It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The similarity in Reverse engineered alien technology and the Intelligent design debate

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 07:14 PM
Ok I have a Idea.

Reverse engineered alien technology as a explanation of the explosion of recent technological evolution is very similar to the Intelligent Design arguments against evolution.

Both require "gaps" in the "evolutionary record" (biological and technological"

Both require a non human designer

Both require "believers" to propogate the idea.

Both require a unreasonable explanation instead of scientific theory (In my own opinion)

Anyone know where Occam hid the Razor? :-)

seriously any Thoughts on this - i put a new thread as I feel that the Skeptics are bored of the definitive backwards engineered thread and your input is important. Phage and Badge01 I am sure you guys have come to a similar conclusion but not worded it the smae.

Bob and slayer you are more than welcome to continue our debate here as I think you are right, It doesnt really apply to your thread.

sorry about my spelling - its crap i know

[edit on 5-2-2009 by oinkmentthefirst]

[edit on 5-2-2009 by oinkmentthefirst]

[edit on 5-2-2009 by oinkmentthefirst]

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 07:45 PM
Interesting concept.
Could you go into much more detail I am interested in hearing more about how the two are similar.
Please continue.
Not flaming

thanks again.

And welcome to ATS.

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:59 PM
Hi Slayer,

Hope Bobs not to mad about the Crocoduck to contribute too. I am not a Scientist Just a Hard Working Chef who has little patience with the fancy and likes everything to be black and white. In my kitchen cynical sarcasm rules supreme and I am often the butt of my colleagues jokes regarding my interest in Ufology. Despite this I have a vauguely open mind with reagrds to this kind of stuff, though I must say I prefer the skeptical outlook to the out and out Ufo Believer. I think this is a very inetresting issue in Ufology and needs looking into.

as we have discussed in the main thread,

To apply a outside influence to Human technoligical evolution is like saying that we (humans/earth/universe) required a outside designer. Why can't the "tech tree" we are on be just the product of human acheivement.
True that some technology R+D seems very secretive and prehaps some is covered by US military and Top Secret documents. However that does'nt mean there is more than meets the eye.
I will give a example - Radar/sonar for a long time was a military only application and the average guy on the street couldn;t get any access. Then some guy (sorry no name but it is well documented) was studying bats and made the connection that Bats use Radar/Sonar to get about and explained how they do it. The military/scientific world tried to cover up his reserch and asked him to come to a different conclusion as Sonar was High Tech/secret tech and there is no way nature could of evolved what they had spent (billions?) on researching. Well they were wrong and the rest is history and the normal guy on the street can buy this technology of the shelf these days. Same with rockets, Computers, fibre optics and microwaves. All had there sources in military/top secret R&D and only now is it in the public hands so to speak.

Now to say that becuase these R+D projects were secretive and then apply a unneccessary outside non human influence is like saying that the eye could not have evolved natrually. If you look into the backround the the evolution of technological progress no outside influence is needed - either as a merging technology or as "gifts" handed down from extraterrestial benefactors. Its like the ID argument for the "crocoduck" or walking fish - there is no crocoduck because there doesnt need to be, the common ancester for ducks and crocodiles lived a very long time ago and the paths the two animals have taken in evolution are very different and cannot merge together now even if they wanted to. Now I don't know what the common ancester was for the silicon chip but for fibre optics it was copper cable and that has been around since the first telegraph system. I imagine if you wanted to merge Alien Tech with ours you would have the same compatibilty problems as ducks and crocodiles do today.

Hope thats clearer - i gotta go to bed - catch you all tommorow

[edit on 5-2-2009 by oinkmentthefirst]

[edit on 5-2-2009 by oinkmentthefirst]

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:33 PM

Bob and slayer you are more than welcome to continue our debate here as I think you are right, It doesnt really apply to your thread.

Thank you for your invite

I was only mad with your attitude and sarcasm and I can dish that out forever if need be but only when pushed to do so and its only negative, but thats all in the past now.

It will be interesting to read other members comments on your new thread as I still not to sure of the bases of this, can you post some info or links based on your ideas/theory.

Now what Slayer and myself was trying to get over is that what is the difference in make up/materials and design of say a human designed fibre optic to a say obtained one?

Could you conpare the two? and how could we copy/reverse engineer the obtained one to be as effective? and to be able to be compatible with our tech.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Bob Down Under]

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:50 PM
Ok I think I have got to grips what your saying?

