Former High Ranking Officer Admits UFO's Real

here is more detailed research into his life have not read his book so not sure how it stacks up with what he writes some say it doesnt others say it does.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/corso_p1.htm


http://www.cufon.org/cufon/corso_p2.htm

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/corso_p3.htm

Philip J. Corso's Department of the Army Form 66,
Officer Qualification Record

The Day After Roswell, caused immediate controversy when it was published in 1997 because of the apparent qualifications and background of the author retired US Army officer Philip J. Corso, and because of the extraordinary claims made in the book: that Corso handled and parceled out to US industry technology recovered from a UFO crash in New Mexico in the late 1940's.

...snip....

Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Rule 4 removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you just type a full list of what you do believe in.

Or, to save time, you could list the few things you don't believe in.

Cheers
 
Why does this look so similar to the tripe that trolls type, and why do all trolls I have seen type (or copy/paste) these huge (intestine length really) tracts of posts full of sound and fury and signifying nothing?
 
Magyar said:
I mean we all know that highly educated carrier military personnel never do, say or believe in strange and bizarre things
Click to expand...

There are a couple of threads about a retired FBI agent who endorses Sylvia Browne and other claimed psychics, when he's not investigating the New World Order, sex scandals in the White House and Satanism in general.

Credibility of the witness requires more than a resume.
 
The thread title is misleading.

A Lieutenant Colonel hardly qualifies as "high ranking." It is, in fact, squarely in the middle of what are called Field Grade Officers (Major and Colonel being the other two ranks called Field Grade). Flag Officer starts two ranks above this guy.

As points of comparison, Hal Bidlack retired as Lieutenant Colonel. I am a still-serving Lieutenant Colonel. Darth Rotor retired at a rank higher than that, though I don't know what it is. From his posts and comments about his service, he could easily be flag officer.
 
Garrette said:
The thread title is misleading.

A Lieutenant Colonel hardly qualifies as "high ranking." It is, in fact, squarely in the middle of what are called Field Grade Officers (Major and Colonel being the other two ranks called Field Grade). Flag Officer starts two ranks above this guy.

As points of comparison, Hal Bidlack retired as Lieutenant Colonel. I am a still-serving Lieutenant Colonel. Darth Rotor retired at a rank higher than that, though I don't know what it is. From his posts and comments about his service, he could easily be flag officer.
Click to expand...

to serve on the white house national security staff is a pretty high position. You do not get there if you are a looneytoon, conspiracy nut, or someone prone to make things up.
 
cgallaga said:
Why does this look so similar to the tripe that trolls type, and why do all trolls I have seen type (or copy/paste) these huge (intestine length really) tracts of posts full of sound and fury and signifying nothing?
Click to expand...

point taken on the long paste I will try to simply link next time. as far as being a troll just becuase I post somthing you do not believe in......oh well. I have always believed that UFO's were simply ultra secret goverment projects since long distance space travel really isnt all that feasable. I am still of that pursuasion I was simply saying before that this guys credentials gives me pause that maybe I could be wrong. Is it wrong to post that on this forum looking for other peoples take on it? especially insights from people that are critical thinkers to begin with.
 
Thomas1016 said:
to serve on the white house national security staff is a pretty high position.
Click to expand...
My comment was about his rank. The rank is not as high as you implied.

In reviewing your links to his OPR (or OQR) I do not see such a position listed. Where did you get your information that he held such a position?


Thomas1016 said:
You do not get there if you are a looneytoon, conspiracy nut, or someone prone to make things up.
Click to expand...
One would hope not, and perhaps this LTC is a stand up guy, but no system is perfect.
 
Garrette said:
My comment was about his rank. The rank is not as high as you implied.

In reviewing your links to his OPR (or OQR) I do not see such a position listed. Where did you get your information that he held such a position?


One would hope not, and perhaps this LTC is a stand up guy, but no system is perfect.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time understanding the abreviated military descriptions but supposedly it was 1953 - 56 on his record. perhaps someone with the knowledge of how to read the descriptions could enlighten us. I know military designations can be misleading for instance the old desigantion "United States Institute for Military Assistance" now is termed "Special Operations Command"
 
Last edited:
Big Les said:
UFOs eh? Seriously Old Skool woo. Look to the skies!!!!!
Click to expand...

:)

Actually, this seems to be the kindergarten of Old Skool woo and UFO stuff.

I didn't know it was thanks to this "high" ranking officer that we today have:

Integrated circuit chips
Fiber Optics
Lasers
Super-tenacity fibers
and "seeded" the Roswell alien technology to giants of American industry.
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.logoschristian.org/ftwaltonbeach/

There's more on that page, regarding his son:

Phillip (A born again Christian) talked on Friday night and made the following statements:

UFOs are real.
My father told the truth.
They are trying to assemble a working model of a UFO from his father's notes.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
Sadly, this is not evidence of anything, really.

