tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post1756727814694460169..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Philip Corso and The Day After Roswell, AgainKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-58430549685886334882019-12-02T18:18:23.015-08:002019-12-02T18:18:23.015-08:00And where would you get that impression? Just beca...And where would you get that impression? Just because I didn't buy into Corso's ridiculous story that was contradicted by real evidence. Let's not throw out accusations if there is no evidence. There is way too much of that going on today. KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-88961863720493585222019-12-02T12:27:09.389-08:002019-12-02T12:27:09.389-08:00I was always under the impression that you WERE a ...I was always under the impression that you WERE a member of the CIA...... jonbecker03https://www.blogger.com/profile/16829583294071702752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-42385287227141382482018-11-05T19:16:50.070-08:002018-11-05T19:16:50.070-08:00Does anyone know the number of Alien Vehicle's...Does anyone know the number of Alien Vehicle's that crashed in New Mexico back in July 1947! San Agustin, the ship in tacked. Roswell proper is #2 can't forget the ET Vehicle that crashed up in the El Capitan mountains we can't forget the Frank Koufman crash site eather. One to many Alien Crashes and even so all the people that came forward in good faith to give there eyewitness accounts ? This seems to be all in vain. The proper Authority's have denounced every last reported event. As simply a weather balloon a RAWIN SONDA balloon that was fouND by a ranchER. Who to belive? I belive many Alien Ships crashing in New Mexico in 1947 seems much more credible than an old delapitaded weather worn reminat of a RAWIN SONDA weather bolloon.Save it don't waist your breath. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06840043956033719158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17871139874101938002017-12-01T10:12:24.055-08:002017-12-01T10:12:24.055-08:00Regarding the RE issue, as some of you already ela...Regarding the RE issue, as some of you already elaborated: no invention ever happen over night. That is a fact.<br /><br />But, on the other side: a thing we have no basic knowledge about, not at all, can not be even observed as a potential subject for Reverse Engineering. Never forget this point. So far, reading around the internet on "the Corso case" I found no one pulled out this obvious fact. <br /><br />If we had no basic idea about masers (later lasers) - how we could possibly think about alleged "cutting tool" from the craft? This approach may offer reconciliation between two hard headed group of thinkers: "the UFO reverse engineering" and "the hard-work science engineering" believers.hardyVeleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08512614342623834775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-85740140505985525152014-02-05T16:20:34.198-08:002014-02-05T16:20:34.198-08:00Albertguitar,
Yes, Corso said a number of America...Albertguitar,<br /><br />Yes, Corso said a number of American technological advances were seeded by alien technologies found at Roswell, before, during, and after his stint at the Pentagon Foreign Technology Division in the early 1960s under General Arthur Trudeau, head of Army R&D.<br /><br />No, Corso did NOT say he alone was responsible for all of these advances, just that he participated in the process while at FTD.<br /><br />Insinuating that Corso claimed full credit for such things as the invention of night vision, microwave ovens, masers, lasers, transistors, fiber optics, etc., is just plain dishonest and cheap shots to discredit him. He did no such thing. You now are trying to backtrack and claim you didn't do this, but you very clearly did. And you aren't the only one. That's what I object to.<br /><br />Still, as I tried to make clear, Corso's story is hard to swallow in its entirety, to say the least. I GET the skepticism. There are certainly many factual errors in the book and many grandiose claims, whether the fault of ghostwriter Birnes, Corso, both, I still don't know. What I found most interesting about the book is the accounting of how alien technology might have been back-engineered and driven the modern technological revolution, all done quietly and under our noses. I consider this real food for thought, and unlike most, place Corso's basic account (not everything he said) in my gray basket for future reference.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-29728339471712336152014-02-05T13:50:40.451-08:002014-02-05T13:50:40.451-08:00@David
"Albert wrote:
Basically, what Corso...@David<br /><br /> "Albert wrote:<br />Basically, what Corso was saying was that HE provided alien technology to US labs to reverse engineer and develop things like "...the transistor, night vision equipment, fiber optics, lasers, microwave<br />ovens..." (Randle)<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"Corso NEVER said he was alone responsible for development or research into all these things. In fact, he goes into the history of some things like lasers, transistors, integrated circuits, microwave ovens that PRECEDED when he arrived at the Foreign Technology Office at the Pentagon in 1961."<br /><br />WHERE did I say "...he was alone responsible for development or research into all these things..."<br /><br />WHERE??<br /><br />"Corso said he provided alien technology to ...."<br /><br />TRUE or FALSE?<br /><br />No amount of obfuscation can change his statement.<br /><br />I won't bother to respond to your other, similar strawmen.<br /><br />Your little dance is becoming tiresome.<br /><br />Find another partner...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-7388080580159930012014-02-05T12:31:11.562-08:002014-02-05T12:31:11.562-08:00(Part 3 of 3)
