Extremely credible source confirms we back-engineered alien technology.

Corso is not a scientist nor is he mastermind of anything. So all of technology related statements can be stricken from the records. Arguing about whether he induced technology transfer is derailing from analysis of this story. The real argument is....Did he or did he not take some artifacts to show the industry? If we accept that he's not a lying man, but merely likes to exaggerate, then we only need to assess how much fluff can be trimmed from his claims.
Judging from all angles, I believe the revelation of the artifacts did take place, but what the actual artifacts were and their sources (German or ET) is up for debate. I tend to believe the physical description of the objects are factual. Whether they functioned as IC boards or fiber optics cable..who knows, but they must had significant attributes to merit such handling.

I remember his son was going to release his notes. What would you think if you see description of those objects written 40 years ago by a man like Corso?

reply to post by TinkererJim


Stanton Friedman did a good expose on Corso, where he even explains the real root of some of these inventions and why it couldnt have happened the way Corso said.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by NavalFC


did you read this part of my post?

Corso is not a scientist ....

Originally posted by TinkererJim
reply to post by NavalFC

 

did you read this part of my post?

Corso is not a scientist ....

yes, but the youtube video negates even the rest of your post, by throwing off corsos entire claimed time line.

Originally posted by schuyler
For this reason I suspect (but, of course, do not know for sure) that Corso was carrying out orders to the letter to spread this story, knowing full well it as full of holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

Nice post, starred!

Why do you suspect he was carrying out orders, or more specifically, what does anyone besides Corso, and the publisher of his book, have to gain by spreading these stories? Corso himself would have the self-aggrandizement motive you mentioned as well as a profit motive so that part is easy enough to understand. I've read about disinfo campaigns and I understand those but usually they have a purpose, and it's the purpose that escapes me in your suggestion.

Originally posted by Smell The Roses

edit on 20-1-2011 by Smell The Roses because: (no reason given)

Good video ...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by schuyler
For this reason I suspect (but, of course, do not know for sure) that Corso was carrying out orders to the letter to spread this story, knowing full well it as full of holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

Nice post, starred!

Why do you suspect he was carrying out orders, or more specifically, what does anyone besides Corso, and the publisher of his book, have to gain by spreading these stories? Corso himself would have the self-aggrandizement motive you mentioned as well as a profit motive so that part is easy enough to understand. I've read about disinfo campaigns and I understand those but usually they have a purpose, and it's the purpose that escapes me in your suggestion.

Really? Thats star worthy >? Corsos story doesnt check out, so instead of saying he was full of it, we jump to him being a unwitting "Disinfo agent", a claim that has even less proof then Corsos original claims? Really???

Thats one of the most annoying tendencies that I seem to encounter while wandering through the minefield that is the world of UFOs


If (Facts != checkout)[
disinfo_agent = TRUE
]
else [
completely_true = TRUE
]

Originally posted by TinkererJim
I remember his son was going to release his notes. What would you think if you see description of those objects written 40 years ago by a man like Corso?

That still wouldn't undo the fact that all the technologies he mentioned have well documented terrestrial origins.

I'd want to see a reputable lab first authenticate the claimed age of the paper Corso's notes were written on, but if that checked out, I'd read them and consider them, but still be left with the true history of how these technologies evolved. At best I think all I could conclude from the notes is that if authentic and we really did have objects Corso described, when they were provided for reverse engineering, they really didn't help much because we were already on the path to developing those technologies without them.

reply to post by NavalFC


My gist is that we should disregard any of Corso's statements about technology, instead, focus on his claim that he had shown some stuff(whatever it maybe) to the industry. If we accept that is highly likely since he's the right man at the right position for the job, then we can appreciate the intrigue of the whole matter. Our government came into possession of artifacts which it did not know how they were made nor their actual functions, and yet, strongly believed that the objects may benefit our society.

Originally posted by TinkererJim
reply to post by NavalFC

 

My gist is that we should disregard any of Corso's statements about technology, instead, focus on his claim that he had shown some stuff(whatever it maybe) to the industry. If we accept that is highly likely since he's the right man at the right position for the job, then we can appreciate the intrigue of the whole matter. Our government came into possession of artifacts which it did not know how they were made nor their actual functions, and yet, strongly believed that the objects may benefit our society.

edit on 21-1-2011 by TinkererJim because: (no reason given)

No, we cant. Because even going on that premice, the whole timeline by which Corso claimed it happened is totally out of touch with the development of the actual devices.
Secondly, if Corso is full of crap on technology, why on Earth would you believe anything else he says?

