There’s always a new one out there. Here’s his take on sources, quoted from the home page linked to above.
(Bolding mine-sc)
In other words, his wife’s hairdresser’s brother-in-law. Convinces me. :rolleyes:
Hmmm, while that’s putting words in his mouth (I don’t think he was referring to his “wife’s hairdressers brother-in-law” plus if you read on, he didn’t say he was “convinced”), he’s not the scientist(s) I was pointing you to.
I was actually referring you (or anybody else who is interested in seriously considering the possibility that ET has already been here) to the PDF document originally published in the January/February 2005 issue of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (JBIS). Found here: INFLATION-THEORY IMPLICATIONS FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL VISITATION by J. Deardorff, B. Haisch, B. Maccabee and H.E. Puthoff
This is considered by some to be the first article on the UFO topic published in a mainstream scientific journal since 1980 (ps: the “Inflation Theory” refers to the expansion of the universe, not how much stuff will cost if ET lands in Times Square). 
Hmmm. Any chance that “H.E. Puthoff” is Dr. Harold Puthoff, half of the Puthoff & Targ pair, the guys who are convinced that Uri Geller can bend spoons with his mind and remote viewing is an exact science?
Donno, could be. Check out his bio: Puthoff’s Bio
You tell me if he’s a serious researcher or not (you seem to be implying that he isn’t),
but more importantly did you read the paper? Thoughts on that?
That’s the guy. The bio mentions SRI (Stanford Research International, the outfit Puthoff & Targ ran, not affiliated in any way with Stanford University).
“More importantly”? If you understood how credulous this guy is, how he has never admitted his blindness to the shenanigans of a charlatans like Geller and Swann, how he was so easily fooled and refuses to allow his data to be examined by others, you might not think his new study was worth quite as much.
When a devoted bigfoot tracker and paranormal believer (just an example) does a study on astrology, don’t you think his biases are going to be a factor? Would you give the study as much credence up front as one done by, say, a statistician and psychologist with no such baggage?
I scanned parts of the study. I found it hard going; I did not read it in detail. It seemed to be a rehash of the same old story by people who want something to be true but haven’t a clue as to what’s going on; who throw out “quantum” and “wormholes” as if they actually understood the concepts and they were the answer to their prayers. Also: oodles of anecdotal evidence and eyewitness accounts are the basis for many claims, but they are useless to establish such a phenomena as LGMs. Some “researchers” don’t seem to understand that.
Check out other threads around here for UFO discussions and you might gain some insight into the subject. Also check out books by Phillip Klass and Robert Schaeffer.
Some references on Puthoff:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-03/fringe-watcher.html
http://skepdic.com/remotevw.html
Ingo Swann claimed to have travelled to Jupiter overnight. P & T believed him:
It’s hard to imagine how anyone with this limp excuse for a research background would be trusted anywhere else.
Intriguing. First, they claim that inflation theory combined with the anthropic principle somehow guarantees that there are aliens out there, then they try to explain, given that, why we don’t get invited to any of the aliens’ parties.
First off, inflation doesn’t say anything about the development of living things, or of the conditions suitable for them. Second, the anthropic principle doesn’t allow you to conclude anything: Indeed, it’s a principle of things you can’t conclude. Third, from what I could tell from skimming that paper, they don’t even present the argument, they just say “it has been argued”… But if this is the first scientific paper on UFO visitations since 1980 (before the inflationary model was developed), where would that argument have been? I don’t know much about the British Interplanetary Society, but it says something about them if they’re accepting articles like this.
Of course, I’m putoff by the whole article.
I know, I know. I stole it. Sosueme.
From http://www.sri.com/about/history/:
From http://www.sri.com/about/history/1940.html:
I don’t think that Puthoff and Targ “ran” SRI. While they may be crackpots, SRI and SAIC (also mentioned in the linked skepdic article) are legitimate organizations.
Musicat is technically correct. Stanford Research International separated from Stanford University in 1977.
Fermi’s Paradox asks: “where are they”?
The paper in question attempts to answer this by proposing: “They are here” given that some UFO reports could be evidence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life forms visiting earth. The paradox (as they see it) is resolved by that statement. The argument states that the theories of inflation, modern gravity and cosmology theory (black holes, wormholes, multiple dimensions, etc) make it more likely that ET’s could get “here” from wherever it is they start from. Diffusion theory proposes that this wouldn’t take long once a space exploring civilization started to cover their own galaxy. Modern exobiological thinking, plus the on-going discoveries of new planets, increases the probability of extra terrestrial life being out there. The question is, what fraction of these probable civilizations might live long enough to advance and solve the engineering problems needed to achieve interstellar space travel and find us (assuming it’s a question of engineering & not physics)?
So, are UFO’s actually a “missing link” (possible, but generally scoffed, and ridiculed so very few scientists have the balls to study them) or are they just explainable physical & psychological terrestrial events? Most people who have responded to this topic seem to think that since there have been no confirmed SETI contacts and since all UFO sightings can be (and should be) explained in conventional ways, then there is no evidence to study (a bit of a paradox there as well I’d say). Other people firmly believe that UFOs are a possible missing link that answers (or could answer) Fermi’s paradoxical question and are worthy of at least responsible investigation. Indeed some people believe that responsible investigation has occurred, and these investigations have at the very least turned up evidence (see threads in this topic) worth a closer look, if not absolute proof.
