"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!
I took the graduate courses in plasma physics and magnetohydrodynamics.
Supporting your argument with credentials is always a poor path to take. I could say I have similar background (though my coursework that included plasma physics was technically during undergrad), but that also is meaningless. The argument (logic or supposition) and/or supporting evidence itself is the only thing that actually adds to a logical argument. Putting forth pro-hominem support is an argumentative fallacy, having nothing to do with an argument itself, only used to bolster it falsely.
All the ionic character would be dissipated at stratospheric altitudes
Prove it. Like, show that you can't create a plasma at that altitude and hold it with the addition of energy (polarized photons) designed exactly for that purpose for the length of time required to cause a shift in the weather underneath that plasma (creation of a cold front e.g.). Hell, forget proof, I'll settle for any experimental evidence whatsoever. Even something as simple as an energy analysis would be something.
Your supposition that the stratosphere would eliminate too quickly an induced plasma without actual evidence to support it is exactly that, supposition. I mean, it's not an unfair protest, but it must be recognized as pure supposition without any actual evidential support.
They can never stand as evidence of implementation
They can absolutely stand as evidence of implementation.
I think you are confusing "evidence" with "proof." Proof is a decision that the evidence meets some standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.). Proof is (in effect) a verb. It uses the nouns (facts AKA evidence) and adds them up until the individual person is satisfied that a certain burden of proof is met.
A patent is evidence (a fact) that someone has a plan. If one is trying to solve a murder, and a suspect has a plan, laid out completely, with details and models and all the math, there is a really good chance they committed that murder, or intend to. At the least not putting forth that plan as evidence would be negligent to any honest investigation.
The patent holder is also a part of the evidence. In this case it is the very same people who created HAARP. Ignoring that as meaningful evidence is just being willful, or intentionally blind, or succumbing to cognitive dissonance.
Don't place unlimited faith in the patent inspectors.
I wasn't. I wasn't saying something was "truth." I was saying it was evidence. I was saying it was good evidence. It is. It's very good evidence. The evidence isn't in "patent inspectors," but in the patent itself. No faith required. What it isn't is proof, or at least for me the patent alone doesn't meet any reasonable standard of proof. Even all together it doesn't meet "beyond a reasonable doubt" for me. I'm not even sure if it meets "preponderance of the evidence" for me. But it absolutely meets the standard of "there is something there worth looking into more," at the least. Your protest, while not unsound, is supposition. Supposition, while it can be very useful to guide an investigation, isn't admissible as evidence itself.
I did not support my position with credentials. I did not even claim I was an "expert." I was establishing myself as one who would understand the patent. You did not object to my credentials from that standpoint, and the fact that I am competent to comment is not an ad-hominem anything.
Plasmas in the atmosphere can happen but they require ferocious energy intensity. (I've seen them made in the laboratory. Quick, bright, and loud.) The ability to ionize a gas is strongly related to its density. Low density is required (remember vacuum tube technology). I mean, really low density. The stratosphere is too dense for that. You, on the other hand, do not get the privilege of invoking unlimited power levels to play tricks. Lightning bolts are plasma created at Earth surface density conditions, but the current and power density in the bolt is tremendous. We don't have power to do that. And their patent mechanism was mostly arm-waving mumbo-jumbo that did NOT go into the specifics and were only general assertions. You are alleging it can happen, so the burden of proof is on you. All I know is that when I worked on space-based particle beam weapons during the Strategic Defense Initiative, we didn't even dream of penetrating into the atmosphere. Too dense.
Evidence is a factual condition that can only be true if the alleged issue is true. Patents are not evidence of anything other than bright ideas. Which of my 9 patents are true? Maybe one, by being generous. The remaining 8 are untrue. So, on that basis alone, your wordplay collapses. Patents are not evidence of any plan. There is nothing to document a plan in a patent. Again, do my 9 patents evince a plan? No. You are back to holding up "My Gun is Quick" to support that Mickey Spillane may have killed someone. And plans are not matters of chance at all. That the patent holder might actually be able to implement the patent AS DESCRIBED, is no surprise. The weather modification is a suggested use that was not detailed. But that is only an expectation going forward (they say so in the patent, therefore they might be able to do it), not an expectation going backward (they say so in the patent, therefore they have already done it).
A patent award is not evidence at all of weather modification, and you know it. Or do you think I am an inventor of a physical principle (named for other scientists), simply because it appears in my approved patent language?
I will repeat to make myself clear. Evidence is a physical fact that could not exist unless the alleged event / cause / etc. also exists or existed. A patent is a physical fact without doubt, but it exists regardless of the reality of its implementation. At best, it predicts what one might be able to do...if one actually did it. It would not be evidence that they did it. You are trying to elevate a hint or a prophecy to the level of "evidence," and you monkey around with the notion of "proof" to get you off the hook. But when I go to a crime scene and collect evidence, I do not take pictures of the sky, I do not note the colors the houses are painted, and I do not pet the stray dog. Those are all facts, but they are independent of the commission of a crime. Similarly, a patent is a fact about an invention but is independent of its implementation.
And for me to object to faulty deduction is not supposition but criticism. I'm not supposing anything. I am, in fact, objecting to you supposing that patents can be taken as evidence. I mean, I'm only speaking as an inventor with 9 patents, 8 of which are unrealized. Are you going to claim that my 8 unrealized patents are actually evidence of 8 secretly-implemented instances of the inventions?