A bird and a reptile are two different species one is warm bloodied the other not, but both evolved from past extinct reptiles.

Today it is now know that many dinosaurs were in fact warm blooded.

A so called reversed engineered chip compared our home made silicon chip.

Evolution in the physical and electromechanics all have evolution gaps correct?

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:03 AM
Bob only if you make the gaps.

To go back to the fibre optic cables:

1. Telegraph System was first imagined after Jean-antione nollets experiments with monks and electricity.

2. The first commercial electrical telegraph was constructed by Sir William Fothergill Cooke. Cooke and Charles Wheatstone patented it in May 1837 as an alarm system. It was first successfully demonstrated by Cooke and Wheatstone on 25 July 1837 between Euston and Camden Town in London. [6] It entered commercial use on the Great Western Railway over the 13 miles (21 km) from Paddington station to West Drayton on 9 April 1839. (Morse was working on the American version and is attributed as the inventor but my british patriotic pride means that to me wheatstone was the original telegraph inventor)
3. The first successful transatlantic telegraph cable was completed on 27 July 1866, allowing transatlantic telegraph communications for the first time. Earlier submarine transatlantic cables installed in 1857 and 1858 only operated for a few days or weeks before they failed. The study of underwater telegraph cables accelerated interest in mathematical analysis of these transmission lines.
4. Another advancement in telegraph technology occurred on August 9, 1892, when Thomas Edison received a patent for a two-way telegraph (U.S. Patent 0,480,567 , "Duplex Telegraph") .

5. this lead to the development of the telephone, if you look at the dates you can see how the Technologies merged into one
1844 — Innocenzo Manzetti first mooted the idea of a “speaking telegraph” (telephone).
26 August 1854 — Charles Bourseul publishes an article in a magazine L'Illustration (Paris) : "Transmission électrique de la parole".
26 October 1861 — Johann Philipp Reis (1834–1874) publicly demonstrated the Reis telephone before the Physical Society of Frankfurt
22 August 1865, La Feuille d'Aoste reported “It is rumored that English technicians to whom Mr. Manzetti illustrated his method for transmitting spoken words on the telegraph wire intend to apply said invention in England on several private telegraph lines.”
28 December 1871 — Antonio Meucci files a patent caveat (n.3335) in the U.S. Patent Office titled "Sound Telegraph", describing communication of voice between two people by wire.
1874 — Meucci, after having renewed the caveat for two years, fails to find the money to renew it. The caveat lapses.
6 April 1875 — Bell's U.S. Patent 161,739 "Transmitters and Receivers for Electric Telegraphs" is granted. This uses multiple vibrating steel reeds in make-break circuits.
11 February 1876 — Gray invents a liquid transmitter for use with a telephone but does not build one.
14 February 1876 — Elisha Gray files a patent caveat for transmitting the human voice through a telegraphic circuit.
14 February 1876 — Alexander Bell applies for the patent "Improvements in Telegraphy", for electromagnetic telephones using undulating currents.
19 February 1876 — Gray is notified by the U.S. Patent Office of an interference between his caveat and Bell's patent application. Gray decides to abandon his caveat.
7 March 1876 — Bell's U.S. patent 174,465 "Improvement in Telegraphy" is granted, covering "the method of, and apparatus for, transmitting vocal or other sounds telegraphically … by causing electrical undulations, similar in form to the vibrations of the air accompanying the said vocal or other sound."
10 March 1876 — The first successful telephone transmission of clear speech using a liquid transmitter when Bell spoke into his device, “Mr. Watson, come here, I want to see you.” and Watson heard each word distinctly.
30 January 1877 — Bell's U.S. patent 186,787 is granted for an electromagnetic telephone using permanent magnets, iron diaphragms, and a call bell.
27 April 1877 — Edison files for a patent on a carbon (graphite) transmitter. The patent 474,230 was granted 3 May 1892, after a 15 year delay because of litigation.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:06 AM
6. while this was going on in telecoms - fibre optics were being slowly developed:
Guiding of light by refraction, the principle that makes fiber optics possible, was first demonstrated by Daniel Colladon and Jacques Babinet in Paris in the 1840s, with Irish inventor John Tyndall offering public displays using water-fountains ten years later.[1] Practical applications, such as close internal illumination during dentistry, appeared early in the twentieth century. Image transmission through tubes was demonstrated independently by the radio experimenter Clarence Hansell and the television pioneer John Logie Baird in the 1920s. The principle was first used for internal medical examinations by Heinrich Lamm in the following decade. In 1952, physicist Narinder Singh Kapany conducted experiments that led to the invention of optical fiber, based on Tyndall's earlier studies; modern optical fibers, where the glass fiber is coated with a transparent cladding to offer a more suitable refractive index, appeared later in the decade.[1] Development then focused on fiber bundles for image transmission. The first fiber optic semi-flexible gastroscope was patented by Basil Hirschowitz, C. Wilbur Peters, and Lawrence E. Curtiss, researchers at the University of Michigan, in 1956. In the process of developing the gastroscope, Curtiss produced the first glass-clad fibers; previous optical fibers had relied on air or impractical oils and waxes as the low-index cladding material. A variety of other image transmission applications soon followed.

