Philip J. Corso

I've always been fascinated by talk of UFOs, especially where the US government is involved. I recently started rooting through the (seemingly-infinite) mess of material available online in search of something truly credible.

One of the things I'm looking at is an account by Philip J. Corso, who worked at the Pentagon, and claims to have apparently been tasked with seeding technology recovered from the Roswell incident so that they'd eventually find their way into military technology. I'm going by a rundown of the book I found at seancasteel.com...

I hope someone here is familiar with this person and his account, because it seems like one of the more credible sources out there, but I have a major problem it. Mr. Corso lists a number of items that he claims would never have been "invented" without having been first discovered in the crashed UFOs. These include some now-mainstream items like lasers and night-vision, but also include some technologies that have yet to be produced, like "accelerated particle beam weapons".

I did a little reading-up on particle beams, and found that apparently the reason such weapons haven't been built yet is because they would require more power than we can currently produce, especially for portable use.

So this begs the question, in my mind: If Mr. Corso was tasked with seeding technology, why did he seem to overlook what I would consider to be the most important technology to seed -- the power source of the spacecraft? I see very little mentioned anywhere about power sources for these UFOs, even in the craziest claims by the craziest people. Everyone seems focused on the smaller technologies, like lasers and mind control gizmos, etc. But what was supposed to have powered all of these devices? Didn't anyone who supposedly witnessed this-or-that or saw a container with this-or-that in it or a document describing bla-bla, didn't any of them ever get a glimpse of some kind of power source?

This is a major point of all these reports that doesn't quite make sense to me, and makes me question a lot of what I'm reading.

I don't think it's possible to run a spaceship that behaves like a "UFO" with microchips. I'd guess you'd need at least a very advanced quantum computer, or a technology we haven't even discovered yet.

So I'd take what he says with a pinch of salt myself.

EDIT: I read somewhere that Corso claimed transistors where developped from reverse engineering, hence the microchip

[edit on 10-5-2007 by DarkSide]

As a fair engineer myself in "the defense community", I can say that a good bit of Corso's technical material is bs. Pure and simple.

I can't speak for the entire book. But it's actually painful to read some of the technical material he's got in there.

You cannot go wrong by getting a copy of Corso's book "The Day after Roswell".
After you read it, you will know so much more about all this.
Understand, that "particle-beam" weapons have already been here for quite some time. Actually, Nikola Tesla invented one, long ago. Examine Here.
Here is a very good thread here on ats about such weapons by Intelgurl:
thread

In the book The day after Roswell, Corso explains the workings of the ship.
He talks about the fact that the entire craft is basically one large electrical circuit, and the ship worked in concert with the pilots themselves.
Watch this video:

You will get an understanding about the general idea of how the entire craft when charged with current hovers.

well the ex defense minster of Canada says that Mr Corso is very legitament...and says exopolitics is a world wide governmental necessity based on such truths
a conspiracy of false truths or is your post disinformation?
just got to wonder who to believe some times

I've read Corso's book, watched his interviews, and read what others have to say about him. In the final analysis, I'm troubled about him. I think he hyped himself as playing a greater role than he probably did. You see this throughout his testimony. Without Corso's timely interventions, the world would not be saved. Here ar a couple of things, by no means comprehensive, but food for thought.

1. Corso repeatedly said he spent many years "high up in government." I'm sorry, but Lt. Colonels, though certainly worthy of respect, are not "high up" in government. They function as aides to people who are, perhaps. Corso claimed he was "on" the National Security Council, which is also not true. He was a staff member.

Now some defense for the man. He's been accused of upping his rank to Colonel, but this is a misunderstanding on two fronts. When addressing a Lt. Col, you don't say, "Lt. Col, sir" you just say "Colonel." That's not unusual and it is not considered improper. Secondly, when Corso retired he was given the retirement rank of full Colonel. You don't see that in the military today. Indeed, the opposite. Today you must have held your rank for two or three years (I forget which) to be able to retire at that rank.

You might want to take a look at Stanton Friedman's site. On the home page in the midddle is a page "My take on Corso" which explains some of the misgivings.

A lot of his technical statements would probably look legit if you weren't at least somewhat well-versed in the topic.

But so much of it is just crap. It's almost like reading the Onion.

I can't speak for the other bits. But the lack of credibility in the tech descriptions sort of leads me to wonder about the entire tale.

That said, I got a much better version of some of this when I was being wined and dined by a certain prospective employer, only their story was a lot more believable. It's almost like Corso had been given that same pitch and due to a lack of technical background to actually remember it at a conceptual level, tried to memorize it verbatim and ended up making "rumor game" mistakes, along with bits he just forgot and tried to fake.

Originally posted by junglelord
well the ex defense minster of Canada says that Mr Corso is very legitament

Hellyer, in my opinion, has been extremely over-hyped. He WAS the defence minister a very long time ago. He read Corso's book a short time ago and pronounced it legitimate. However, this was not because of anything he knew of when defence minister, but just from reading the book. In other words, he is a late-comer to the UFO field with no particular expertise who read Corso's book and was impressed. He has also endorsed Greer, at least when he can remember Greer's name. I am not accusing Hellyer himself of anything peculiar, but I think others have jumped on the fact that "His Excellency" once held a post in Canadian government and are mis-using his title and old position to hype their own agenda. Hellyer himself has no particula expertise or knowledge in the field.