A large problem when it comes to this topic is that scoffers and obsessive debunkers (sceptics are necessary) have relegated the study of UFO’s to the loony bin and thus mainstream science has stayed away from their study and are very possibly missing an important clue to the answer to the most important question (next to: is there a god?) of our very existence.
RE: your thoughts on the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPAL: check out Ken Olums paper entitled:CONFLICT BETWEEN ANTHROPIC REASONING AND OBSERVATION. and get back to me.
As for the British Interplanetary Society, let me inform you (since you admittedly don’t know much about them) the society has a very good reputation and is judged to be a very good paper. Therefore it’s sadly predictable, I guess, that: If you can’t (or refuse) to logically oppose the logic and/or evidence and/or argumentation of a paper, its easier to go after the messenger or the disseminator of the information and try to discredit it/them. This goes for slurs on Puthuff’s credibility (in another post, not yours) from people who really don’t know him or his work as well. It’s a pity when it comes down to that.
There is no logic, evidence, and/or argumentation in it. It’s just the usual potage of hand-waving, what-if’s, and non-sequiturs beloved of cranks the world over, spiced up with a few fashionable buzzwords to make it seem more than it is.
Having been a few of those places in the Nevada wastes where the government is supposedly storing flying saucers/autopsied alien bodies/anti-gravity generators/1920’s style death-rays/matter transmitters/human-alien hybrids/whathaveyou, I have to say that, while I’ve put eyes on a few things that can’t be spoken of in polite company, I have yet to see anything even as interesting as an atomic-powered cocktail shaker. It certainly serves the purposes of the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to have observations of “black” technology attributed to bug-eyed Tralfamadorians rather than more mundane things like composite-framed aircraft or target drones. I once thought I saw a fleet of flying saucers but it just turned out to be a bunch of junior officers shooting skeet in back of the OC. (There isn’t much to do in northern Nevada besides drink, gamble, and shoot stuff.)
Of course, they didn’t let me into the reinforced steel door protected underground bunker; something to do with testing scalar energy projectors and cognito-magnetic pseudo-disruptor fields. All I saw was some green mist and a slimy grey tentacle peeking out the observation slit in the door. 
Stranger
Many scientific theories, such as natural selection, quantum mechanics, and heliocentricity were dismissed as “loony” or unworkable or otherwise heretical before they were adopted.
The difference being, of course, that all of these theories had a large body of evidence supporting them and disproving the existing paradigm before they were considered part of mainstream science. They continue to be challenged, tested, and refined as methods of measurement and evidence becomes more sophisticated. On the other hand, UFOlogists offer nothing more than vague theories, smudged images, and eyewitness reports which are notoriously unreliable even by “trained observers” like aircraft pilots, police officers, and nuclear submarine officers cum chief executive.
There is a limited amount of time, money, and effort to be expended in any field of research. If UFO advocates want to be taken seriously and have “science” focus on their field, the requirement is very simple: display some kind of direct, plausible, otherwise inexplicible evidence of alien visitation. Not a blurred photograph or grainy video, but physical evidence which can be examined in a laboratory or reproduced/predicted under controlled conditions. That is the standard against which all other sciences are held, and to cry foul because the study of UFOs is required to meet that requirement is disingeneous. Until that is done, claims of UFOs, et cetera are unfalsifiable.
And the goverment cover-up thing is getting kind of tiresome. Heck, “the government” can’t even cover up a simple act of corruption or the coming demise of Social Security. They barely kept the F-117 under wraps during its development program, and then only by keeping it hidden in the Nevada wastelands and encouraging UFO sighters to claim them as evidence of interstellar spacecraft. It makes a mildly entertaining premise for a film or television, but without any evidence to support it (other than the ravings of Art Bell and Friends) it is deservedly classified as an unfounded hypothesis.
Stranger
You of course, being an expert in forensic photography and having personally examined a large body of original videos and photographs of UFOs, are in a perfect position to pronounce them (but not only them, ANY that have been offered) blurred & grainy. Not stopping there, you are also in a position (due to your many years of personally investigating eye-witness accounts or otherwise being an expert on them) to qualify eyewitness reports of UFOs by trained observers such as aircraft pilots, police officers and/or any other eye-witness as “unreliable”.
I guess that’s it then. It’s all been explained, all the photographs are “blurred” and all the videos are “grainy” and all the witnesses and or their accounts are “unreliable”.
These kinds of words, when used to describe another persons honest work (no matter how controversial or seemingly far-flung), mostly serves to highlight the users inability to approach the topic with an open mind and in my opinion, only unmasks his or her disingenuousness and churlishness for all to see.
Sarcasm in an open-minded debate is one thing; scorn is quite another.
SInce you clearly have nothing to offer besides vicious personal attacks on the integrity of those who do not share your religion, kindly just go away.
Yes, that’s it. You got it.
One question:
Where are the aliens?
I await your answer.
Stranger
Out there somewhere for sure, and maybe, just maybe…here.
Why yes, I am, and thank you for asking.
Yep, that’s pretty much the size of it, and so well put.
You might be interested in reading the review of a book, “UFOs: The Complete Sightings Catalog.”