Fiber optics; A Gastroscope in 1954....(Part 3 of 3)<br /><i>Fiber optics; A Gastroscope in 1954.</i><br /><br />Another red herring. Corso did NOT claim credit for fiber optics, which has a long history. The fiber optic gastroscope has nothing to do with fiber optics for military communications, which Corso said was his R&D emphasis, and indeed was developed later. Military R&D money helped push the technology forward in private industry, such as Bell Labs, which already had early research going. Fiber optic communications also requried improved lasers, which again post-date Corso’s arrival at the FTD.<br /> <br /><i>Night vision; Devices in use by Germany & Allies in WWII.</i><br /><br />AGAIN, Corso did NOT claim credit for their invention or developments prior to being at FTD. Corso specifically mentions their WWII roots, but night vision devices were extremely crude and impractical during WWII and through the 1950s. They needed vast improvement to be militarily practical, Corso’s goal. Practical military night vision was indeed developed duirng the 1960s, whether Corso had any hand in this or not. Corso was a bit vague about how the supposed night vision devices found with the Roswell crash were supposed to have contributed to this, just that they knew it could be done because the aliens had done it, and therefore poured R&D money into the technology to improve it because of its obvious military importance.<br /><br /><i>Microwave oven; Radarange", it was first sold in 1947.</i><br /><br />Again specifically mentioned by Corso, saying it predated Roswell and obviously had nothing to do with Roswell. AGAIN, NEVER claimed credit. (Who’s getting these ideas that Corso claimed credit for all these inventions or everything came from Roswell?) Instead claimed scientists and engineers examining Roswell debris thought the aliens utilized stimulated emission devices (maser/laser), and this may have inspired research along these lines afterward (which he had nothing to do with), thus the first maser in 1954 and first laser in 1958. <br /><br />BTW, comparing a maser to a microwave oven is like comparing a laser to a light bulb. Masers and lasers emit very pure, coherent wavelengths of light, unlike ordinary microwave and visible light devies. Lasers have very narrow beams, etc. Corso claimed something like a small laser diode device was pulled out of the Roswell wreckage. Yes, perfectly understandable to be skeptical of all of this, but for crying out loud, is it necessary to lie about Corso claiming to have invented microwave ovens?<br /><br />Let me say this just one more time. Corso did NOT EVER say he was personally responsible for any of these developments prior to taking on the Foreign Technology job in 1961. What he did say was it was his job to envision potential military applications of the alien technology at Roswell, some of such technology already in early stages of development by humans. The military R&D money plus ideas from alien technology sped up the course of development of various technologies considerably.<br /><br />I certainly cannot prove Corso’s claim that alien technology from Roswell seeded American technological advances post-Roswell, and people can understandably question such a claim, including Corso’s personal contribution to this. But I certainly can disprove skeptics claims that Corso claimed credit for the invention of the laser, fiber optics, integrated circuits, microwave oven, etc., etc. This is just total BS.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19958988819675938012014-02-05T12:27:56.397-08:002014-02-05T12:27:56.397-08:00(Part 2 of 3)
Basically, it's a load of bull, ...(Part 2 of 3)<br /><i>Basically, it's a load of bull, even if there really was an alien craft crash at Roswell with alien bodies and wreckage.</i><br /><br />If there really was such a crash, then there necessarily WOULD have been back-engineering efforts. The question is how would this have been carried out. Corso's book is mainly how he claimed it was carried out, which I don't consider implausible at all. In fact, it is the only thing out there I know of describing such a back-engineering program in any detail. That is not the same as saying Corso was telling the truth, which can't be proven one way or the other. But critics of Corso as a pure fantasist and liar, who also think Roswell to be an alien event, have to come up with an alternative back-engineering scenario that makes some sense. (Skeptics have it much easier: there were no back-engineering efforts because there was no alien crash at Roswell.)<br /><br /><i>If US scientists didn't know the provenance of the alleged artifacts, they could still testify that the artifacts were of an unusual and unknown technology. No such testimony is forthcoming.</i><br /><br />Which proves nothing. First of all, testimony about any CLASSIFIED technology is extremely rare. Unless you have the artifacts in hand, where is your proof? That is always the problem of the whistleblower, especially those who have signed security oaths. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Second, if it was as Corso said, they hid the ultimate origins of the technology, go prove it wasn't inspired by Russian or Germany technology.<br /><br /><i>Kevin said: "Corso’s job, in 1961, was to parcel the debris into American industry hands..." Maser; First working prototype in 1953.</i><br /><br />1954 actually, Charles Townes. Specifically mentioned by Corso, who claimed no credit. Did however say maser research (generating very pure microwaves through stimulated emission of radiation) was pushed along by what was discovered at Roswell, but he had no hand it.<br /><br /><i>Transistor; First working prototype in 1957.</i><br /><br />Dec. 1947 actually, Bell Labs. Corso again claimed no credit. First transistors very crude, noisy, unreliable devices, made from germanium, not silicon. First junction transistor made of germanium 1951 (more reliable). First silicon transistor 1954. First silicon transistor using diffused doped impurities, 1955, the basis of present semiconductor electronics industry. Purification of silicon wafers, oxide coatings, first metal oxide transistors—latter half of the 1950s. First crude demonstration of a germanium integrated circuit, 1958. First silicon IC 1959. First commercial low density integrated circuit 1961. Medium scale integration later in the 1960s. Large scale integration 1970s, first primitive microprocessor 1972, etc., etc.<br /><br />POINT: Transistor and IC development clearly post-dated Roswell. However, whether their development had anything to do with Roswell is certainly open to question. The first commercial integrated circuits first appeared when Corso started at FTD. Again Corso claimed no credit for any of this, but said he and boss Trudeau realized the military importance of further miniaturization of electronics through integration and again pushed it. Corso’s primary interest was in missiles and space travel, where compactness, light weight, and reliability were essential for further advancement. The first IC’s were much too expensive for public consumption and thus IC development was indeed primarily paid for by militiary R&D money and government funding from NASA. Corso’s remark about the Roswell connection was that silicon wafer IC’s were pulled out of the Roswell wreckage, it was predicted it would take decades to make transistors and two centuries to replicate the silicon IC, and he and his boss Trudeau were amazed at how quickly this was all actually accomplished. So Corso was claiming transistor/IC development was inspired by Roswell but claimed no credit for it. His role was to push further R&D of ICs for military applications.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-78644667600936669772014-02-05T12:25:40.675-08:002014-02-05T12:25:40.675-08:00(part 1 of 3)