I mean, "He may be full of crap on A, but if we accept that B is atleast possible..." That doesn't seem logical, and seems more like someone who wants to believe a story badly grasping at straws/

reply to post by NavalFC


Where's Corso's crap about technology? I just vague remember something to the effect of "IC chips? yeah, we shown them that..."

reply to post by TinkererJim


click the video I linked to earlier it gives a quick outline of his claims, and then bounces them against technology historians, as well as against Stanton Friedman who also calls Corso bunk.

reply to post by NavalFC


I think what offends the skeptics/technologists is that he used the word "Reverse-Engineered". Step in his shoes for a moment. If an old guy had shown someone something similar to an IC board 40 years ago when a computer occupied a whole building, and seeing what's inside of computers now, would he not inclined to use that word?

reply to post by TinkererJim


No, I think what offends people is how he is basically claiming to be responsible for the technological leaps of the time, and it isnt true. Also by doing so he is robbing from the real inventors, the real engineers, the real people who deserve credit for inventing those things, no aliens needed

Originally posted by NavalFCReally? Thats star worthy >? Corsos story doesnt check out, so instead of saying he was full of it, we jump to him being a unwitting "Disinfo agent", a claim that has even less proof then Corsos original claims? Really???

Compare your post to mine in terms of information content. Yours = opinion only. Mine provides significant content not otherwise presented on this thread. You complain about my tentative conclusion, but I notice no one has disputed the several paragraphs of facts that I presented. I'll make another tentative conclusion: You don't know a thing about Corso not presented on this thread and further, you've never read his book.

And that's MY problem with ATS. People with no knowledge of a situation at all who have never studied a subject to any depth, never investigated the pros and cons of an issue, and do not understand the context feel compelled to add their opinion. In my Perfect World you;d have to pass a test before you could even post here.

Here's one. Let's see how well you do.

Having read the book some time ago, I am fuzzy on the overall mood of it, but I never got the impression Corso was egotistical at any time... subservient and loyal, yes, but not a megalomaniac. Interesting points noted:

- He was unhappy with final draft of DAR. I wonder what parts...
-The chapters about Roswell/ viewing alien remains always stood out to me as feeling "out of place" with the rest of the book's style. Almost like it was written by a different author altogether..cough.. B Birnes...
- Corso, I think, believed he was sharing alien technology from Roswell. Whether the source of the tech was terrestrial or not, I feel was withheld from him, possibly his COs as well.
-Credentials vs Credibility: Corso's career path put him in the right places at the right times to have interacted with the right people, according to his story. Doesn't mean what he says is all fact, and certainly doesn't mean a career military man is honest. The fact that he was passed over a few times may point to him being honest to a fault just as easily as being untrustworthy.
-What I took away from what I read was that some of this tech was in existence/ development, as stated earlier, but it's application and refinement was enhanced through these artifacts and their design.

Finally, the book did not leave me with the "wow" feeling I was hoping for. In fact, it's what made me think parts of it were true because it all seemed so...watered down...less than explosive.

Now faced with it, I strongly feel the actual Roswell parts were hogwash. I don't think he was happy with Birne's "poetic liberties"

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by NavalFCReally? Thats star worthy >? Corsos story doesnt check out, so instead of saying he was full of it, we jump to him being a unwitting "Disinfo agent", a claim that has even less proof then Corsos original claims? Really???

Compare your post to mine in terms of information content. Yours = opinion only. Mine provides significant content not otherwise presented on this thread. You complain about my tentative conclusion, but I notice no one has disputed the several paragraphs of facts that I presented. I'll make another tentative conclusion: You don't know a thing about Corso not presented on this thread and further, you've never read his book.

And that's MY problem with ATS. People with no knowledge of a situation at all who have never studied a subject to any depth, never investigated the pros and cons of an issue, and do not understand the context feel compelled to add their opinion. In my Perfect World you;d have to pass a test before you could even post here.

Here's one. Let's see how well you do.