Originally posted by schuyler

You might want to take a look at Stanton Friedman's site. On the home page in the midddle is a page "My take on Corso" which explains some of the misgivings.

Stanton Friedman is a debunker and disinformation specialist.

The water is so muddy...who knows?

Corso is a fraud in my eyes. He claims we got all kinds of our technology from Aliens, but I watched a documentary which proves who exactly invented each technology and how...

Oh and Corso's son isn't exactly lending credibility to his "legacy." You should hear the crazy and outrageous claims this guy makes...

[edit on 10-5-2007 by Diplomat]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by schuyler

You might want to take a look at Stanton Friedman's site. On the home page in the midddle is a page "My take on Corso" which explains some of the misgivings.

Stanton Friedman is a debunker and disinformation specialist.

That's ridiculous. Stanton Friedman is probably the most respected ufologist alive today. He is a steadfast supporter of the alien spacecraft crash at Roswell, which hardly paints him as a debunker. He has proclaimed the MJ-12 documents as bogus, but he stands by the Eisenhower briefing letter. If more 'researchers' took the approach taken by Friedman, ufology would be much more respected and not seen as a bunch of whacko nutcases following every weirdo charlatan hoaxster around in starry eyed wonder.

Originally posted by Diplomat
Oh and Corso's son isn't exactly lending credibility to his "legacy." You should hear the crazy and outrageous claims this guy makes...

Do you have more on this? I'd like to see what he says. Thanks.

I find that our technology being seeded from alien technology is plausable, because most of our technology started in the military, such as computers for example.

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by schuyler

You might want to take a look at Stanton Friedman's site. On the home page in the midddle is a page "My take on Corso" which explains some of the misgivings.

Stanton Friedman is a debunker and disinformation specialist.

That's ridiculous. Stanton Friedman is probably the most respected ufologist alive today. He is a steadfast supporter of the alien spacecraft crash at Roswell, which hardly paints him as a debunker. He has proclaimed the MJ-12 documents as bogus, but he stands by the Eisenhower briefing letter. If more 'researchers' took the approach taken by Friedman, ufology would be much more respected and not seen as a bunch of whacko nutcases following every weirdo charlatan hoaxster around in starry eyed wonder.

Fortunately for Stanton, he does have people who actually believe in him. Unfortunately for the truth, Stanton has people that actually believe in him.

Ever heard of compartmentalization?

Listen, i don't want to slur this mans name. I don't really know one way or the other. I do know that the truth is so obscured, i doubt we will know it when we see it. I also know that the obfuscated truth doesn't lend credibility to ANYONE in the field.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

That said, I got a much better version of some of this when I was being wined and dined by a certain prospective employer, only their story was a lot more believable. It's almost like Corso had been given that same pitch and due to a lack of technical background to actually remember it at a conceptual level, tried to memorize it verbatim and ended up making "rumor game" mistakes, along with bits he just forgot and tried to fake.

This is more interesting than the Corso tale. Please, if you wouldn't mind, could you elaborate?

I think we have to keep in mind that there is a -tremendous- temptation for UFO lecturers and researchers to become infected with what John Lear calls 'UFO disease'.

This is the case when a person has a little bit of second hand (or even some first hand) information and they get on the lecture circuit.

Then the attention becomes addictive and they have to start 'inventing' things, or maybe just inflating what they were privy to, just to keep the accolades coming.

In fact I'm somewhat suspicious of anyone who makes their living doing this.

Corso is a funny case. I think 99% of what he has to say is bunk. However is it a compelling story.

The biggest thing, for me, is trying to understand his motives for doing this. He did not need the book to make money that I'm aware, being on a g-mint pension. He does not seem like a UFO fan and he wasn't really a part of the UFO lecture circuit.

I get the feeling that he was some kind of g-mint disinfo agent trying to get an inside track. But why?

Clearly some of his story is over pumped, especially with regard to his rank and position and connections.

Even though it's compelling, it's this kind of stuff that I think detracts from serious study in the field because if a small part of it is bunk you really have to throw it all out.

it must be part of the disinformation program then
thanks for the headsup

bigfatfurrytexan,

I agree that Friedman is kind of 'slick' but he still gets a fair amount of respect from me.

Did you know there are several long lectures by him up on Google video?

He did a lot of work with FOIA to get many documents released, though much of that was redacted. He gets some respect on that and his analysis of the MJ-12 stuff alone in my book.

well i have read stanton is a plant too.
I am beginning to think that is the truth.
the alien "information" seems to come from plants and a orchastrated program of maybe truth maybe not, who knows, with ovbious control behind the scenes...
I think we are all puppets some times
I am starting too feel like a sheeple

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
As a fair engineer myself in "the defense community", I can say that a good bit of Corso's technical material is bs. Pure and simple.

I can't speak for the entire book. But it's actually painful to read some of the technical material he's got in there.

being one myself , i would disagree .. what did you happen to find
so " painful "?