First of all, I want to say that I u...(part 1 of 3)<br />First of all, I want to say that I understand people's skepticism about Corso's claims, having many reservations myself. That said, many misstatements have been made about what Corso's book supposedly says and what it really says:<br /><br />Albert wrote:<br /><i>Basically, what Corso was saying was that HE provided alien technology to US labs to reverse engineer and develop things like "...the transistor, night vision equipment, fiber optics, lasers, microwave <br />ovens..." (Randle)</i><br /><br />Corso NEVER said he was alone responsible for development or research into all these things. In fact, he goes into the history of some things like lasers, transistors, integrated circuits, microwave ovens that PRECEDED when he arrived at the Foreign Technology Office at the Pentagon in 1961.<br /><br />He DID say if you already know something CAN be done, it is a powerful incentive to pour R&D dollars into trying to duplicate it. This is what he claimed happened with such things as solid state electronics research and integrated circuits, the maser/laser, night vision goggles, fiber optics, etc. Pushing the technologies with military dollars sped up their development considerably, since private industry in the U.S. was generally reluctant to put their own money into basic research that had no clear payoff.<br /><br />Further, Corso DID say was that he and his superior Gen. Treudieu wanted further specific military R&D into some aspects of these technologies, which he said were found in the Roswell craft, and for which PREVIOUS back-engineering attempts had already been undertaken with some success.<br /><br />E.g., the first continuous beam laser dates from 1960, and it was Corso's belief and those of experts he consulted, that military applications would include laser ranging, navigation, communications, targeting, perhaps weapons (high energy beams) and medical (scalpels for high precision cutting and cauterizing, which Corso said were believed used in public unreported cattle mutilations). However, all these potential APPLICATIONS of the laser had to be engineered, and it was his job to get the ball rolling.<br /> <br />Corso said the plan was to get various corporations and academia doing R&D on these specific military applications, if necessary, introducing them to recovered fragments of the shattered equipment to inspire ideas and using the cover that it was foreign technology, such as Russian, French, etc. <br /><br />Ideally, the plan was that those receiving access to such technology would have no idea where it came from. Furthermore, if they already had some early research along these lines, it was even more ideal, because it would provide some provenance for the technology instead of having it suddenly introduced out of nowhere, which might raise questions.<br /><br />So the point was to try to instigate specific R&D projects as quietly and innocently as possible, hiding the ultimate source of the technological inspiration behind the guise of acquired foreign technology, and fade into the background.<br /><br />As I've tried to point out in previous posts, you can only reverse-engineer technology if it is NOT too far beyond your own technological stream, and Corso was saying basically the same thing. Some things they started he wasn’t sure if they ever succeeded. E.g., he said the hull of the Roswell craft was some sort of high-tenacity fiber like spider silk which he thought might be woven around it. Besides tremendous strength and lightness, it also had stealth properties. Other applications would be improved body armor. Although improved high-tenacity fibers did eventually come out of this research, like Kevlar (developed in the late 1960s), he didn’t believe they ever managed to duplicate the actual fiber used in the Roswell craft.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-78555174186051205292014-02-04T18:48:14.852-08:002014-02-04T18:48:14.852-08:00Returning to the Corso's case, what about his ...Returning to the Corso's case, what about his manuscript <b>"<i>The dawn of a new age</i>"</b> ??. It has been claimed that it contains the original notes from the colonel Corso, and not the distorted ones from the book <b>“<i>The Day After Roswell</i>”</b><br /><br />The book can be found here:<br /><br />http://www.openminds.tv/dawn-of-a-new-age-the-philip-corso-manuscript/3661<br /><br />Is this book also a hoax?Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-23165476409379927282014-02-04T17:25:47.854-08:002014-02-04T17:25:47.854-08:00Oh for God's sake, Steve -
How do you get fro...Oh for God's sake, Steve -<br /><br />How do you get from a posting about Corso's lack of credibility to a discussion about evolution on another planet? This isn't topic drift, this is an attempt to hijack the discussion into something that is irrelevant here. Did Corso color the truth? Did Corso make up his connection to the Roswell case? Did Corso see an alien body in a wooden crate at Fort Riley, KS? Not would aliens evolve into humanoid creatures. I'm tempted to take this down because it is so off topic... but I will take down anything else that goes this far astray.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-577402066531043022014-02-04T15:27:14.760-08:002014-02-04T15:27:14.760-08:00Part 2 of 2:
This obviously does, however, raise ...Part 2 of 2:<br /><br />This obviously does, however, raise three further points: 1) it could be part of a plausibly deniable "conditioning" process, that does have definite, recursive cultural and conceptual impact, and even if "secondary" (the child-like beings are not real, but representations for our "benefit" and consumption, psychologically speaking), 2) would be evidence for some kind of "advanced non-human intelligence" [ANHI] or consciousness, if not via human "agency," manipulating our perceptions and understanding of those or that ("it") which may be behind the "curtain" (like in the Wizard of Oz), or involved in such CE III/IV sightings, whether ET or <i>not,</i> and 3) raises the issue of just what <i><b>really might be</b></i> the actual origin, nature, form, and other particulars of what kind of "ANHI" we might be dealing with, especially if there is more than one such "it" or "other" involved, or as Vallee has referred to it, a deeper than "first level" consideration of the issues so raised by the anthropomorphic form(s) of "the other." <br /><br />As Churchill once famously said, about Russian intent in 1939, it is "...a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key...". Could the "key" be the same kind of "self-interest" Churchill referred to, only from an unknown non-human source? Your guess is as good as mine -- I do not know. But, there are "clues" within the noise, a signal, only what to make of it is still very questionable, or only one kind of "unknown unknowns," as per Rumsfeld, only in this case the UFO mystery is the true unknown. So far. <br /><br />However, if there is any truth to such "sightings," the extrapolation I would surmise is that, still, they would provide some "evidence" of an ET presence, or other ANHI source, only not as they actually are, and for some of the reasons cited above. <br /><br />Perhaps, <i>whether real or not,</i> as a "kick" to the evolution of both our consciousness expansion, and our related development of technologies of investigation and biogenetic human intelligence enhancement. Maybe we are subconsciously "doing it" to ourselves, as all the known existential crises we face become more and more obvious and potentially dire. <br /><br />Does anybody else here think, or seriously consider these questions and ideas as a genuine possibility? It may seem "off-topic," but these points are indirectly related to the issues Corso's book both brings up and denies the actuality of, in terms of Corso's simplistic, anthropocentric claims, simultaneously. Weird, huh? 8^}Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-41041464782665870662014-02-04T15:18:22.314-08:002014-02-04T15:18:22.314-08:00Part 1 of 2:
OK, so yeah: the conclusion that can...Part 1 of 2:<br /><br />OK, so yeah: the conclusion that can determined by this discussion of Corso's claims is that they are nearly absolute bullshit, since a review of the facts, as "albertguitar" just reiterated about prior-to-1961 technological developments alleged by Corso & Birnes is that those claims are, essentially, horse pucky. <br /><br />Glad we settled that. Perhaps now we can move on to other issues.<br /><br />A greater and more general question about the Roswell incident is whether, if anything crashed back in 1947, whether anyone sincerely thinks that any actual ET bodies supposedly found would be so very anthropomorphic in nature. I don't.<br /><br />Unless you believe in some exotically abstruse form of "convergent evolution," from another distant star system, if "humanoid" bodies were found (and I'm rather dubious), the only explanation that makes any kind of sense is that they were forms of biogenetic or other forms of a "simulant" organism, like humans, but different enough to be clearly recognized as not actual humans. <br /><br />Why would that be, just for the sake of a conjectured argument? And by that I mean, if we temporarily stick to the ETH proposition, rather than the IDH, TTH, CTH, etc., hypotheses, I would suggest that while such might inspire a kind of "cognitive dissonance" to some degree, an anthopomorphic organism of the kind alleged to have been found at Roswell, would have been "synthesized" as a kind of informational interface, or semi-familiar form that would not inspire xenophobic fear, but that would suggest "they" are maybe "kind of like us," only "more advanced." <br /><br />But not "too advanced," or so strange (or so similar that the "uncanny valley" syndrome is triggered -- don't want your fabricated "aliens" to be too beautiful or superior in appearance, either) and anomalous in form that such would potentially generate fear or hysteria on some observers part, both at Roswell and other alleged CE III/IV incidents reported over time. <br /><br />The purpose of such should be obvious, if there's actually any basis to the "alien" entities supposedly witnessed over time, and which vary within, usually, an anthropomorphic/centric range of form: it's a self-deniable form that those who encounter "them" can, in ways, "relate to," and without panic or xenophobic reactions. <br /><br />I suspect the stereotypical or archetypal "grays," with the large black ovoid eyes, "lightbulb" baldish head, small body, etc. are most likely a kind of either "projection" or confabulation by the witness(es), based on cultural sub-rosa conditioning, or if actually externally "real," simply used to further confuse the issue, in a "relatable" way, almost child-like, or foetal, like the "star child" in Kubrick's "2001," and which triggers other fundamental, innate human psychological responses, like "empathy" or the opposite of fear, which could be very "useful" for other reasons I'll leave to others to contemplate.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33675259281487334182014-02-04T11:14:48.436-08:002014-02-04T11:14:48.436-08:00@David
You said:
"That is basically what Co...@David<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"That is basically what Corso was saying: Roswell alien technology inspired SOME modern developments in technology that we could replicate. Corso did not go so far to say that we could replicate everything, just some things."<br /><br />Basically, what Corso was saying was that HE provided alien technology to US labs to reverse engineer and develop things like "...the transistor, night vision equipment, fiber optics, lasers, microwave ovens..." (Randle)<br /><br />Basically, it's a load of bull, even if there really was an alien craft crash at Roswell with alien bodies and wreckage.<br /><br />If US scientists didn't know the provenance of the alleged artifacts, they could still testify that the artifacts were of an unusual and unknown technology. <br /><br />No such testimony is forthcoming.<br /><br />Kevin said: "Corso’s job, in 1961, was to parcel the debris into American industry hands..."<br /><br />Maser; First working prototype in 1953.<br />Transistor; First working prototype in 1957.<br />Fiber optics; A Gastroscope in 1954.<br />Night vision; Devices in use by Germany & Allies in WWII.<br />Microwave oven; Radarange", it was first sold in 1947.<br /><br />I gotta go...alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-72061055041674212182014-02-03T16:28:02.203-08:002014-02-03T16:28:02.203-08:00(part 2 of 2)