In 1965, Charles K. Kao and George A. Hockham of the British company Standard Telephones and Cables (STC) were the first to promote the idea that the attenuation in optical fibers could be reduced below 20 decibels per kilometer, allowing fibers to be a practical medium for communication.[2] They proposed that the attenuation in fibers available at the time was caused by impurities, which could be removed, rather than fundamental physical effects such as scattering. The crucial attenuation level of 20 dB/km was first achieved in 1970, by researchers Robert D. Maurer, Donald Keck, Peter C. Schultz, and Frank Zimar working for American glass maker Corning Glass Works, now Corning Incorporated. They demonstrated a fiber with 17 dB/km attenuation by doping silica glass with titanium. A few years later they produced a fiber with only 4 dB/km attenuation using germanium dioxide as the core dopant. Such low attenuations ushered in optical fiber telecommunications and enabled the Internet. In 1981, General Electric produced fused quartz ingots that could be drawn into fiber optic strands 25 miles (40 km) long.[3]

Attenuations in modern optical cables are far less than those in electrical copper cables, leading to long-haul fiber connections with repeater distances of 50–80 km (30–50 miles). The erbium-doped fiber amplifier, which reduced the cost of long-distance fiber systems by reducing or even in many cases eliminating the need for optical-electrical-optical repeaters, was co-developed by teams led by David N. Payne of the University of Southampton, and Emmanuel Desurvire at Bell Laboratories in 1986. The more robust optical fiber commonly used today utilizes glass for both core and sheath and is therefore less prone to aging processes. It was invented by Gerhard Bernsee in 1973 of Schott Glass in Germany.[4]

In 1991, the emerging field of photonic crystals led to the development of photonic-crystal fiber[5] which guides light by means of diffraction from a periodic structure, rather than total internal reflection. The first photonic crystal fibers became commercially available in 2000.[6] Photonic crystal fibers can be designed to carry higher power than conventional fiber, and their wavelength dependent properties can be manipulated to improve their performance in certain applications.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:26 AM
I dunno about you but that shows me a very clear path of technological progress from 200 monks holding a wire in the 1700's right up to todays megafast fibre optic cables.

To say that one of those guys was in the know and backward engineered the tech from a Alien Spacecraft instead. Well its a bit of a cop out, which one, when and how did he cover that up from his colleugues who were working on this technology anyway.

I don't understand all the ins and outs of Biological Evolution but I am sure its a very similar tale with regard to eyes.

1. photosensitive cells detect light
2. the pinhole eye improves sesitivity
3. the inclusion of a watery lens improves clarity
4. The eyelid developes to protect the eye outside of a watery enviroment
5. Colour vision developes with the improvement of animal nervous systems.
6. The modern eye merges with technology - The Contact lense/Spectacles

At no stage do I need a outside influence (intelligent designer) to explain the eyes development, natrual selection does that for me. Its the same with Technology, you do not need a Extraterrestial designer as a outside influence on human technology.

So to go back to my worn out analogy

ID is like your ED - unscientific and unneccessary as a explanation for recent Human Technoligical progress.

Most dates and names were unashamedly plagarised from Wiki pedia and similar sources I apologise for any inconsistancies in the data.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by oinkmentthefirst]

[edit on 6-2-2009 by oinkmentthefirst]

[edit on 6-2-2009 by oinkmentthefirst]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:52 AM
reply to post by oinkmentthefirst

Well done
what fantastic research

I expect ufo enthusiasts to really think hard about the info in this thread and make the logical connection. - No need for alien back-engineered intervention.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:48 AM
thanks mate,

took a lot of effort to be non sarcastic about it and try and provide some quality research and hypothesis instead of just being a skeptical reactionary.

I am learning your ATS ways - slowly but surely....