As it stands, why should we believe this man over the people who state that nothing alien-related happened at Roswell? Because he's going against the "party line?"

Sorry, not good enough. Need physical evidence of some kind for verification of baseless story.
 
JonnyFive said:
Sadly, this is not evidence of anything, really.

As it stands, why should we believe this man over the people who state that nothing alien-related happened at Roswell? Because he's going against the "party line?"

Sorry, not good enough. Need physical evidence of some kind for verification of baseless story.
Click to expand...

If testimony of witnesses is not allowed in the seeking of the truth even in the light of the lack of physical evidence we would have alought more criminals walking the streets. If you don't believe him then depose his testimony...............
 
Last edited:
Thomas1016 said:
If testimony of witnesses is not allowed in the seeking of the truth even in the light of the lack of physical evidence we would have alought more criminals walking the streets.
Click to expand...

It's not that it's "not allowed", it's that more and better quality evidence is required, both for a court verdict and for proof of UFOs, bigfoot, ghosts, fairies, psychic powers, etc etc. If we relied solely on oral testimony, we would have to accept that all of these things are genuine, even though scientific testing fails to provide evidence for any of them.

If you don't believe him then depose his testimony...............
Click to expand...

Depose? If you mean refute/debunk, well sure, we can do that for our own interest and entertainment (and we often do), but we cannot prove a negative. The onus is in fact upon him (or you, making the claim on his behalf) to prove what he says. Otherwise it's just hot air.

And you coming here and suggesting aliens might really have visited us based on this guy's say-so is no more convincing than a child in the playground saying "it must be true, because my dad says so".
 
Last edited:
Thomas1016 said:
If testimony of witnesses is not allowed in the seeking of the truth even in the light of the lack of physical evidence we would have alought more criminals walking the streets. If you don't believe him then depose his testimony...............
Click to expand...

How can I "depose his testimony?" That phrase means nothing. You're saying "[take testimony from] his testimony" or [testify under oath/by affidavit] his testimony", both of which are nonsense phrases. What exactly are you trying to say here?

In any case, there is a weighing of the testimony on both sides of the issue in a court of law. For some issues, having testimonial evidence may not be enough to even go to trial, as a grand jury can simply find there is insufficient evidence to conduct a trial and toss out the case (at least in the US legal system). Comparing this to a legal proceeding is inappropriate.

The lack of physical evidence here is damning. The situation provided is improbable, there is no verified physical evidence for it, no official documentation can be produced, and plenty of testimony exists saying this is ridiculous.

In particular, as detailed on the Wiki article on the subject, there are competing, rational explanations for the supposed "UFO crash" at Roswell. In particular, what evidence exists that the "wreckage" recovered was not simply the remains of the Project Mogul balloon?

So why should I believe it was an alien spacecraft when no physical evidence supports that fact? Because some Lt. Col. says so without the evidence to back it up? Sorry, not good enough.
 
Thomas1016 said:
to serve on the white house national security staff is a pretty high position. You do not get there if you are a looneytoon, conspiracy nut, or someone prone to make things up.
Click to expand...


Can you be nominated for a Stundie from a UFO thread?
 
Thomas1016 said:
I have a hard time understanding the abreviated military descriptions but supposedly it was 1953 - 56 on his record. perhaps someone with the knowledge of how to read the descriptions could enlighten us. I know military designations can be misleading for instance the old desigantion "United States Institute for Military Assistance" now is termed "Special Operations Command"
Click to expand...

Here are the entries:

1. 1Jan53 Chief Spec Projects Br, G-2 Sec Hq AFFE, 8000th AU

2. 15Jul53 Intel O. Western Br OACofS G-2, 8533rd AAU, Wash DC

3. 26Aug53 TDY StateDept dy/w Psy Strat Bd OACof S G-2, 8533rd AAU, Wash DC

4. 24Feb54 Intelligence Staff O 8720 DU, ArmySec,
OprCoordinatingBd, WashDC

5. 1Jun54 Intelligence Staff O 8720 DU, ArmySec,
OprCoordinatingBd, WashDC

6. 1Jun55 Intelligence Staff O 8720 DU, ArmySec,
OprCoordinatingBd, WashDC

7. 1Jun56 Intelligence Staff O Army Sec, OprCoordinatingBd(8720)
WashDC

All of them were for MOS 9301 which no longer exists and refers to “Combat Intelligence Staff Officer” or MOS 9300 “Military Intelligence Officer”. The first no longer exists. The second has a new designator: 35A/B/C/D with the letter designating the field of specialization.