But totally back-engineering an ent...(part 2 of 2)<br /><br />But totally back-engineering an entire 747 probably would not have been sped up that much, just bits and pieces of it. Back-engineering UFO technology might be similar. Some things we might figure out how to duplicate to a point, put would still have to develop our own manufacturing techniques. <br /><br />E.g., suppose integrated circuits were found at Roswell, as Corso claimed. We would still have to figure out how to purify silicon and etch the circuits, as we do now. Larry and I privately discussed how metallic debris described by Roswell witnesses resembles in properties modern "liquid" or amorphous metals. I certainly cannot prove that Roswell led to the development of such metallic alloys, but it is not beyond reason that research into trying to replicate such materials led to their development, but we still had to figure out how to fabricate them on our own. But analyzing the alloy mix of the original metals or composites might have given us the necessary clues of how to make our own alloys with similar properties.<br /><br />So we can't prove that back-engineering alien technology led to any modern technology, but it is conceivable, as long as it inspired research into some aspects of the technology and was not too far beyond our present capabilities. <br /><br />That is basically what Corso was saying: Roswell alien technology inspired SOME modern developments in technology that we could replicate. Corso did not go so far to say that we could replicate everything, just some things.<br /><br />Of course, anybody can SAY that. The question is whether Corso actually knew this to be true from personal experience, as he claimed. And we’ll have to leave it at that.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-49879481326796446282014-02-03T16:25:45.683-08:002014-02-03T16:25:45.683-08:00(part 1 of 2)
Some alien technology could be incon...(part 1 of 2)<br />Some alien technology could be inconceivably advanced and well-beyond our current technology; some might not be.<br /><br />We do know, e.g., proposals or actual attempts to engineer saucer-shaped aircraft in the 1950s, particularly by Canadian AVRO. It is also indisputable that these attempts were definitely inspired by the reported shapes of flying saucers. Lockheed's Kelly Johnson also wrote in his memoirs that their initial attempts at stealth aircraft design included saucers because of their natural stealthiness to radar, but they didn't know how to make them aerodynamically stable.<br /><br />There has also been the claim that the canted vertical tail stabilizers that started appearing on our aircraft in the 1960s (such as the SR-71 Blackbird) were also inspired by the saucers. This too increases radar stealthiness and in some cases improves aircraft stability.<br /><br />I'm not going to argue whether this is true or not, only that some improvements in technology would not necessarily require physics or engineering well beyond our own, but modest observations of simple things like form. Sometimes form is optimal and cannot be improved on no matter how old it is. Ski's and ski poles have not changed much in basic design for many hundreds of years. Most changes have been in materials, not form, with wood being replaced largely by fiberglass, e.g. If an alien ski pole had been found at Roswell, we still could have replicated the form, even if it was made of some exotic material we had no idea how to manufacture.<br /><br />Forget about throwing some modern technology back to Roman times to make it largely incomprehensible. A century alone will often suffice. I have sometimes done the thought experiment of taking the first 747 from 1969 and transporting it back in time to 1869. Scientists and engineers would be largely flummoxed by it, though might deduce a few things. E.g., they could figure out the metal was largely aluminum, but there would have been no way to duplicate an aluminum aircraft back then. Aluminum could only be produced in tiny amounts and was considered a precious metal. The first airplane would probably still have been built from wood and cloth, not aluminum and plastics and modern composites. But it might have given engineers back then an idea for a workable form for a flying aircraft. The first working aircraft might have looked quite different from that of the Wright brothers.<br /><br />Same with the jet engines. They might have been able to eventually deduce how they worked but would not have been able to reproduce a practical working model. For one thing, you need modern metal alloys to do that which can withstand the high temperatures and physical strain. You still need to figure out how to make such alloys. Jet aircraft only became abundant and practical post-WWII as the materials improved.<br /><br />Electronics, like radio and radar, would have probably bewildered them as well, even if they could have figured out to power them up. On the other hand, they could have probably figured out how to back-engineer a light bulb from the plane and thus beat out Edison. Maybe the gyroscope navigation system would have given them ideas for better navigation on ships. When Maxwell came out with his EM equations a few years later, they might have gotten the idea that radio and radar utilized EM waves and figured out that vacuum tubes (basically light bulbs with electrodes to control current) were electrical amplifiers. Maybe the development of radio, radar, and other electronics would have been sped up somewhat.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77369838995288548802014-02-03T01:13:47.767-08:002014-02-03T01:13:47.767-08:00Somewhat surprised by the extent of the discussion...Somewhat surprised by the extent of the discussion of Corso's claims. In terms of his book it falls into the category 'bought it, read it, binned it'.<br /><br />Overall there seems no clear evidence for any concrete results of attempts to reverse engineer ET technology. This is perhaps most self evident in aviation. Conversely we know from the Smith memo (and from Ruppelt) that attempts to understand the modus operandi of UFOs were underway by 1950 at the latest. This could simply be attempts to draw conclusions from sighting reports or could potentially include study of actual debris.