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by oinkmentthefirst

Very good post.

I hope your evidence for the development of the telegraph and telephone is not the only bases for debunking the possible back engineered alien technology theory.

Also since we are discussing Fibre optics. If one was to actually read Corsos book he said they found Fibre Optic "LIKE" material didnt actually say they found fibre optics, Also the discription he gave of it's properties have still not been seen yet in every day devices. Not yet anyways.

I am looking forward to links and any other information you can come up with.
great start
And Welcome to ATS

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:42 AM
yes but his book claimed the 'Fibre Optic "LIKE" material' was implemented and back engineered into commercial use.

The 'Fibre Optic "LIKE" material' might as well have not even existed because there's no need for it to be back engineered in the first place becuase we already had the tech. No intervention needed.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:54 AM
That's a matter of opinion. It is very much open for debate.
personally I'll agree with Corso. Do any of us have this in our Resume'?

Philip J. Corso (May 22, 1915 - July 16, 1998) was an American U.S. Army officer.

He served in the United States Army from February 23, 1942 to March 1, 1963, and earned the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.

Military career
After joining the Army in 1942, Corso served in Army Intelligence in Europe.

In 1945, Corso arranged for the safe passage of 10,000 Jewish World War II refugees out of Rome to Palestine.

During the Korean War (1950-1953), Corso performed Intelligence duties under General Douglas MacArthur as Chief of the Special Projects branch of the Intelligence Division, Far East Command. One of his primary duties was to keep track of enemy prisoner of war (POW) camps in North Korea. Corso was in charge of investigating the estimated number of U.S. and other United Nations POWs held at each camp and their treatment. At later hearings of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, Corso provided testimony that many hundreds of American POW's were abandoned at these camps.

Corso was on the staff of President Eisenhower's National Security Council for four years (1953-1957).

In 1961, he became Chief of the Pentagon's Foreign Technology desk in Army Research and Development, working under Lt. Gen. Arthur Trudeau.

When he left military intelligence in 1963, Corso became a key aide to Senator Strom Thurmond.

In 1964, Corso was assigned to Warren Commission member Senator Richard Russell Jr. as an investigator into the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:55 AM
The links on the Telegraph tree can be found just by typing in Telegraph, Telephone, Fibreoptics into google, you can get many pages which go into detailed history included the dreaded wikipedia. And yes Corso claimed he saw Fibre optic Like material, however my tech tree proves that this was being researched well before Corsos allegged sighting. Logie Baird and Clarence Hansell were shining lights down hollow cables 20-25 yeras before corso saw what he said he saw..

silicon chip evolution and a little speculative futurism:

(from wikipedia)

It is difficult to identify any one device as the earliest computer, partly because the term "computer" has been subject to varying interpretations over time. Originally, the term "computer" referred to a person who performed numerical calculations (a human computer), often with the aid of a mechanical calculating device.

The history of the modern computer begins with two separate technologies - that of automated calculation and that of programmability.

Examples of early mechanical calculating devices included the abacus, the slide rule and arguably the astrolabe and the Antikythera mechanism (which dates from about 150-100 BC). Hero of Alexandria (c. 10–70 AD) built a mechanical theater which performed a play lasting 10 minutes and was operated by a complex system of ropes and drums that might be considered to be a means of deciding which parts of the mechanism performed which actions and when.[3] This is the essence of programmability.

The "castle clock", an astronomical clock invented by Al-Jazari in 1206, is considered to be the earliest programmable analog computer.[4] It displayed the zodiac, the solar and lunar orbits, a crescent moon-shaped pointer travelling across a gateway causing automatic doors to open every hour,[5][6] and five robotic musicians who play music when struck by levers operated by a camshaft attached to a water wheel. The length of day and night could be re-programmed every day in order to account for the changing lengths of day and night throughout the year.[4]

The end of the Middle Ages saw a re-invigoration of European mathematics and engineering, and Wilhelm Schickard's 1623 device was the first of a number of mechanical calculators constructed by European engineers. However, none of those devices fit the modern definition of a computer because they could not be programmed.

In 1801, Joseph Marie Jacquard made an improvement to the textile loom that used a series of punched paper cards as a template to allow his loom to weave intricate patterns automatically. The resulting Jacquard loom was an important step in the development of computers because the use of punched cards to define woven patterns can be viewed as an early, albeit limited, form of programmability.

