-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Deconstructing Corso
- Thread starter CapnG
- Start date
Free episodes:
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
I don't think I've seen it either. Thanks for posting.
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
Here's the link to check out the users profile http://www.youtube.com/freeforyoutohave
CinderMoltenHowl
Skilled Investigator
Interesting to see Seth and Stan presenting the alternate view of Corso - or more correctly asking certain questions about his claims.
A fascinating topic for debate. Doesn't matter which side you take you will always have a rebuttal.
"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." said Oscar Wilde
I recall a movie called Apocalypse Now. A famous war hero worshipped by his men. The horror.
Sadly, I can't form a view on Corso. Supporters point to his status in the army and his record. Debunkers point out that he had NFI about what he talked about scientifically and why objects lay in a army cabinet for 14 years after the crash.
Lets say we combined the two views. Would the result be a highly regarded army officer who has little scientific background making assumptions on what he saw or believed he saw?
A fascinating topic for debate. Doesn't matter which side you take you will always have a rebuttal.
"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." said Oscar Wilde
I recall a movie called Apocalypse Now. A famous war hero worshipped by his men. The horror.
Sadly, I can't form a view on Corso. Supporters point to his status in the army and his record. Debunkers point out that he had NFI about what he talked about scientifically and why objects lay in a army cabinet for 14 years after the crash.
Lets say we combined the two views. Would the result be a highly regarded army officer who has little scientific background making assumptions on what he saw or believed he saw?