"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!
Supporting your argument with credentials is always a poor path to take. I could say I have similar background (though my coursework that included plasma physics was technically during undergrad), but that also is meaningless. The argument (logic or supposition) and/or supporting evidence itself is the only thing that actually adds to a logical argument. Putting forth pro-hominem support is an argumentative fallacy, having nothing to do with an argument itself, only used to bolster it falsely.
Prove it. Like, show that you can't create a plasma at that altitude and hold it with the addition of energy (polarized photons) designed exactly for that purpose for the length of time required to cause a shift in the weather underneath that plasma (creation of a cold front e.g.). Hell, forget proof, I'll settle for any experimental evidence whatsoever. Even something as simple as an energy analysis would be something.
Your supposition that the stratosphere would eliminate too quickly an induced plasma without actual evidence to support it is exactly that, supposition. I mean, it's not an unfair protest, but it must be recognized as pure supposition without any actual evidential support.
They can absolutely stand as evidence of implementation.
I think you are confusing "evidence" with "proof." Proof is a decision that the evidence meets some standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.). Proof is (in effect) a verb. It uses the nouns (facts AKA evidence) and adds them up until the individual person is satisfied that a certain burden of proof is met.
A patent is evidence (a fact) that someone has a plan. If one is trying to solve a murder, and a suspect has a plan, laid out completely, with details and models and all the math, there is a really good chance they committed that murder, or intend to. At the least not putting forth that plan as evidence would be negligent to any honest investigation.
The patent holder is also a part of the evidence. In this case it is the very same people who created HAARP. Ignoring that as meaningful evidence is just being willful, or intentionally blind, or succumbing to cognitive dissonance.
I wasn't. I wasn't saying something was "truth." I was saying it was evidence. I was saying it was good evidence. It is. It's very good evidence. The evidence isn't in "patent inspectors," but in the patent itself. No faith required. What it isn't is proof, or at least for me the patent alone doesn't meet any reasonable standard of proof. Even all together it doesn't meet "beyond a reasonable doubt" for me. I'm not even sure if it meets "preponderance of the evidence" for me. But it absolutely meets the standard of "there is something there worth looking into more," at the least. Your protest, while not unsound, is supposition. Supposition, while it can be very useful to guide an investigation, isn't admissible as evidence itself.
Well, now you are being artful.
I did not support my position with credentials. I did not even claim I was an "expert." I was establishing myself as one who would understand the patent. You did not object to my credentials from that standpoint, and the fact that I am competent to comment is not an ad-hominem anything.
Plasmas in the atmosphere can happen but they require ferocious energy intensity. (I've seen them made in the laboratory. Quick, bright, and loud.) The ability to ionize a gas is strongly related to its density. Low density is required (remember vacuum tube technology). I mean, really low density. The stratosphere is too dense for that. You, on the other hand, do not get the privilege of invoking unlimited power levels to play tricks. Lightning bolts are plasma created at Earth surface density conditions, but the current and power density in the bolt is tremendous. We don't have power to do that. And their patent mechanism was mostly arm-waving mumbo-jumbo that did NOT go into the specifics and were only general assertions. You are alleging it can happen, so the burden of proof is on you. All I know is that when I worked on space-based particle beam weapons during the Strategic Defense Initiative, we didn't even dream of penetrating into the atmosphere. Too dense.
Evidence is a factual condition that can only be true if the alleged issue is true. Patents are not evidence of anything other than bright ideas. Which of my 9 patents are true? Maybe one, by being generous. The remaining 8 are untrue. So, on that basis alone, your wordplay collapses. Patents are not evidence of any plan. There is nothing to document a plan in a patent. Again, do my 9 patents evince a plan? No. You are back to holding up "My Gun is Quick" to support that Mickey Spillane may have killed someone. And plans are not matters of chance at all. That the patent holder might actually be able to implement the patent AS DESCRIBED, is no surprise. The weather modification is a suggested use that was not detailed. But that is only an expectation going forward (they say so in the patent, therefore they might be able to do it), not an expectation going backward (they say so in the patent, therefore they have already done it).
A patent award is not evidence at all of weather modification, and you know it. Or do you think I am an inventor of a physical principle (named for other scientists), simply because it appears in my approved patent language?
I will repeat to make myself clear. Evidence is a physical fact that could not exist unless the alleged event / cause / etc. also exists or existed. A patent is a physical fact without doubt, but it exists regardless of the reality of its implementation. At best, it predicts what one might be able to do...if one actually did it. It would not be evidence that they did it. You are trying to elevate a hint or a prophecy to the level of "evidence," and you monkey around with the notion of "proof" to get you off the hook. But when I go to a crime scene and collect evidence, I do not take pictures of the sky, I do not note the colors the houses are painted, and I do not pet the stray dog. Those are all facts, but they are independent of the commission of a crime. Similarly, a patent is a fact about an invention but is independent of its implementation.
And for me to object to faulty deduction is not supposition but criticism. I'm not supposing anything. I am, in fact, objecting to you supposing that patents can be taken as evidence. I mean, I'm only speaking as an inventor with 9 patents, 8 of which are unrealized. Are you going to claim that my 8 unrealized patents are actually evidence of 8 secretly-implemented instances of the inventions?