The Avi Loeb/Galileo Project blunder(s)?
Copyright 2022, InterAmerica, Inc.
Reading that The [Avi Loeb] Galileo
Project just added Jacques Vallee to its roster, as it also added Luis
Elizondo and Chris Mellon, puts the pending scientific agenda for UFO (or UAP)
research as part of a grander search or evaluation of extraterrestrial life in
the cosmos in a quasi-questionable state.
I like, as you know, all those named above; they appear to be estimable, honest men of high integrity and honor.
(Even Jacques Vallee’s Trinity flaw may be considered a dementia-like foray into folly rather than a hubristic mistake bordering on malfeasance or sheer madness.)
But gathering a clot of UFO believers with an ET bias (consciously or unconsciously) strikes me as a tick outside scientific objectivity.
Sure, all views should be heard but Professor Loeb seems hell-bent on shoving the ET overview upon whatever materials and thoughts derive from his Project’s efforts.
There’s no way to stop the thrust of the Galileo thing at this point. But I’d just like to be on the wayward record out here in the academic boonies with my take on this seeming muck-up.
RR
I like, as you know, all those named above; they appear to be estimable, honest men of high integrity and honor.
(Even Jacques Vallee’s Trinity flaw may be considered a dementia-like foray into folly rather than a hubristic mistake bordering on malfeasance or sheer madness.)
But gathering a clot of UFO believers with an ET bias (consciously or unconsciously) strikes me as a tick outside scientific objectivity.
Sure, all views should be heard but Professor Loeb seems hell-bent on shoving the ET overview upon whatever materials and thoughts derive from his Project’s efforts.
There’s no way to stop the thrust of the Galileo thing at this point. But I’d just like to be on the wayward record out here in the academic boonies with my take on this seeming muck-up.
RR

7 Comments:
I read that Michael Shermer from Skeptical Inquirer is also on board as a research affiliate, so if true then it's not all advocates. But this could all be fluff for media attention: these personalities are not going to be doing the grunt work. There should be some top-flight science folks handling that.
Still, I have a feeling this is headed toward and a Coke + Mentos moment.
By
Ron, at Thursday, January 27, 2022
What's that old saw, Ron....
Too many cooks spoil the broth.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Friday, January 28, 2022
One could fill the Grand Canynon with what Michael Shermer doesn't know about UFOs. He huffs and puffs and struts and alyays presents an air of total rational objectivity when, in fact, he has not the slightest understanding of the history of the phenomenon and, specifically, its important national security implications. "UFOs don't exist, well, because they just can't" is a para-phrase of his historical contribution to this important debate over the years. Putting him as a "research affiliate" on this project tells me a lot about what is really going on here. Not good news, gentlemen.
By
Dominick, at Friday, January 28, 2022
Shermer was part of an Oxford debate about God I saw, and he was a bumpkin in the company of those on the pro/con panel.
I was surprised at how shallow he was.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Friday, January 28, 2022
I hope the real research team behind Galileo has some gravitas and can work unimpeded. Same goes for the other groups that will spring up to study the subject. They will have the added burden of not being as well known and consequently not taken seriously.
By
Ron, at Friday, January 28, 2022
It's hard to deny that some of these folks are looking for a bit of fame and fortune (though as Rich has pointed out, ufology is a crazy way to make a living, and crazier to think any deep or lasting meaning will come of it).
This a link via Bryan Sentes on Facebook:
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/princes-of-infinite-space-paoletta?fbclid=IwAR3MiCjNB3lXtxNuv8-T5Xhe0RE8FAizufneMr_3xtYFVtLqQBbI0zwO1L8
Yeah, it's a hit piece. It uses a lot of words to describe personalities rather than the actual enigma. I'm seeing a lot of debunking lately and wonder if there's an actual up-tick in such going on.
By
Ron, at Friday, January 28, 2022
"Shermer was part of an Oxford debate about God I saw, and he was a bumpkin in the company of those on the pro/con panel.
I was surprised at how shallow he was."
Yes. All of the professional skeptics are shallow. All of them.
Like some big empty bottles falling to the ground, they use to produce a lot of noise even if they are ... empty.
Magnifique. Non?
Julien
By
Hessdalenlights, at Saturday, January 29, 2022
Post a Comment
<< Home