<br /><br />Do the above remarks present a contradiction? There is often a assumption that we would be successful in such reverse engineering attempts. Imagine a little thought experiment in which a modern stealth aircraft was presented to the very best engineers ancient Rome could gather together. Whilst they might be able to make some inferences I doubt they would get very far in actually reverse engineering it.<br /><br />Astrobiological considerations suggest that potentially habitable planets have been in existence for billions of years prior to the formation of the earth. A recent paper by Loeb that is available on the arXiv suggests that the ambient temperature of the CMB may have been suitable for the formation of life just 17 million years after the big bang. Whilst I have some questions about that (not least the level of metallicity available so early on)a very conservative view would be that potentially habitable environments were in existence 10 billion years ago.<br /><br />Potentially habitable is not the same as actually inhabited, and inhabited is not the same as an ETC that is also interested in earth. The point however, is that the odds favour any ETCs being very dramatically in advance of ourselves. We know there are fundamental gaps in our current understanding of physics. It strains credulity to assume that a civilisation millions or even billions of years ahead of us technologically would be using technology that we could reverse engineer at this time.<br /><br />What could be very useful however is inferential reasoning along the lines used by, for example, Hill and Puthoff - if they can do X then that may suggest Y is possible. There are risks - as we are limited by what we can currently imagine, but that could inform experimental programmes.<br /><br />Overall though, going beyond the documentary evidence referred to above represents a 'premature question' at this stage. We'd be better off staying with things we can test.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-59593307518736227232014-02-02T18:04:35.780-08:002014-02-02T18:04:35.780-08:00@ Don
Thanks for the clarification...
I suppose...@ Don<br /><br />Thanks for the clarification... <br /><br />I suppose that he was under the mistaken impression that the copy of his resume that he sent to Walt Andrus [See the letters RR posted] was enough to establish his bona fides as an expert in the field of Electromagnetics for an article that was to appear in a non-peer reviewed magazine. We can see how that turned out. Hind-sight is always 20-20. <br /><br />Ultimately, it is my impression that he felt MUFON was more focused on their own preferred "solution" to UFO events than a rational discussion based on solid scientific evidence. <br /><br />As I said before: we've spent 67 years chasing our own tail and still do not have a explanation to a significant number of UFO related events. We can deny the existence of the events or call the observers crazy or we can take them at face value and investigate further.<br /><br />As an example my area of work for quite a number of years was computers. I regularly get the panicked emails from poorly informed users of "SOME TERRIBLE VIRUS" id on the loose. I take the time to reassure the user and explain the contents of the email is a kind of mimetic virus designed to waste the time of both the recipient and the person that provides their technical support BUT just because these emails are false alarms does not mean I in anyway believe that all viruses are "impossible", "unlikely", or the "delusions of a stupid end user" which seems to be the tenor of many of the "skeptics". Knee-jerk skeptics are... less than scientific.<br /><br /><br />regards,<br /><br />gishzidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09149656341321714035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-9352652064456903752014-02-02T17:23:30.773-08:002014-02-02T17:23:30.773-08:00Hello gishzida,
I called your father a "newc...Hello gishzida,<br /><br />I called your father a "newcomer" with respect to the UFO field, as He tried to get his paper published by a UFO institution.<br /><br />Trying to publish a paper in a field where nobody knows you is a difficult task, you have to bring up something really important, your supportive arguments must be solid as rock, and again, you have to be friendly and cooperative.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63544432157467224372014-02-02T16:50:02.202-08:002014-02-02T16:50:02.202-08:00Gents,
Even in the early history of UFO research,...Gents,<br /><br />Even in the early history of UFO research, with Ruppelt, Keyhoe, et al, scientific data was sought. Paul Hill, NASA scientist also called for scientific investigations, especially high-energy particles and rays, such as gamma. James McDonald called for science in his testimony before Congress. Ray Stanford ran Starlight international with an array of EM, gravity detectors, cameras and lasers. Wilbert Smith also operated a detector in Canada. Francis Ridge used his MADAR network in the midwest (Indiana? Still does, I think), which also has EM detection apparatus. Peter Davenport is still trying to implement his passive radar technology. Doug Trumbull has his UFOtog mobile units. Robert Schroeder thinks UFOs create micro black holes, which should be detectable through high-energy emissions.<br /><br />Today, with cell phones having so many types of accessories like compasses, cameras, instant net access, Ridge writes that a large network of enthusiasts could track magnetic anomalies across the US, shared data from which bring to bear more sophisticated instument on anomalous aerial objects. I would add that if smart phones were to also collect alpha beta, x-ray and gamma data, and there was a sufficiently large sample from numerous individual sources, all pooled into a real-time data collection and processing site that could also send alerts to members in the path of the UFOs, then I'd say we'd have a beginning towards understanding the phenomenon. Don't count on official sources for anything. This is going to have to be a grass-roots type effort.<br /><br /><br />Right now, whether the ETH or IDH, or both plus some other unknown phenomena best reflects the collected data, is really a moot point.<br /><br />guyxDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12705067146246472654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54963983122164011622014-02-02T14:52:02.647-08:002014-02-02T14:52:02.647-08:00Gilles wrote:
Well, again a discussion between be...Gilles wrote:<br /><br /><i>Well, again a discussion between believers having NOTHING as scientific evidence to present/offer like ONE or a SIMPLE one extraordinary scientific evidence in order to proove an extraordinary (E.T.) things.</i><br /><br />Amusing, Gilles usual fatuous, hypocritical, snarky comments. Hypocritical because Gilles doesn't remotely hold himself to the same standards of evidence he demands of the "believers." Instead, he proposes totally speculative, untestable, psychosocial "explanations" for UFOs, such as Roswell is all lying and distortions of memory by hundreds of witnesses, and is instead "explained" by a balloon flight that never existed. That Gilles calls "scientific".<br /><br />I've been asking Gilles and other debunkers for years for actual documentation to support that Mogul Flight #4 ever existed, the bare minimum threshold of evidence that it could have somehow provoked the "Roswell Incident". And what do I get?<br /><br /><i>Nada.</i><br /><br />Yep, Nada. Instead the REAL documentation states the flight was cancelled, it was totally written out of the Mogul summaries (just like the other cancelled flights), and official USAF/NASA histories of flight ALL list the real, fully-documented Flight #5 as the actual first N.M. Mogul flight.<br /><br /><i>Something new in ufology? It seems not!</i><br /><br />Something new in Deboonkery? It seems not!<br /><br />If Gilles wants good, SCIENTIFIC investigations of UFO cases that clearly demonstrate that UFOs aren't just in people's minds but are a true inexplicable physical phenomena, perhaps even extraterrestrial, he need look no further than his home country's official UFO investigation GEPAN/SEPRA/GEIPAN that has been ongoing since 1977 under the French space agency CNES. <br /><br />The current GEIPAN has an FAQ page (English translation): http://tinyurl.com/mel4ado<br /><br />Here they state that fully 22% of some 6000 cases scientifically studied do not have a conventional explanation. This is not due to lack of sufficient information, because such cases are placed in an entirely different category and make up 41% of all cases.<br /><br />They further state they can neither prove nor disprove the ETH. Their official position is neutrality; they are to investigate and determine facts for other scientists, not to state their opinion. But they also state their Steering Committee does not discount the ETH as a possibility. All three directors of GEPAN/SEPRA/GEIPAN have publicly stated they DO think the ETH is the best explanation for some fraction of the 22% inexplicable category. (Obviously, they never considered cancelled, totally undocumented balloon flights.)<br /><br />The 22% unknowns was also the result of another large SCIENTIFIC study of 3200 cases by the Battelle Memorial Institute for the USAF. In this case, the panel of four scientists ALL had to agree there was no conventional explanation for the cases listed as unexplained, whereas only two had to agree on an explanation for an "identified". The point here is the criteria for something to be unidentified was much more stringent than for something to be categorized as identified.<br /><br />So that's just two SCIENTIFIC studies of large numbers of cases, both arriving at large percentages of unknowns which seem to have no conventional explanation. That debunkers like Gilles would continue with the refrain that there is no "scientific" evidence for UFOs either shows an astonishing amount of ignorance or deliberately nurtured disingenuousness.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-50207469675219909482014-02-02T13:46:11.239-08:002014-02-02T13:46:11.239-08:00I too have just read Gaines M. Crook's EM anal...I too have just read Gaines M. Crook's EM analysis of UFO reports and largely concur with Don Maor's comments. (Incidentally "gishzida" is Crook's son Joel.)<br /><br />Crook's does acknowledge that James McCampbell did try to make scientific/engineering sense of UFO physics out of a confusing mass of UFO data. (McCampbell had been a NASA and nuclear engineer, so wasn't some amateur.) McCampbell felt that a great deal of the physical phenomena reported around UFOs could be explained with microwave technology. Crook's disagrees in specific instances. I'm not sure I agree with all his reasons. <br /><br />E.g., with regards to paralysis of humans by UFOs, he states, "We know of no electromagnetic interaction that can cause a person to be paralyzed at a distance." Well, I worked for several years in magnetic stimulation of the brain and peripheral nervous system and I can tell you for a fact that nerves (particularly peripheral motor nerves) CAN be stimulated remotely with small coils using intense magnetic pulsed fields on the order of .5 to 2 Tesla in strength (or at least 1000 times greater than Earth's magnetic field). Some estimates of magnetic fields generated by UFOs (based on scientific analysis of such things as polarized Faraday rings around them) have place the intensity of UFO generated magnetic fields at roughly 100 Tesla. If a "flying saucer" is assumed to be a large magnetic coil with pulsed fields of 100 Tesla (which might also possibly explain one means of propulsion using magnetohydrodynamics), then one could theoretically REMOTELY create nerve block and incapacitation of people from tens or maybe even hundreds of meters.<br /><br />This isn't much different than "tasing" people, although tasers shoot wires into people to induce muscle convulsion and incapacitation. I have read of one device (don't know if it was ever developed) which would have eliminated the wires by creating an ionization path in air to carry the electrical current, creating something like a miniature artificial lightning bolt. So this might be another means to REMOTELY paralyze people by EM means.<br /><br />My point is that Gaines Crook's opinions are also subject to criticism and his son Joel should not automatically assume his father's criticisms of others are perfect or that others were necessarily being "unscientific" in their analyses because he disagreed with their opinion.