Be aware of the patent pushers. There are many patents related to HAARP and every other fantastic scheme. I had a friend who patented a means for gathering energy from black holes. Having a patent doesn't mean it works or exists, but it's a favorite "proof."
"Be[ing] aware of patent pushers," suggests that a patent existing for something is "not good evidence." On the contrary, it is excellent evidence. Getting a U.S. patent is not easy. If you successfully get a patent, it suggests that it is at least plausible within the context of sound principles of engineering.
I agree that such "excellent evidence" is not sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for something working or existing, but that doesn't make it not excellent evidence.
You can patent anything in the USA, even a perpetual motion machine. (but it has to come with a working model)
It has to come with a proven tested model, so it's a little more stringent than you suggest.
The patent approval process is not easy. It takes quite a bit. That doesn't mean that everything patented works, or that "a patent makes it true," but it does suggest that it is at the very least determined plausible by someone who has, at a minimum, a B.S. in the field of applicability of the device in question (electrical engineering for an electronic device, chemical engineering for a chemical device, etc.). In addition, if the device is "extraordinary," the patent process requires proof of work. If it is really extraordinary, it requires independent testing.
It's far from a perfect process, and I think there is a great deal of fuckery in there. I have seen evidence of both promoting things that don't work to purposefully cause "conspiracy theories" (most "crazy" conspiracy theories are created by the C_A as a form of controlled opposition), and purposefully not granting patents on things that do work for the purposes of highjacking real advancements.
You may be able to patent almost anything, but you can't just "get a patent." In addition, the more unlikely the product, the more likely the product was created by the government (or an affiliate), either as part of a black ops project, or for the reasons stated above.
As to perpetual motion...
A device that is filled with uranium surrounded by rocks to absorb (most of) the energy that creates heat is a "perpetual heating" device until you understand nuclear physics. A device that puts out more energy than it takes in is absolutely possible, including a device that requires zero energy input, and produces effectively unlimited energy. Such a device could work from now until the end of time if it say, took energy from the universe itself. Our current physics models state that what we call matter is just energy, but they also suggest there's a whole lot of energy in between all that "matter" stuff as well. On top of this "quantum vacuum energy", the universe seems to be on a course of accelerating expansion. Where is the energy coming from for that? No one knows. Presumably it's coming from some where, which means our concepts of "what the universe is" are likely missing something very important.
Regardless of the possibility or impossibility of a "perpetual motion device" (which is, I suggest, just a poor choice of words), if someone were to come up with a device that seems to draw energy from an unknown source, it would almost certainly not get a patent because the patent office, or rather the final determinant of the patent office, the National Bureau of Standards (now the NIST) was created by John D. Rockefeller (or rather, his agents) in 1901. This system was designed specifically as a gatekeeper for all technology. This ensured that no advancements would ever happen without the approval of the one and only corporation that exists in the world, built by John D. Rockefeller.
The owner of all energy (oil, coal, gas, nuclear, solar, etc.) would hardly want a device that produced "unlimited energy," thus any device that supplied such would be nipped in the bud post haste, if it existed.
"Evidence" of what? That someone had a bright idea that was superficially plausible? Certainly not evidence of anything that is in practice or is workable. I have nine patents. One of them came from work that did result in a working model, but the patent examiners knew nothing of it.
Certainly not evidence of anything that is in practice or is workable.
I stated that ""excellent evidence" [in the patent] is not sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for something working or existing."
Which part of that are you protesting?
When you look at a patent for a device, if you have sufficient knowledge, you can work out how it works pretty reasonably. With such knowledge and investigation, you can also consider reasonable use cases. In the case of HAARP, it is stated that the technology works the same as the technology the patent describes. The technology description on official pages doesn't itself mention weather control, but the patent does. If you read the patent, it seems quite likely that it can be used for that purpose. Thus the patent, in this case, both describes the tech being used by HAARP and states "weather control" as a use for it, and also describes, very reasonably, how that is accomplished. It's more than just "plausible" that it is being used to modify the weather. Thus the patent for HAARP is very good evidence, thus "pushing the patent" is very sound in the exposition of this being used outside of its officially stated parameters of "measuring the ionosphere."
This third piece of evidence of BAE Systems strongly supports the idea that HAARP is being used to modify the weather.
In all cases using the patent as evidence is very sound, and thus being a "patent pusher" makes you a very good investigator.
Which was my point.
