Col. Corso, still perplexed...

originally posted by: schuyler
But when you actually look at the claims, they make little sense. The basic idea was that he salted alien technology into industry so industry could claim the inventions. What ones exactly? Two of the most famous were the integrated chip and night vision goggles. The problem with these is that they both have a well-documented history of their invention that DOES NOT REQUIRE alien input. The basic design of the integrated circuit, for example, is the fifth generation of the same design that goes back to the 1890's. That's when the basic design was implemented. It then went through an electronic phase, a vacuum tube phase, a transistor phase, and finally the whole idea was ported to integrated circuits. In other words, the invention of the integrated circuit was an incremental evolution that has been well documented and started well before Corso came on the scene. The idea and design did not just suddenly appear. It may seem like that to someone who was not paying attention the the growth of technology, but it simply was not a giant leap forward. It fits right in with Moore's Law, including the timeline.

What is sad is some people could not be bothered to do any research on the development of these devices, they are just happy to think it was "aliens". If they actually did some real research they would find it fascinating how the development of IC's progressed from a few transistors up to the twenty billion today.

a reply to: vance

Being an Officer in the military does not mean your an honest, intelligent or sane human. It means you managed to graduate college and get through Officer training.

Officers are not better in anyway than a civilian or enlisted man. Often the opposite is true. Officers very often abuse the power given to them by the military. I suspect money as the primary reason to make up such things.

I spent 20 years in the USAF and saw many odd things I could not necessarily identify. I could embellish a bit and maybe make a dime on some of those stories that would have an element of truth to them and other witnesses to collaborate the truthful parts.

I rather do other stuff to make my dimes though =).

a reply to: Tangerine

BS! There's been physical evidence of chemical residue, high levels of radiation, landing impressions, multiple eye witnesses, government documents, credible whistle blowers and physical burns on victims. You skeptics will take one piece of circumstantial evidence from a UFO case and declare it a hoax. The Brentwaters case is a perfect example. Just because there was a lighthouse beacon nearby, that's enough evidence to explain away what those military personnel saw, recorded and physically touched that night. Just ignore everything else about the case!

There's a lot of other credible multiple eyewitness cases that skeptics claim are hoaxes, but they have no hard evidence. So before you ask for hard evidence, you should weigh the probabilities when it comes to witness credibility, physical ground radiation, residue, and multiple eye witness encounters. Some of that evidence would stand up in a court of law before some of the lame circumstantial evidence skeptics declare as proof!

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Tangerine

BS! There's been physical evidence of chemical residue, high levels of radiation, landing impressions, multiple eye witnesses, government documents, credible whistle blowers and physical burns on victims. You skeptics will take one piece of circumstantial evidence from a UFO case and declare it a hoax. The Brentwaters case is a perfect example. Just because there was a lighthouse beacon nearby, that's enough evidence to explain away what those military personnel saw, recorded and physically touched that night. Just ignore everything else about the case!

There's a lot of other credible multiple eyewitness cases that skeptics claim are hoaxes, but they have no hard evidence. So before you ask for hard evidence, you should weigh the probabilities when it comes to witness credibility, physical ground radiation, residue, and multiple eye witness encounters. Some of that evidence would stand up in a court of law before some of the lame circumstantial evidence skeptics declare as proof!

So you don't have anything other than assertions.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
Some of that evidence would stand up in a court of law before some of the lame circumstantial evidence skeptics declare as proof!

The one making the lame claims, without even circumstantial evidence to support them, is Phil Corso himself. Skeptics need prove nothing.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

I will go on record now demand hard proof in this thread.

Thats nice, scream till lungs burst if you wish.

You debunk guys take pleasure in demanding it from the believers. Nothing less will do.

No sorry never seen it from the people so far that posted in which you are replying to,

Yes, they might demand verifiable evidence and not claims made by people.

Your hard proof that you demand will be found in the mathematics if any can be imposed on whether a man lied or not.

Proof is mathematical and a term used for numbers if you really want to understand what you are demanding.

Reputable by whose opinion? By my opinion If hes bagging Corso using the same superficial rhetoric as you then id say hes a shill - an ineffectual in proving nothing.

No one is bagging Corso, just showing evidence that his claims don't match certain records.

a reply to: WeRpeons

There's a lot of "reputable" UFO researchers out there! For every UFO case, there is always someone out there ready to refute eyewitness testimony no matter how credible the witness or incident.People are hired by government agencies to repute UFO sightings, that's what project Blue Book was all about

If you'd of taken a glance at the piece I linked on Brad Sparks you would have seen that he isn't a shill working for the government but a researcher with a significant history in this subject who is prepared to go where the evidence takes him.