It was the fusion of automatic calculation with programmability that produced the first recognizable computers. In 1837, Charles Babbage was the first to conceptualize and design a fully programmable mechanical computer that he called "The Analytical Engine".[7] Due to limited finances, and an inability to resist tinkering with the design, Babbage never actually built his Analytical Engine.

Large-scale automated data processing of punched cards was performed for the U.S. Census in 1890 by tabulating machines designed by Herman Hollerith and manufactured by the Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation, which later became IBM. By the end of the 19th century a number of technologies that would later prove useful in the realization of practical computers had begun to appear: the punched card, Boolean algebra, the vacuum tube (thermionic valve) and the teleprinter.
During the first half of the 20th century, many scientific computing needs were met by increasingly sophisticated analog computers, which used a direct mechanical or electrical model of the problem as a basis for computation. However, these were not programmable and generally lacked the versatility

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:57 AM
and accuracy of modern digital computers.

A succession of steadily more powerful and flexible computing devices were constructed in the 1930s and 1940s, gradually adding the key features that are seen in modern computers. The use of digital electronics (largely invented by Claude Shannon in 1937) and more flexible programmability were vitally important steps, but defining one point along this road as "the first digital electronic computer" is difficult (Shannon 1940). Notable achievements include:

EDSAC was one of the first computers to implement the stored program (von Neumann) architecture.Konrad Zuse's electromechanical "Z machines". The Z3 (1941) was the first working machine featuring binary arithmetic, including floating point arithmetic and a measure of programmability. In 1998 the Z3 was proved to be Turing complete, therefore being the world's first operational computer.
The non-programmable Atanasoff–Berry Computer (1941) which used vacuum tube based computation, binary numbers, and regenerative capacitor memory.
The secret British Colossus computers (1943)[8], which had limited programmability but demonstrated that a device using thousands of tubes could be reasonably reliable and electronically reprogrammable. It was used for breaking German wartime codes.
The Harvard Mark I (1944), a large-scale electromechanical computer with limited programmability.
The U.S. Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory ENIAC (1946), which used decimal arithmetic and is sometimes called the first general purpose electronic computer (since Konrad Zuse's Z3 of 1941 used electromagnets instead of electronics). Initially, however, ENIAC had an inflexible architecture which essentially required rewiring to change its programming.
Several developers of ENIAC, recognizing its flaws, came up with a far more flexible and elegant design, which came to be known as the "stored program architecture" or von Neumann architecture. This design was first formally described by John von Neumann in the paper First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC, distributed in 1945. A number of projects to develop computers based on the stored-program architecture commenced around this time, the first of these being completed in Great Britain. The first to be demonstrated working was the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine (SSEM or "Baby"), while the EDSAC, completed a year after SSEM, was the first practical implementation of the stored program design. Shortly thereafter, the machine originally described by von Neumann's paper—EDVAC—was completed but did not see full-time use for an additional two years.

Nearly all modern computers implement some form of the stored-program architecture, making it the single trait by which the word "computer" is now defined. While the technologies used in computers have changed dramatically since the first electronic, general-purpose computers of the 1940s, most still use the von Neumann architecture.

Microprocessors are miniaturized devices that often implement stored program CPUs.Computers that used vacuum tubes as their electronic elements were in use throughout the 1950s. Vacuum tube electronics were largely replaced in the 1960s by transistor-based electronics, which are smaller, faster, cheaper to produce, require less power, and are more reliable. In the 1970s, integrated circuit technology and the subsequent creation of microprocessors, such as the Intel 4004, further decreased size and cost and further increased speed and reliability of computers. By the 1980s, computers became sufficiently small and cheap to replace simple mechanical controls in domestic appliances such as washing machines. The 1980s also witnessed home computers and the now ubiquitous personal computer. With the evolution of the Internet, personal computers are becoming as common as the television and the telephone in the household.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by oinkmentthefirst

Nobody said we were not working in those fields. Where are you cutting and pasting this from LINKS please the burden of proof is on you it's your thread.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:13 AM
It's not a matter of opinion it's a matter of fact. It's not open for debate the guy lied. I know you don't want to admit it but that's the truth of the reality we live.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:14 AM
The silicon chip:

The integrated circuit (silicon chip) was conceived by a radar scientist, Geoffrey W.A. Dummer (1909-2002), working for the Royal Radar Establishment of the British Ministry of Defence, and published at the Symposium on Progress in Quality Electronic Components in Washington, D.C. on May 7, 1952.[1] He gave many symposia publicly to propagate his ideas.

Dummer unsuccessfully attempted to build such a circuit in 1956.

