A further question on this subject:
I did a google search on Pterosaurs and Birds and found this site:
http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/

It seems this is another source, in addition to Seeley.
Perhaps the idea could be considered again.

Is there anyone else looking into this?

Science develops through the testing and re-testing of hypotheses, through critical appraisal of accepted understandings and of the significance of new data as it comes to light.

Bird evolution is clearly a topic which is debated, and Dr David Hone gave you a distillation of the current palaeonotological view, which is based on an objective assessment of the data available at the moment.

The blog you cite appears to present a particular view and then use a rather select number of pages from Wikipedia to support the claim.  This isn't a very scientific approach.  Unfortunately the blog poster does not seem to provide any sort of biographical information with which to judge their credentials, and I can't find any publications attributable to 'Dr Pterosaur'.

I will leave you to form your own opinions.

The work of that individual is extremely questionable. He came on here a number of times and to my blog to ask about support for his ideas and despite me explaining the problems, and as Dan point out, the fact that this *has* been formally examined and tested and rejected, he refused to belive it.

We know who he is and is no Doctor. He also registered that blog with a name suspiciously near identical to the website Pterosaur.net and the accompanying blog http://pterosaur-net.blogspot.co.uk/ which is something I set up with a group of colleagues. Given that he has never had anything to do with us or our research it seems hard to credit that he picked the name at random and it seems much more likely it was a deliberate attempt to try and trade off our name and credibility.

You can find just about any idea supported on the net. There are people who still think the Earth is flat, or that aliens visit weekly, that the moon landings were a hoax or that the Loch ness monster is alive and well. That doesn't make it credible science.