Sparks has been a lifelong skeptic of Roswell and the ETH (Extraterrestrial Hypothesis for UFOs), although he remains open to new evidence.
For example, in 2000 (while working on non-UFO-related research), he accidentally discovered the TOP SECRET U.S. government policy response to Roswell, which should not exist if Roswell was essentially a non-event as he had long believed. He also has moved on from his belief in the "Mogul balloon" explanation for Roswell, after discovering that the supposed Mogul balloon flight path was a fabrication
redpill.dailygrail.com...

As has become par for the course in this forum blind belief is better than research and truth , if someone says something you don't like then it's them at fault not you no matter their experience or expertise.

Let's say he embellished to make it appear he's a James Bond type
for his grandkids to imagine. Maybe he exaggerates his IQ prowess as well.
All that taken into consideration, there is a ridiculous amount of not needed data
included if this was the idea.
If 20 percent is true and I personally believe it may be more,
he's a piece of major UFO history along with Roswell and Rendlesham.

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak.....
If 20 percent is true and I personally believe it may be more,
he's a piece of major UFO history along with Roswell and Rendlesham.

Faith-based belief isn't very persuasive, when half a dozen documented examples of fraud -- say, the Discoverer spysat fairy tale -- establish a pattern. After the first several stories collapse, it does NOT increase the chances of further stories being true.

a reply to: JimOberg

True, but we may have to buy a shopping mall sized storage facility for all the
anecdotal evidence that has been piling up since 1947, stating we are being visited.

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
a reply to: JimOberg

True, but we may have to buy a shopping mall sized storage facility for all the
anecdotal evidence that has been piling up since 1947, stating we are being visited.

rationalwiki.org...

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
Let's say he embellished to make it appear he's a James Bond type
for his grandkids to imagine. Maybe he exaggerates his IQ prowess as well.
All that taken into consideration, there is a ridiculous amount of not needed data
included if this was the idea.
If 20 percent is true and I personally believe it may be more,
he's a piece of major UFO history along with Roswell and Rendlesham.

Yes, he is a piece of UFO history but that's nothing to brag about. Ufology has, for the most part, earned its status as a laughingstock.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Tangerine

BS! There's been physical evidence of chemical residue, high levels of radiation, landing impressions, multiple eye witnesses, government documents, credible whistle blowers and physical burns on victims. You skeptics will take one piece of circumstantial evidence from a UFO case and declare it a hoax. The Brentwaters case is a perfect example. Just because there was a lighthouse beacon nearby, that's enough evidence to explain away what those military personnel saw, recorded and physically touched that night. Just ignore everything else about the case!

There's a lot of other credible multiple eyewitness cases that skeptics claim are hoaxes, but they have no hard evidence. So before you ask for hard evidence, you should weigh the probabilities when it comes to witness credibility, physical ground radiation, residue, and multiple eye witness encounters. Some of that evidence would stand up in a court of law before some of the lame circumstantial evidence skeptics declare as proof!

Which of this claimed evidence has been tested via the scientific methodology and proved that 1)extraterrestrials exist 2) visit earth and 3) abduct people. Please be specific.

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
a reply to: JimOberg

True, but we may have to buy a shopping mall sized storage facility for all the
anecdotal evidence that has been piling up since 1947, stating we are being visited.

Anecdotes aren't evidence because they're not testable via the scientific method. They're simply claims.

People ask "why would he embellish" since he had a a great career, but do you ever wonder how mentally stable he was? Some people can't help themselves when it comes to telling such tales.

I think Corso's most obvious failing is that in telling his tales of alien inventions is that he was clearly not a futurist and could not dream up any truly amazing advanced tech from aliens, instead he only gave us slightly more advanced versions of what we already had - "night vision" or "transistors," for instance. Claiming night vision tech came from his cache of alien tech, when in reality it was around since WWII, or IC chips came from his cache of alien tech, when it was already well under development before Corso came along... just some examples of how Corso's claim fall apart in the face of reality.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

So you don't have anything other than assertions.

The last thing I want to get into is a tit for tat, a she said he said drawn out post. The information related to credible UFO cases and physical evidence left at landing sights are easily found on the internet, do the research. Claiming something is a hoax by attacking someone's credibility and claiming not to be on the government payroll to discredit eye-witness accounts, is really putting a lot of faith in innuendos and accusations. The U.S. invaded Iraq based upon government accusations of WMD's that never existed. A lot of people sure jumped on that bandwagon.

