Is Corso reliable?

I haven't read "The Day After Roswell" but from what I've heard it's a good book. Now, the thing is that I was intrigued by the thing that Gazrok mentioned, that the black eyes of greys may acctually be nightvision(or something like that?) lenses, not their actual eyes(from what I understood this was in the book?). This also contributed to the fact that there may be some truth behind the Roswell tape(even though it's proven false).
But I read Stan Friedmans take on Corso, and from what I understood it wasn't compleatly positive. Even though he pointed out the Corso had the millitary background he claimed to have, there were things that didn't make sense. Anyway, as Einstein said:

Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.

So, what is your take on him, can he be trusted? Also, does anyone know if there are other sources mentioning the lenses as nightvision, or whatever they were?

Originally posted by Phood
Now, the thing is that I was intrigued by the thing that Gazrok mentioned, that the black eyes of greys may acctually be nightvision(or something like that?) lenses, not their actual eyes(from what I understood this was in the book?).

I dont think nightvision would help against the darkness of space
I would think its protection.

Corso is a double-edged sword. On one hand, he's a pretty credible guy. High ranking officer, worked at the Pentagon, worked under Trudeau, knew Twining, Thurmond, etc. Certainly, he was in a position to be pretty likely to have dealt with the Roswell debris.

On the other hand, I'm not so sure how detailed any of us could recall events that happened decades ago. Because of a slip on such details here and there, it of course gives skeptics plenty of ammo. Corso's own attempts to overemphasize his importance in the scheme of things, also doesn't help matters. However, had I been in his shoes, I'm not so sure I would have done differently, hehe....

So, to sum up, I do believe he's credible. There seems to be little reason to doubt it. Not like he tried to get rich off this, releasing the story pretty much towards the end of his days. I think he was simply terrified of being in such a pivotal place and time with such important info, and being lost to history. In the final analysis, this pride and fear shared by such men are indeed something we as outsiders need to have as our ally, for it is the one undeniable thing that often makes such men come forward. Details that are slightly off here or there are pretty forgivable to me, when dealing with events of almost half a century ago...(at the time he came forward).

In reading his book though, you do have to be wary of some things. When he speaks of projects he wasn't heavily involved in (such as Horizon), he admits to SPECULATING that we went ahead with it. He makes the point of it being speculation pretty clear, but then devotes WAY too much on such speculations. I'd rather have NOT seen such things in his book...it really didn't need it. When using Corso as a reference, I'd stick with the things he was actively a part of.

As to the lenses...

Corso described them as dark eliptical membranes (similar to contact lenses), that functioned as low light vision when held up in front of the eye.

In the highly regarded as fake "Alien Autopsy", there is a scene with doctors removing such a membrane. From their removal, it appears that the membrane just might attach just as a contact lens does (i.e. suction), as there was no cutting, or attaching tissue, etc. Also, this scene isn't really mentioned in much of the verbal accounts, narration or text about the film.

While I too regard the footage as fake (for many many reasons), I am left wondering just why the filmakers would include this particular detail. If making a fake just for laughs or money, you'd think they'd stick with common perceptions. To date though, these are the only two sources I've seen regarding the eyes being dark due to membranes with more normal eyes underneath vs. that simply being their eyes.

My problem with Corso has to deal with his description of the crashed ship at Roswell. He described the ship as a delta-shaped lifting body instead of a saucer. The other person to say that the ship was shaped like this (I forget his name) was pretty throughly discredited....I think.

Besides that, I don't know what else I can say is suspicious about Corso's story. It's just....a feeling. There's something I don't trust about him. Well, he's dead so it's not like we're going to be getting any more information out of him.

IMO, Corso has spoken of many thing heretofore unknown or illuminated.
He put his life on the line writing that and he did not live until his first book-signing?
Seems to me the death rate among et-believers,explorers, disclosers is extremely high..

Originally posted by Gazrok
(...)
While I too regard the footage as fake (for many many reasons), I am left wondering just why the filmakers would include this particular detail. If making a fake just for laughs or money, you'd think they'd stick with common perceptions. To date though, these are the only two sources I've seen regarding the eyes being dark due to membranes with more normal eyes underneath vs. that simply being their eyes.

IMO, the possibility is that the film is actually a genuine military film, but one created for training purposes only. This could explain a few things:
- some of the discrepancies observed like the clock or the phone
- why someone could acquire it and make it public (for money that is) (I mean an actual alien autopsy film would have been maybe more protected, and one who "finds" it may have been harrassed a bit (by MIBs???))
- why also the membranes are there: for training

Now, I don't know whether the person who originally had it knew it was a training and deliberately came forward with it being an actual autopsy, or mistook it for an actual autopsy...

But back on topic, yes I believe that Corso is a good and reliable source, but indeed maybe take some things with a grain of salt when he just speculates...

I agree with the others. It's a good book, and offers a different insight on how the military mentality was in that day. They had to deal with possible KGB infiltrators and such. They had to be very paranoid which shows up in this book.

Also, have you ever seen a video interview of him? He tends to ramble and go off on tangents. Now try to imagine taking this information down and turning it into a book. The co-author probably did not get everything perfect.

Great book. Corso definitely came off truthful IMO. There were a few speculations he raised that I dismissed but who doesn't do that from time to time?

As mentioned, when reading Corso's account, one needs to focus more on what he says about things he supposedly had first-hand knowledge of...NOT the numerous speculations, etc. he rambles on about.

At least he mentions that they ARE speculations, unfortunately, he then goes on for a chapter or two on them, instead of just focusing on HIS role in all of this. In other words, the Fort Riley sighting of the body, and the later role with the debris tidbits, or comments on reports he had read.

Originally posted by Gazrok
At least he mentions that they ARE speculations

75% of this forum should learn that.