The integrated circuit can be credited as being invented by both Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments[2] and Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor [3] working independent of each other. Kilby recorded his initial ideas concerning the integrated circuit in July 1958 and successfully demonstrated the first working integrated circuit on September 12, 1958.[2] Kilby won the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physics for his part of the invention of the integrated circuit.[4] Robert Noyce also came up with his own idea of integrated circuit, half a year later than Kilby. Noyce's chip had solved many practical problems that the microchip developed by Kilby had not. Noyce's chip, made at Fairchild, was made of silicon, whereas Kilby's chip was made of germanium.

Early developments of the integrated circuit go back to 1949, when the German engineer Werner Jacobi (Siemens AG) filed a patent for an integrated-circuit-like semiconductor amplifying device [5] showing five transistors on a common substrate arranged in a 2-stage amplifier arrangement. Jacobi discloses small and cheap hearing aids as typical industrial applications of his patent. A commercial use of his patent has not been reported.

A precursor idea to the IC was to create small ceramic squares (wafers), each one containing a single miniaturized component. Components could then be integrated and wired into a bidimensional or tridimensional compact grid. This idea, which looked very promising in 1957, was proposed to the US Army by Jack Kilby, and led to the short-lived Micromodule Program (similar to 1951's Project Tinkertoy).[6] However, as the project was gaining momentum, Kilby came up with a new, revolutionary design: the IC.

The aforementioned Noyce credited Kurt Lehovec of Sprague Electric for the principle of p-n junction isolation caused by the action of a biased p-n junction (the diode) as a key concept behind the IC.[7]

See: Other variations of vacuum tubes for precursor concepts such as the Loewe 3NF.

Then we have well documented cases of the development of this chip which includes Moores law being able to predict with suprising accuracy the growth of computing power.

the next stage is probably either going to be Solid State computing ( or maybe the infamous Quantum Computer. However again like Telecoms/Telegraph there has bee a steady tech tree from even further back. For example until i researched this I had no idea about the "castle clock" invented back in 1206 no less. Alos if you look the Jump from Tansister to Silicon was on the cards back in the 40's with digital computing being around since BEFORE WW2. Again predating Corso, who may I say I had no Idea even existed before your post. Despite his (corso's) inmpressive resume he is not seen as a credible source:

"The book (corso - the Day After Roswell) appeared on the New York Times Best Sellers List for several weeksreceived many unfavorable reviews. Writing in Skeptical Inquirer, Brad Sparks identified several historical inaccuracies and said the book contained "the tallest Roswell tales to date". Publishers Weekly described the book as "outlandish",[7] and Library Journal advised, "[Corso's book] is only for the few special libraries that have made documenting the unconventional a collecting priority."[8] In 2001, The Guardian included the book in its list of "Top Ten literary hoaxes".
According to Corso, the reverse engineering of these artifacts indirectly led to the development of accelerated particle beam devices,

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:16 AM
Dude he's getting the info from wiki - there's your proof. Just copy a quote into google.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by andre18]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:17 AM
fiber optics, lasers, integrated circuit chips and Kevlar material.

Corso relates in his book The Day After Roswell (co-author William J. Birnes) how he stewarded extraterrestrial artifacts recovered from a crash at Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947.

In 1947, according to Corso, a covert government group (see Majestic 12) was assembled under the leadership of the first Director of Central Intelligence, Adm. Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter. Among its tasks was to collect all information on extraterrestrial spacecraft. The US administration simultaneously discounted the existence of flying saucers in the eyes of the public, Corso says.

Corso further relates that the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), or "Star Wars", was meant to achieve the capability of killing the electronic guidance systems of incoming enemy warheads and disabling enemy spacecraft, including those of extraterrestrial origin.

Many of the claims made in this book have been challenged by other UFO researchers; for a detailed investigation of his claims, see Kal K. Korff's book The Roswell UFO Crash: What They Don't Want You to Know.

When it was released, the book contained a forward written by Strom Thurmond, for whom Corso had once served as an aide. Thurmond wrote, "He has many interesting stories to share with individuals interested in military history, espionage and the workings of our Government." The forward did not mention anything about UFOs, since Thurmond had assumed the book was a straightforward memoir . When he learned about the book's contents, Thurmond asked for his forward to be retracted, saying, "I know of no such 'cover-up,' and do not believe one existed.

I dunno Slayer seems like this Corso Fellow was either a Wacko or had a Axe to Grind.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in