Having said that, I can't find evidence of it being used to start earthquakes, as I have mentioned in other replies. That doesn't mean it isn't, but I doubt it is. No one is "pushing the patent" for that use case though, so suggesting that "pushing patents" is bad evidence is neither accurate nor applicable. If a patent says something is being used for something, and that something looks like it is happening, then it is good evidence. It's just not sufficient.
Just because I don't think HAARP is being used to create earthquakes doesn't mean that earthquakes aren't intentional through other technology.
Is it feasible for you to reiterate a capsule description of the weather modification mechanism? (By which I do not mean technology, but the physical principle.) Even similar principles don't always indicate implementation. An electric razor works on the same principle as a hedge trimmer, but you wouldn't argue that people are going around at night trimming hedges with electric razors because they were part of the same invention description. Just due diligence.
Scratch that---I read through most of the patent enough to get to the weather modification language. Sheer hand-waving. They are talking about manipulating the ions of the ionosphere to dump them into the lower atmosphere. They have this little problem called the stratosphere. All the ionic character would be dissipated at stratospheric altitudes, and up there is not much atmosphere. What do I know? I took the graduate courses in plasma physics and magnetohydrodynamics. Does that make me an "expert"? Maybe not, but I am more expert than someone who hasn't had the coursework---and who also doesn't understand that the stratosphere is a barrier to ionospheric currents.
Patents are assertions. They can never stand as evidence of implementation (unless the patent references practical implementation). It's not just a matter of "sufficient evidence"; it is not evidence at all. I have nine patents and the only one that grew to fruition was by means of an alteration that took it outside of patent protection. (The people who did that didn't have the wit to revise the patent. Something of a lost cause.)
Another way of looking at it would be to compare the patent to a crime novel, and then use the novel as "evidence" that the author was contemplating (and maybe committing) a crime. Happens often enough in cheap TV crime shows.
Don't place unlimited faith in the patent inspectors. They can be convinced of a plausibility they don't fully understand. In my last patent, one aspect of the invention depended on a particular physical flow phenomenon. I figured "what the heck?" and wrote that into the description. The patent was awarded. So I was able to patent a physical phenomenon! (Not supposed to be possible.) This will be a total obstacle to anyone who tries to get around my patent in attempting anything similar!
Be aware of the patent pushers. There are many patents related to HAARP and every other fantastic scheme. I had a friend who patented a means for gathering energy from black holes. Having a patent doesn't mean it works or exists, but it's a favorite "proof."
"Be[ing] aware of patent pushers," suggests that a patent existing for something is "not good evidence." On the contrary, it is excellent evidence. Getting a U.S. patent is not easy. If you successfully get a patent, it suggests that it is at least plausible within the context of sound principles of engineering.
I agree that such "excellent evidence" is not sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for something working or existing, but that doesn't make it not excellent evidence.
You can patent anything in the USA, even a perpetual motion machine. (but it has to come with a working model)
Some of the USN patents are batshit crazy, but they are there.
It has to come with a proven tested model, so it's a little more stringent than you suggest.
The patent approval process is not easy. It takes quite a bit. That doesn't mean that everything patented works, or that "a patent makes it true," but it does suggest that it is at the very least determined plausible by someone who has, at a minimum, a B.S. in the field of applicability of the device in question (electrical engineering for an electronic device, chemical engineering for a chemical device, etc.). In addition, if the device is "extraordinary," the patent process requires proof of work. If it is really extraordinary, it requires independent testing.
It's far from a perfect process, and I think there is a great deal of fuckery in there. I have seen evidence of both promoting things that don't work to purposefully cause "conspiracy theories" (most "crazy" conspiracy theories are created by the C_A as a form of controlled opposition), and purposefully not granting patents on things that do work for the purposes of highjacking real advancements.
You may be able to patent almost anything, but you can't just "get a patent." In addition, the more unlikely the product, the more likely the product was created by the government (or an affiliate), either as part of a black ops project, or for the reasons stated above.
As to perpetual motion...
A device that is filled with uranium surrounded by rocks to absorb (most of) the energy that creates heat is a "perpetual heating" device until you understand nuclear physics. A device that puts out more energy than it takes in is absolutely possible, including a device that requires zero energy input, and produces effectively unlimited energy. Such a device could work from now until the end of time if it say, took energy from the universe itself. Our current physics models state that what we call matter is just energy, but they also suggest there's a whole lot of energy in between all that "matter" stuff as well. On top of this "quantum vacuum energy", the universe seems to be on a course of accelerating expansion. Where is the energy coming from for that? No one knows. Presumably it's coming from some where, which means our concepts of "what the universe is" are likely missing something very important.