There's always two sides to every story and sometime the truth turns out to be stranger than fiction. The amount of UFO sightings and encounters are too many to claim it's all based upon mass hysteria. Sure, there will always be
legitimate hoaxes out there and people who want to make a quick buck making outlandish stories. However, the similarities of many UFO encounters are just to numerous to ignore and brush-off.

a reply to: WeRpeons

The information related to credible UFO cases and physical evidence left at landing sights are easily found on the internet, do the research.

ok

Ted Phillips' Physical Trace Catalogue

This summary is based on only a partial listing of the catalogue as many of Phillips' cases appear extremely dubious in nature. Cases from the early 1950s are particularly unreliable because many of the early UFO books were written by people who automatically assumed that they were describing encounters with alien spaceships. Jenny Randles tells me that cases reported in the "hysterical" Spanish and South American media should be treated even more skeptically because these cases were often complete fabrications! Furthermore many of the early cases have no proper source, e.g. Phillips quotes Vallee describing cases which appear to have been anecdotally reported to Vallee. This means that we often have no idea whether or not a specific case was investigated by anyone, let alone whether it was a contemporary investigation or whether the investigator was in any sense someone capable of undertaking an objective scientific evaluation.

In addition to these problems we have a major definitional problem concerning cases which feature circular ground traces because of the current confusion which exists over the authenticity of the archetypal crop circle. Doug and Dave claimed to have actually created the phenomenon of a sharply-defined swirled circle, but they apparently based their hoax on the Tully reeds circles, which themselves were sharply-defined swirled circles. Given this regrettable fact, what do we include in our definition of a crop circle? Do we include roughly circular shapes of depressed but not swirled circles or do we stick to sharp-edged circles? How about burned circles or circles where the crop has been denuded or completely removed? Given these problems its probably wise to merely highlight all cases involving circular traces but not assume that they are necessarily caused by the same causal mechanism. It is quite possible that there may be several natural circle-forming mechanisms which all create different types of circular ground trace. One of these mechanisms could still be Meaden's postulated plasma-vortex but it is wise not to assume that any particular category of circular ground trace must be caused by the postulated plasma vortex. In any event we will be trying to track down case material referred to by Phillips and will report back in a future issue.

There's always two sides to every story and sometime the truth turns out to be stranger than fiction. The amount of UFO sightings and encounters are too many to claim it's all based upon mass hysteria. Sure, there will always be
legitimate hoaxes out there and people who want to make a quick buck making outlandish stories. However, the similarities of many UFO encounters are just to numerous to ignore and brush-off.

The real problem is that there is nothing differentiating "hysteria", as you call it, from anything else. Hoaxes too. that there is large unquantified number of cases only means there is a large number of cases that cant be distinguished from anything else.

originally posted by: WeRpeons.....

There's always two sides to every story and sometime the truth turns out to be stranger than fiction. The amount of UFO sightings and encounters are too many to claim it's all based upon mass hysteria. Sure, there will always be
legitimate hoaxes out there and people who want to make a quick buck making outlandish stories. However, the similarities of many UFO encounters are just to numerous to ignore and brush-off.

Are you veering SO far off topic because there's not a SINGLE Corso book story you are willing to defend? "Not your hill to die on", I guess. Wise retreat, there.

BTW -- I've never seen ANYBODY here claim it's all mass hysteria. Using that classic deception gimmick -- 'straw man' -- is a very bad indicator of your agenda.

a reply to: JimOberg

BTW -- I've never seen ANYBODY here claim it's all mass hysteria

I am actually on the hunt for one clear example of something UFO related that could be considered "mass hysteria".

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

So you don't have anything other than assertions.

The last thing I want to get into is a tit for tat, a she said he said drawn out post. The information related to credible UFO cases and physical evidence left at landing sights are easily found on the internet, do the research. Claiming something is a hoax by attacking someone's credibility and claiming not to be on the government payroll to discredit eye-witness accounts, is really putting a lot of faith in innuendos and accusations. The U.S. invaded Iraq based upon government accusations of WMD's that never existed. A lot of people sure jumped on that bandwagon.

There's always two sides to every story and sometime the truth turns out to be stranger than fiction. The amount of UFO sightings and encounters are too many to claim it's all based upon mass hysteria. Sure, there will always be
legitimate hoaxes out there and people who want to make a quick buck making outlandish stories. However, the similarities of many UFO encounters are just to numerous to ignore and brush-off.

You seem to have the mistaken notion that if one does not believe that UFOS are extraterrestrial craft one does not believe that UFOs exist. Are you even aware that there are hypotheses other than the ET hypothesis regarding UFOs?