For #1: He was chief of special projects branch reporting to the G-2 (the head of Intelligence for that command). This was for Headquarters Army Forces Far East, which was located in Japan, not in Washington. I don’t know what “AU” stands for in that entry.

For #2: He was the intelligence officer of the Western Branch in the Office of the Army Chief of Staff G-2. “AAU” generally referred to “Army Aviation Unit” but I am uncertain if that meaning applies here.

For #3: He remained assigned to the same office but was on temporary duty (TDY) to the State Department performing duty with (d/y_ the Psychological Strategy Board (or possibly building; I am uncertain of what “Bd” means).

For #s 4, 5, 6, & 7: He served as the Intelligence Staff Officer. 8720 refers to the unit to which assigned, but again, I am uncertain as to what “DU” means. “ArmySec” is possibly short for Secretary of the Army but is far more likely short for “Army Security Agency” which was headed up by the Director of Military Intelligence. (The Army Security Agency was the successor to the SSA which itself was the successor to the SIS of WWII fame). “OprCoordinatingBd” is Operations Coordinating Board.

Despite my inability to decipher every piece of info on the record, it is abundantly clear that he never worked on the National Security Staff nor in the White House. In fact, he had a fairly typical career for an Intelligence Officer. They’re a dime a dozen. I can say that because I was one.
 
Thomas said:
If testimony of witnesses is not allowed in the seeking of the truth even in the light of the lack of physical evidence we would have alought more criminals walking the streets. If you don't believe him then depose his testimony...
Click to expand...
This is not a court of law. It is reality. We want to know whether aliens are actually visiting from other planets, not whether the "preponderance of evidence" from some military guy supports the idea.

~~ Paul
 
Sure UFO's exist. Unidentified Flying Objects. There are tons of them. However, a UFO is not necessarily of extraterrestrial origin just because it happens to be flying and unidentified. A conclusion that extraordinary requires extraordinary evidence to back it up, and you must first eliminate all other possibilities. Could it have been a weather balloon? A new type of aircraft, perhaps something our military has under wraps? An aircraft belonging to a foreign power testing the waters by conducting flights over our territory? During the Cold War, the government would rather have people speculate about flying saucers than admit that Soviet planes had sneaked an inch over our borders.

Even as recently as a couple decades ago, THIS...
http://www.espionageinfo.com/images/eeis_02_img0423.jpg
was a UFO. Until its existence was made public, the goverment and the military weren't about to tell anybody about what they had cooking up. If someone reported that flying around, of course those in power wouldn't open their mouths about it. A sizable portion of UFO sightings in the past describe a vaguely triangular shaped craft. Hmm...I wonder why?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas1016 said:
to serve on the white house national security staff is a pretty high position. You do not get there if you are a looneytoon, conspiracy nut, or someone prone to make things up.
Click to expand...

HA! That's funny.

If testimony of witnesses is not allowed in the seeking of the truth even in the light of the lack of physical evidence we would have alought more criminals walking the streets.
Click to expand...

And fewer innocents in prison.
 
Thomas1016 said:
to serve on the white house national security staff is a pretty high position. You do not get there if you are a looneytoon, conspiracy nut, or someone prone to make things up.
Click to expand...

I was assigned to the White House Communications Agency. While there I saw the normal collection of magic herbalists, crystal gazers, and even JFK conspiraloons. Getting to a position like that doesn't mean one is anything other than good at one's job and able to pass a security clearance.
 
Garrette said:
...

Despite my inability to decipher every piece of info on the record, it is abundantly clear that he never worked on the National Security Staff nor in the White House. In fact, he had a fairly typical career for an Intelligence Officer. They’re a dime a dozen. I can say that because I was one.
Click to expand...

So the question now is: Who's "trying to assemble a working model of a UFO" from YOUR "notes"?

;) Couldn't resist.
 
Questioninggeller said:
So the question now is: Who's "trying to assemble a working model of a UFO" from YOUR "notes"?

;) Couldn't resist.
Click to expand...
Me, of course.

But I will publish anonymously.

My efforts to hide from the government agencies trying to kill me will include frequent appearances on Coast to Coast With Art Bell and George Noury as well as a domestically hosted website.

They'll never find me. Never.
 
Cello Man said:
Sure UFO's exist. Unidentified Flying Objects. There are tons of them. However, a UFO is not necessarily of extraterrestrial origin just because it happens to be flying and unidentified. A conclusion that extraordinary requires extraordinary evidence to back it up, and you must first eliminate all other possibilities. Could it have been a weather balloon? A new type of aircraft, perhaps something our military has under wraps? An aircraft belonging to a foreign power testing the waters by conducting flights over our territory? During the Cold War, the government would rather have people speculate about flying saucers than admit that Soviet planes had sneaked an inch over our borders.

