is a military project and DARPA isn’t ready to spill the beans.

(This is from 2013, by the way...) LINK

DARPA News Page, July 7, 2013

A team of DARPA-funded researchers led by Honeywell International Inc. developed the technology. The hollow-core fiber is the first to include three critical performance-enabling properties: 
Single-spatial-mode: light can take only a single path, enabling higher bandwidth over longer distances;
Low-loss: light maintains intensity over longer distances;
Polarization control: the orientation of the light waves is fixed in the fiber, which is necessary for applications such as sensing, interferometry and secure communications.

And now there is this…(mentioned in the previous post I made on fiber optics)

Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Light (MPL) in Erlangen/Germany and of the QUEST Institute, based at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), have tested a new type of optical fibre with a hollow core and have found out that this type of optical fibre was able to guide UV laser light without being damaged and with acceptable loss. Their investigations, which they have recently published in the journal Optics Express, are interesting for numerous applications: besides precision spectroscopy on atoms or ions and their use in optical atomic clocks or quantum computers, fluorescence microscopy in biology, the investigation of process plasmas, combustion studies on soot or the spectroscopy of greenhouse gases would be other possible fields of application.

(My conclusions in the next post... - AB)

CONCLUSIONS TO FIBER OPTICS SUMMARY

So Philip Corso Sr. died in 1998, and his notes were released 13 years after his death, so they had to be fully written prior to 1998. Was Hollow Core fiber optic technology something in existence at that time?

The simple answer is, “no.” We did not have hollow core fiber optic technology before Corso’s death.

Here is a link to the entire train of technology leading up to the early 2000’s. Note that Hollow Core Fiber Optics are not mentioned in that history. LINK

Also note that there is a significant leap forward beginning in the 1940’s, but primarily the 1950’s and beyond.

Again, its not that the foundations for this technology didn’t exist, but rather did they, as Corso suggested, take a leap forward in complexity and concept. Also note that Corso said the tech was “seeded” to industry for development, to companies such as Bell Labs.

My conclusion regarding the claims of fiber optics in Corso’s notes:

IF the “Roswell UFO” had hollow core fiber optic cabling using a crystalline, uncuttable material, I would submit that we are JUST NOW catching up to the concept of hollow core, of producing crystalline structures for our hollow core cables.

The problem is, of course, that without seeing the actual crash cables and comparing them with tech back then and tech we have now, there is absolutely no “proof” to be had.

So while Corso’s notes have proved potential worth through this one specific item of technology, we are still a far cry from proving anything. The fact that Corso's notes seem to point to an accurate progression of fiber optics technology and our capabilities in creating it, is, however, in my opinion, remarkable.

peace,
AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

Astounding research effort - you deserve much applause and many stars for that!!!

Just want to contribute something that might save you some research time:

I can't remember if I read it in Corso's notes or not, but somewhere I've seen the discovery of "Velcro" attributed to the Roswell crash...
...which I do not believe to be true, as (being 52) I distinctly remember when it became popular, reading that it was first invented by a Swiss engineer who walked in the woods a lot and got the idea from the burrs that he would find clinging to his clothes afterward...

Sorry I don't have a link offhand, but I'm pretty sure I'm recalling correctly.

a reply to: lostgirl

I've no doubt that I will find "mixed results" with the Corso notes, given the nature of memory and the loose non-scholarly format (i.e. no formal citations). I'm more looking at "percentages" and to see if it belongs in the "meh" pile or in the "interesting!" pile!

I know that by doing research on it, I'm merely exploring possibilities.

Thank you for the "velcro" mention! I'm sure I'll find it in the notes somewhere.

Researching it a piece at a time is really the only way to discover the truth or untruth of the matter!

- AB

ETA - I just ran a search of the entire document and "velcro" didn't come up. Hm. Could it have been from his other book on Roswell? I will keep looking for it in case it has a typo or something in it...