Yes I have read his book, I'm very familiar with who Corso is. Your arrogant attitude betrays you. How dare you presume to accuse me of no knowledge of the situation. How do you presume to know? I find it rather telling that your response to the video link I posted, to the other statements I made, you have no rebuttal, instead you start accusations of me not knowing the situation. Ridiculous!

reply to post by Wildbob77
In regards to your statement Wildbob77 about UFO's crashing, I did read that in regards to the Roswell event that the U.S. Military was using/testing Radar (microwave) in that area. If in fact there was an incident involving Alien craft(s), ( I've read that there might in fact have been 2 craft) I believe that it is plausible they may have been brought down by the emissions from a Radar installation in the vicinity.

2 cents.

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
First Transistor invented - Bell Labs 1947

What a load of rubbish - let s look at the real history, not the lies put forward by "aliens gave us things" proponents

"Physicist Julius Edgar Lilienfeld filed the first patent for a transistor in Canada in 1925, describing a device similar to a Field Effect Transistor or "FET".[1] However, Lilienfeld did not publish any research articles about his devices,[citation needed] nor did his patent cite any examples of devices actually constructed. In 1934, German inventor Oskar Heil patented a similar device.[2]

From 1942 Herbert Mataré experimented with so-called duodiodes while working on a detector for a Doppler RADAR system. The duodiodes built by him had two separate but very close metal contacts on the semiconductor substrate. He discovered effects that could not be explained by two independently operating diodes and thus formed the basic idea for the later point contact transistor."

Image intensifiers that eventually became night vision

"The idea of an image tube was first proposed by G. Holst and H. De Boer (Netherlands) in 1928 [1] but early attempts to create one were not successful. It was not until 1934 that Holst, working for Philips, created the first successful infrared converter tube. This tube consisted of a photocathode in close proximity to a fluorescent screen. Using a simple lens, an image was focused on the photocathode and a potential difference of several thousand volts was maintained across the tube, causing electrons dislodged from the photocathode by photons to strike the fluorescent screen. This caused the screen to light up with the image of the object focused onto the screen, however the image was non-inverting. With this image converter type tube, it was possible to view infrared light in real time, for the first time.
[edit] Generation 0 - Early infrared electro-optical image converters

Development continued in the US as well during the 1930s and mid-1930, the first inverting image intensifier was developed at RCA. This tube used an electrostatic inverter to focus an image from a spherical cathode onto a spherical screen. (The choice of spheres was to reduce off-axial aberrations.) Subsequent development of this technology led directly to the first Generation 0 image intensifiers which were used by the military during World War Two to allow vision at night with infrared lighting for both shooting and personal night vision. Early night vision devices based on these technologies were used by both sides and used to great effect in Okinawa, to target Japanese soldiers coming out of caves during the night. However the downside of active night vision (When infrared light is used) is that it is quite obvious to anyone else using the technology.

Unlike later technologies, early Generation 0 night vision devices were unable to significantly amplify the available ambient light and so, to be useful, required the infra-red source. These devices used an S1 photocathode or "silver-oxygen-caesium" photocathode, discovered in 1930 which had a sensitivity of around 60 µA/lm (Microampere per Lumen) and a quantum efficiency of around 1% in the ultraviolet region and around 0.5% in the infrared region. Of note, the S1 photocathode had sensitivity peaks in both the infrared and ultraviolet spectrum and with sensitivity over 950 nm was the only photocathode material that could be used to view infrared light above 950 nm."

Fiber optics

"Fiber optics, though used extensively in the modern world, is a fairly simple and old technology. 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 early 1840s. John Tyndall included a demonstration of it in his public lectures in London a dozen years later.[1] Tyndall also wrote about the property of total internal reflection in an introductory book about the nature of light in 1870: "When the light passes from air into water, the refracted ray is bent towards the perpendicular... When the ray passes from water to air it is bent from the perpendicular... If the angle which the ray in water encloses with the perpendicular to the surface be greater than 48 degrees, the ray will not quit the water at all: it will be totally reflected at the surface.... The angle which marks the limit where total reflection begins is called the limiting angle of the medium. For water this angle is 48°27', for flint glass it is 38°41', while for diamond it is 23°42'."[2][3]

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"

That was just the first two, so it can clearly be seen Corso is not a very good source all!

That's cool. So, when can we all have our designer hovercrafts to get to home, work or play? I'm tired of changing my dead batteries, worn-out tires and other repairs on my automobile. It's time for anti-gravitational vehicles!