Corso and the Transistor

[Howpl]

I know American Computer, whoever that is, is claiming that the transistor came
from ETs, but Col. Corso never claimed such a thing -- and those who would
criticize him, like the gentleman from MUFON, should at least get their facts
straight.

Corso simply says the following. His superior asked him to take a chip
(supposedly Rosewell craft debris) over to Bell Labs because of their
experience in developing the transistor. Corso wonders whether his boss gave
them similar debris in 1947, but he clearly labels this pure speculation.
CORSO'S OWN TRIP TO BELL LABS TOOK PLACE IN 1961, NOT 1947, SO HE CAN HARDLY
FIGURE INTO THE FALSE STORY, IF IT IS A FALSE STORY, ABOUT THE TRANSISTOR.

[Bob & Louise]

George Fergus wrote:
>
> You've become confused by the terminology. An "integrated circuit" and
> a "chip" are the same thing. The 1969 date refers to the development of
> the computer-on-a-chip, not to chips in general.
>
> -George Fergus

George,
Since Corso used the term "chip", I interpret him as claiming that he
delivered the advanced "computer-on-a-chip" to Bell. If he knows that
he merely delivered an object known in it's day as an "integrated circuit",
why would he call it a "chip"? Also, why would Corso be asked to deliver
something to Bell Labs that had already been invented? I believe that Corso
is claiming to have delivered the "chip" design that did not yet exist
in Earth electronics in the year 1961.
Bob

[Bob & Louise]

Steven Kaeser wrote:
>
> How are you defining CHIP? Not that it lends any validity to the story, but if Corso
> had taken a "chip" to Bell (or whereever) in 1961, that would seem to coorelate to
> your time frame in which Noyce and Kilby had "developed" it. It still could have
> taken up to a decade to make it usable the technology of the day. I would also
> question your availability dates for Integrated Circuits, which I worked with in
> production while employed with a defense contractor in 1969-70. Obviously the
> developers of that "device" had been working with them for quite a while prior to
> that.

Steven,
Let's assume for a moment that Corso is telling the truth. If the military
used Corso to deliver some chip to Bell, instead of via U.S.Mail, we must
also assume that there was something very special about this chip, because
you don't use a top brass guy like Corso to do a messenger's job. Also, there
would be no point in sending something to Bell that Bell already knew about
or had. Also, the exact amount of time referred to by you as "quite a while"
in your last sentence, is a complete unknown to both of us. The only way I'll
lose interest in this claim of Corso's is if I find out that he's lying.
Otherwise, I see his claim as being very important.
Bob

[Steven Kaeser]

Bob & Louise wrote:

> Howpl,
> If Corso was in posession of a chip in 1961, then you're overlooking a story
> that's as big as Bell being handed the transistor in 1947. I find in my re-
> search that the chip didn't even show up in electronics until around 1969. In
> 1961, Bob Noyce and Jack Kilby had just developed the integrated circuit. We
> were still years away from the chip. Info at:
> http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/comphist.htm
> Bob

[bob]

Bob & Louise wrote:

>
> Steven Kaeser wrote:
> >
> > How are you defining CHIP? Not that it lends any validity to the story, but if Corso
> > had taken a "chip" to Bell (or whereever) in 1961, that would seem to coorelate to
> > your time frame in which Noyce and Kilby had "developed" it. It still could have
> > taken up to a decade to make it usable the technology of the day. I would also
> > question your availability dates for Integrated Circuits, which I worked with in
> > production while employed with a defense contractor in 1969-70. Obviously the
> > developers of that "device" had been working with them for quite a while prior to
> > that.
>

> Steven,
> Let's assume for a moment that Corso is telling the truth. If the military
> used Corso to deliver some chip to Bell, instead of via U.S.Mail, we must
> also assume that there was something very special about this chip, because
> you don't use a top brass guy like Corso to do a messenger's job. Also, there
> would be no point in sending something to Bell that Bell already knew about
> or had. Also, the exact amount of time referred to by you as "quite a while"
> in your last sentence, is a complete unknown to both of us. The only way I'll
> lose interest in this claim of Corso's is if I find out that he's lying.
> Otherwise, I see his claim as being very important.
> Bob
>>>>>>

I understand that there is work being done into learning how light could be used in ICs instead of electrical
current. We could imagine that an alien IC would be quite different unless it served a simple purpose, in
which case it would have been very small. I'm not sure, but the first ICs were probably just buffers or not
gates (one in zero out) and nothing close to the first microprocessors such as the Intel 8080 or Motorola
6800. I seem to remember that Corso states in his book, that the alien chip was different and that I took it
to mean that the technology we use is not necessarily exactly the same as we use today.

-bob tarantino