<br /><br />Incidentally, Joel claims that the ETH is "unscientific" because it can't be tested. I totally disagree for a number of reasons I could go into at length in another post. (For one thing, get your hands on genuine alien technology or a body and you would have your "proof".) Alternate hypotheses he proposes, such as the simulation hypothesis (our reality is just some vast computer simulation) or that UFOs are an intrusion from some other reality or universe could similarly be criticized as "unscientific", probably much more so that the ETH, in that there is no way to test them and falsify them, nor have they ever been rigorously defined. <br /><br />The computer simulation hypothesis is little different than the God hypothesis, just substituting computers and programmers for the creator who can do anything. Good luck testing it scientifically. And intrusions from some alternate universe/reality could not happen unless they could logically exist within the physical law framework of our own reality. In other words, this is just a bigger statement of the ETH, except extending it beyond our own universe to an alternate universe that normally is causally disconnected from our own, but otherwise probably identical in physical law. (Otherwise they couldn't exist here, just as a character from Super Mario Brothers cannot "invade" the universe of Grand Theft Auto because of incompatible data structures.)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-2920765267359957722014-02-02T13:41:33.579-08:002014-02-02T13:41:33.579-08:00Well, again a discussion between believers having ...Well, again a discussion between believers having NOTHING as scientific evidence to present/offer like ONE or a SIMPLE one extraordinary scientific evidence in order to proove an extraordinary (E.T.) things.<br /><br />Nada. <br /><br />Something new in ufology? It seems not!<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Gilles.<br />Gilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47577212447598327872014-02-02T13:08:42.959-08:002014-02-02T13:08:42.959-08:00@Don Maor
Thanks for taking a look and your comme...@Don Maor<br /><br />Thanks for taking a look and your comments.<br /><br />I never said my father was a nice guy. He had the typical 'produce or perish" engineer's disdain for people he perceived as standing in the way of getting the job done. He was also the kind of guy that if you asked for his opinion he'd tell you what he thought with our "filters".<br /><br />I am not sure you could call him a "newcomer" to publishing scientific papers. He listed 14 in his resume... many of those were in The Journal of Geophysical Research or IEEE Transactions. RR has a copy of the resume posted. So you can decide if he was a newcomer based on that resume.<br /><br />He was 67 years of age in 1990. Most of the items I have given to RR were written between 1990 and 1996... so yes the "Senior Scientist" law does apply and it may be that things beyond his area of expertise can be questioned but in regards to what was known of EM and what it could or could not do, its effects and limitations in 1990 he was an expert. <br /><br />His conclusion was that to call something an EM effect without proof isn't science. He was perfectly happy to allow the events described had actually happened as long as you did not attribute to them a cause without proof or demonstrating that some kind of Electromagnetic technology is responsible. This is probably what led him to believe "those organizations" did not know what EM is, what it does, or how it works.<br /><br />If he was guilty of anything it was that he thought he could actually "beard the lion in his den" and tell the lion he wasn't really doing science.<br /><br />A general rule of a real science publication "peer review" requirement to determine if the assertions of a paper is actually science or not. One might consider this paper a peer review of the idea that all the odd effects ascribed to UFOs are in one shape or another EM effects or caused by interference with EM fields. I've never heard MUFON actually peer reviewed their papers except maybe in this case where it flew in the face of their preferred theory.<br /><br />If you read the letters published by RR entitled "Gaines M Crook's rejected MUFON article on UFOs and Electromagnetism " from 1/29/2014 You will see my father thought McCambell's objections were not much more than another "pissing contest". [I intentionally gave those letters to RR to show that yes there are always two sides to the coin.]<br /><br />So no I don't feel you got his opinions wrong but I do question your saying, "The author should have written a less emotive paper, presenting only his technical conclusions, not his beliefs. " when it appears that "emotive" was the operational rule rather than the exception in MUFON's publications. <br /><br />I do have 'fragments' of the same paper that apparently were intended for publication in one of the IEEE journals [he was a senior lifetime member of the IEEE] or in the JSE but ultimately it appears he decided not to publish a revised version. <br /><br />regards,<br /><br />gishzidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09149656341321714035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6052549333484349702014-02-02T09:49:20.076-08:002014-02-02T09:49:20.076-08:00Hello gishzida:
I have read the article wrote by ...Hello gishzida:<br /><br />I have read the article wrote by G. M. Crook.<br /><br />I found it interesting, as a technical report from someone with technical knowledge about electromagnetic interference. In my view, the criticisms made by Crook to McCambell's conclusions are valid to some extent, but the manners were too harsh.<br /><br />From a technical view, Crook might have a point when saying that some effects might/are not be related to electromagnetic causes.<br /><br />However, the technical issues discussed do not permit us to know what is the origin and ultimate nature of the UFOs. So the author's conclusion that UFO's are unlikely to be ET in origin, is a <i>Non Sequitur</i>.<br /><br />On the contrary, other aspects of ufology base its assertion that some UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin on other other sources of evidence, notably, the encounters of the third kind.<br /><br />The author expressed his belief that those "UFO organizations" may not even know what an "electrical equipment" is. What is the author's evidence for this belief?<br /><br />The author should have written a less emotive paper, presenting only his technical conclusions, not his beliefs. I think that it would have been a great paper, with moderate possibilities of being published in mainstream journals of electrical engineering. <br /><br />Regrettably, in my honest opinion, the author included attacks to McCambell, and even to Richard Hall. That was not very wise. Of course, criticisms are valid,and always happen in scientific papers and papers from other non-scientific disciplines, but if an author is a newcomer to a field, his criticisms should be polite.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.com