Regardless of the possibility or impossibility of a "perpetual motion device" (which is, I suggest, just a poor choice of words), if someone were to come up with a device that seems to draw energy from an unknown source, it would almost certainly not get a patent because the patent office, or rather the final determinant of the patent office, the National Bureau of Standards (now the NIST) was created by John D. Rockefeller (or rather, his agents) in 1901. This system was designed specifically as a gatekeeper for all technology. This ensured that no advancements would ever happen without the approval of the one and only corporation that exists in the world, built by John D. Rockefeller.
The owner of all energy (oil, coal, gas, nuclear, solar, etc.) would hardly want a device that produced "unlimited energy," thus any device that supplied such would be nipped in the bud post haste, if it existed.
Karpens Pile.
"Evidence" of what? That someone had a bright idea that was superficially plausible? Certainly not evidence of anything that is in practice or is workable. I have nine patents. One of them came from work that did result in a working model, but the patent examiners knew nothing of it.
I stated that ""excellent evidence" [in the patent] is not sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for something working or existing."
Which part of that are you protesting?
When you look at a patent for a device, if you have sufficient knowledge, you can work out how it works pretty reasonably. With such knowledge and investigation, you can also consider reasonable use cases. In the case of HAARP, it is stated that the technology works the same as the technology the patent describes. The technology description on official pages doesn't itself mention weather control, but the patent does. If you read the patent, it seems quite likely that it can be used for that purpose. Thus the patent, in this case, both describes the tech being used by HAARP and states "weather control" as a use for it, and also describes, very reasonably, how that is accomplished. It's more than just "plausible" that it is being used to modify the weather. Thus the patent for HAARP is very good evidence, thus "pushing the patent" is very sound in the exposition of this being used outside of its officially stated parameters of "measuring the ionosphere."
The patent for the HAARP tech (linked above) is stated to modify the weather. This patent was awarded to BAE Systems in 1987. The HAARP contract was awarded to BAE Systems a few years later.
This third piece of evidence of BAE Systems strongly supports the idea that HAARP is being used to modify the weather.
In all cases using the patent as evidence is very sound, and thus being a "patent pusher" makes you a very good investigator.
Which was my point.
Having said that, I can't find evidence of it being used to start earthquakes, as I have mentioned in other replies. That doesn't mean it isn't, but I doubt it is. No one is "pushing the patent" for that use case though, so suggesting that "pushing patents" is bad evidence is neither accurate nor applicable. If a patent says something is being used for something, and that something looks like it is happening, then it is good evidence. It's just not sufficient.
Just because I don't think HAARP is being used to create earthquakes doesn't mean that earthquakes aren't intentional through other technology.
Is it feasible for you to reiterate a capsule description of the weather modification mechanism? (By which I do not mean technology, but the physical principle.) Even similar principles don't always indicate implementation. An electric razor works on the same principle as a hedge trimmer, but you wouldn't argue that people are going around at night trimming hedges with electric razors because they were part of the same invention description. Just due diligence.
Scratch that---I read through most of the patent enough to get to the weather modification language. Sheer hand-waving. They are talking about manipulating the ions of the ionosphere to dump them into the lower atmosphere. They have this little problem called the stratosphere. All the ionic character would be dissipated at stratospheric altitudes, and up there is not much atmosphere. What do I know? I took the graduate courses in plasma physics and magnetohydrodynamics. Does that make me an "expert"? Maybe not, but I am more expert than someone who hasn't had the coursework---and who also doesn't understand that the stratosphere is a barrier to ionospheric currents.
Patents are assertions. They can never stand as evidence of implementation (unless the patent references practical implementation). It's not just a matter of "sufficient evidence"; it is not evidence at all. I have nine patents and the only one that grew to fruition was by means of an alteration that took it outside of patent protection. (The people who did that didn't have the wit to revise the patent. Something of a lost cause.)
Another way of looking at it would be to compare the patent to a crime novel, and then use the novel as "evidence" that the author was contemplating (and maybe committing) a crime. Happens often enough in cheap TV crime shows.
Don't place unlimited faith in the patent inspectors. They can be convinced of a plausibility they don't fully understand. In my last patent, one aspect of the invention depended on a particular physical flow phenomenon. I figured "what the heck?" and wrote that into the description. The patent was awarded. So I was able to patent a physical phenomenon! (Not supposed to be possible.) This will be a total obstacle to anyone who tries to get around my patent in attempting anything similar!