Even as recently as a couple decades ago, THIS... <the F-117>
was a UFO. Until its existence was made public, the government and the military weren't about to tell anybody about what they had cooking up. If someone reported that flying around, of course those in power wouldn't open their mouths about it. A sizeable portion of UFO sightings in the past describe a vaguely triangular shaped craft. Hmm...I wonder why?
Click to expand...

It's quite possible that some sightings were the result of military testing, but there really is no need to account for the phenomenon this way. The majority of "sightings" occur nowhere near military testing facilities, and there are any number of earthly and celestial objects that could also account for sightings. Sure, secret aircraft might be to UFO sightings what "orbs" are to ghost photos, but I see no evidence that they are even that significant. If anyone has anything suggesting this correlation I'd be interested to see it.
 
Thomas1016 said:
If testimony of witnesses is not allowed in the seeking of the truth even in the light of the lack of physical evidence we would have alought more criminals walking the streets. If you don't believe him then depose his testimony...............
Click to expand...
Well for some mad reason it is considered that when learning about the scientific factual nature of the world we would like to ideally rely on something a tad more concrete than untestable, unverifiable claims.

Actually courts prefer this too. However for them sometimes claims are all there are - and those that have the least likelihood in being true when balanced with other available knowledge are least likely to be believed.

Because science has stricter rules for discovering facts than courtrooms then far more 'claims' end up getting ignored at the 'no case to answer' stage (as JonnyFive describes).

And shouldn't this thread correctly be named "Former High Ranking Officer Claims UFO's Real"
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Thomas1016 said:
If testimony of witnesses is not allowed in the seeking of the truth even in the light of the lack of physical evidence we would have alought more criminals walking the streets.
Click to expand...
This is not a court of law. It is reality. We want to know whether aliens are actually visiting from other planets, not whether the "preponderance of evidence" from some military guy supports the idea.
Click to expand...
Paul's rebuttal bears repeating.

It's also important to realize that, if you are going to compare this to the American legal process, that you compare it to the right point in the process. One does not have a trial until it can be proven that a crime has been committed. LTC Corso has not been sworn in; we are not determining his guilt or innocence. We are still in the investigation stage, to determine whether UFOs exist in fact or not.

If this were a murder case, what LTC Corso has said so far would be analogous to telling a police officer "I saw one guy kill another guy", when there are no bodies or missing people reported. Such a situation would never make it past a folder in a policeman's filing cabinet somewhere.
 
Corso's book The Day After Roswell reads like the ponderous ramblings of a bar stool braggart. Like Cliff Clavin had traded his Postal Service uniform for military garb. His claims are ludicrous to the point that they are essentially self-debunking. Zero evidence, zero corroboration, glaring inaccuracies, impossible timelines, etc...

Fables on a scale that make Aesop look like a hack.
 
BigLes, I'm not saying that every UFO sighting was really an F-117. I'm just pointing out the fact that just because something is classified as a UFO doesn't automatically point towards little green men.
 
Cello Man said:
BigLes, I'm not saying that every UFO sighting was really an F-117. I'm just pointing out the fact that just because something is classified as a UFO doesn't automatically point towards little green men.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to appear to jump on you there; it's a perfectly reasonable aspect to the whole phenomenon. It's just that there's quite an emphasis on secret aircraft as an explanation for UFO sightings, and many woos (abovetopsecret.com, I'm looking at you) will happily settle for armadas of sekrit gubmint stealth jets conducting nefarious NWO-sponsored black-ops. In fact, with the current popularity of conspiracy-thinking over traditional woo and even alien-woo, this explanation seems to be on the rise. It's far more plausible (a bit like the "let it happen" conspiracy theories, which is its power (and theirs too).
 
A quick glance at a couple of the links raises one little question:

Does anybody else find it odd that secret research and reverse engineering done in 1961 led to the discovery of things that had already been invented?
 
Thomas1016 said:
I have to admit I have been pretty skeptical about ufo's and aliens but this guy has me thinking twice and wondering if they could be real.
Click to expand...

The rest of the thread has proven that in fact you are not at all skeptical about ufo's and aliens.

I find it aggrevating and a waste of time to debate stuff with a liar.

You have proven yourself a liar, even if there was any truth to what you believed you have discredited it.

Discussion with you is futile.
 
bruto said:
A quick glance at a couple of the links raises one little question:

Does anybody else find it odd that secret research and reverse engineering done in 1961 led to the discovery of things that had already been invented?
Click to expand...

You only think they had already been invented. In reality, in the main timeline, those things didn't exist. The alien technology was used to invent those products, then travel back in time to make the cattle humans believe that the products had already been invented to make them less suspicious.

It happens all the time.

Do you remember being born? I thought not! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom