[Paleopsych] more on Tax $$$ at work: Air Force report wants $7.5 million for psychic teleportation

K.E. guavaberry at earthlink.net
Sat Nov 13 02:09:42 UTC 2004

 From the other list i'm on


From: "David P. Reed"
Date: November 12, 2004 2:54:42 PM EST
Subject: Re: [IP] Tax $$$ at work: Air Force report wants $7.5 million for 
psychic teleportation

Curious iconoclast that I am, I decided to read the actual AF report 
concerning teleportation.

I learned 2 things.

1) the USA Today article was written by someone who obviously did not read 
the report.  (Did Declan?)  In particular the sentence "The report calls 
for $7.5 million to conduct psychic teleportation experiments" is 
completely inaccurate, distorting the actual words, probably because of an 
FAS agenda.   The report analyzes the costs for a set of experiments, 90+% 
of which is to be focused on NON-psychic teleportation experiments - 
experiments based on plausible, current physical theories, which just 
happen to be a bit "out there".  It does not "call for" money at all - 
merely recommending how one might take the next step in testing various 
physical approaches to engineering teleportation.   Reminds me of Willy Ley 
telling us how we might travel to the moon.

2) The attempt by the author to describe the theories of highly regarded 
physics professors (such as Kip Thorne of Caltech) seems honest and does 
not seem to me to substantially misrepresent their work, those parts of 
which I have read.

I've seen some ideas that were called absurd (such as Continental Drift, 
which is now accepted, and non-biological origins of some petroleum) turn 
out to be true after many years of disrepute, and other very plausible 
theories held by senior people (inheritance of acquired characteristics) 
turn out to be largely false.   Argument from prestigious authority is a 
weak way to establish scientific truth, as I think we all know.

It saddens me that the FAS responds to such publications by putting out 
press releases to USA Today, rather than pursuing the usual scientific 
channels for challenge.   Is the FAS a part of science, or merely a 
political lobbying organization?  Who is Stephen Aftergood?  On what basis 
is he an expert in wormholes, for example?

Now it may be that there is a larger context I don't understand.  For 
example, there may be politicians using the report to justify investing in 
such projects.   If true, that activity should be discussed and judged, and 
I certainly think that other scientists should review the report before 
funding such a hypothetical plan.

More information about the paleopsych mailing list