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?
I was establishing myself as one who would understand the patent.
I apologize if I came across as rude, and I probably should have been more diplomatic. I do suggest however, that if you believed your argument was sufficient on it's own, you wouldn't have bothered to qualify yourself.
We have been trained to believe in credentials. We have been trained to not use argument for it's own sake. I am exposing the specifics of the institutions that train us to listen to "the experts" to shut down conversations. I haven't gotten quite there yet, but you can read about the system here in this first part of my report.
Evidence is a factual condition that can only be true if the alleged issue is true.
There is direct evidence of weather manipulation. I wish I could support that with evidence, but I can't find it atm. Specifically I have seen several videos of satellite data showing storm fronts that were perfectly straight. More specifically during the Texas Ice storm of 2021 there was a storm front (line of clouds) in the Pacific that was over a thousand miles long that was exactly a straight line. There have been other such videos of satellite data during extreme events that I have seen with straight lines, or even perfect boxes (three sides perfectly straight and orthogonal). I suggest that is very much evidence of weather manipulation. We'll call that "the murder." Again, I'm not providing that evidence. If I looked real hard I could probably find something. If that is what it will take to convince you to dig deeper and stop presenting arguments that don't address the specifics, then I will take the time to look.
so the burden of proof is on you.
Did I present a model? The patent has more than enough information to dig deeper. They talk specifically about where the energy comes from to create the plasma. They use energy that is already there:
Put another way, in Alaska, the right type of fuel (natural gas) is naturally present in large amounts and at just the right magnetic latitudes for the most efficient practice of this invention, a truly unique combination of circumstances. Desirable magnetic latitudes for the practice of this invention interest the earth's surface both northerly and southerly of the equator, particularly desirable latitudes being those, both northerly and southerly, which correspond in magnitude with the magnetic latitudes that encompass Alaska.
Referring now to FIG. 2 a first ambodiment is illustrated where a selected region R1 of plasma 12 is altered by electron cyclotron resonance heating to accelerate the electrons of plasma 12, which are following helical paths along field line 11.
To accomplish this result, electromagnetic radiation is transmitted at the outset, essentially parallel to line 11 via antenna 15 as right hand circularly polarized radiation wave 20. Wave 20 has a frequency which will excite electron cyclotron resonance with plasma 12 at its initial or original altitude. This frequency will vary depending on the electron cyclotron resonance of region R1 which, in turn, can be determined from available data based on the altitudes of region R1, the particular field line 11 being used, the strength of the earth's magnetic field, etc. Frequencies of from about 20 to about 7200 kHz, preferably from about 20 to about 1800 kHz can be employed. Also, for any given application, there will be a threshhold (minimum power level) which is needed to produce the desired result. The minimum power level is a function of the level of plasma production and movement required, taking into consideration any loss processes that may be dominant in a particular plasma or propagation path.
As electron cyclotron resonance is established in plasma 12, energy is transferred from the electromagnetic radiation 20 into plasma 12 to heat and accelerate the electrons therein and, subsequently, ions and neutral particles. As this process continues, neutral particles which are present within R1 are ionized and absorbed into plasma 12 and this increases the electron and ion densities of plasma 12. As the electron energy is raised to values of about 1 kilo electron volt (kev), the generated mirror force (explained below) will direct the excited plasma 12 upward along line 11 to form a plume R2 at an altitude higher than that of R1.
Is that enough to recreate the experiment? Not at all. But it is enough that with the knowledge I have, I could, given enough time, fill in the gaps. Given enough time and money I could recreate the experiment.
You are not addressing the specifics of their patent. You are calling it "hand waving," when what it really is, is well laid out, but insufficient to reproduce the experiment without filling in the gaps. That's pretty standard with patent applications. I assume that is your main protest, and it is reasonable, but it is not in any way evidence that it doesn't work. Addressing the specifics and finding actual flaws would be something at least.
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.
Please don't belittle my statements of what "proof" is compared to "evidence" to make your point. What I said about that was a separate issue to the patent itself. I suggest understanding the difference between the two is essential to us, as a society, moving forward along the path of investigation. It goes against what we have been trained, but I suggest that training was created specifically to keep us from communicating and seeing the truth of things.
Similarly, a patent is a fact about an invention but is independent of its implementation.
That is... patently absurd.
A patent is possibly independent, but not necessarily. Making such a blanket statement is not reasonable (the definition of absurd).
I mean, I'm only speaking as an inventor with 9 patents, 8 of which are unrealized.
You are doing it again. Idgaf how many patents you have. If you can't support your argument with the argument itself it is meaningless.
Are you going to claim that my 8 unrealized patents are actually evidence of 8 secretly-implemented instances of the inventions?
This is a strawman, completely irrelevant to the specific patent in question.
I'm just establishing that I am not merely expressing the usual internet "opinion" that has no educational foundation. It does not affect the argument. It affects my credibility. I'm not trying to shut you down; I am trying to educate you.
Uh, the whole idea of a "front" is that it is a substantially straight interface between two masses of air. Fronts have been around and observed since well before HAARP. Combinations of straight lines are interesting mysteries, but you have no explanation for them. Thus, they are evidence of nothing. If there were such a think as weather manipulation, I would be expecting to see some statistical variation in the effects. Ever seen the perfectly flat bottom of a lenticular cloud capping a mountain top? Completely natural effect.
Energy. The first paragraph pertains to energy resources to power the apparatus. Which are not being employed (HAARP runs on about 5 Diesel-electric locomotive power units; the projected power is about 3.6 megawatts). It amounts to the discussion of an impertinent subject, as the question of power sources to run an invention is not central to the invention. The rest is mumbo-jumbo. Ionic streams would plunge into the stratosphere and fizzle out. Drill a hole in the glass envelope of a television cathode ray tube and see how it totally kills the electron beam. It's not for nothing that it was called "vacuum tube" technology. Can't happen without a vacuum.
Sorry, but you don't know how to re/create the invention. If you are not aware of what you are up against, you are not going to solve the problems. The patent has no "specifics" in this particular area. I was careful to scan for discussion that answered the "so what?" question. ("Yeah, yeah, yeah...plasma this, ions that...so what?") None. No discussion of how the plasma beams were supposed to pass through the lower layers of the atmosphere, where the density causes ionization suppression. It is not for nothing that air is a marvelous insulator.
Evidence is physical or documentary. If you had a document that was a facsimile or an original of operational paperwork, detailing actions, times, dates, persons of responsibility, and plan of performance, that would be documentary evidence. A patent is a wish-fulfillment fantasy. Maybe one based on solid scientific principles and capable of being implemented in a straightforward manner. But that would be it. Nothing that establishes that anything is happening beyond reading the patent.
A patent is independent of the implementation of the invention. It is just a simple fact. I can have a patent without an implementation. Or I can have an implementation. Having a patent is not dependent on having an implementation. I supported this point with my personal case, which is evidence. It may be that someone could not write the patent without an implementation, but the implementation would have to be revealed within the patent. Nothing like that here. If there was a secret implementation, it would have no evidentiary value because you can't know it exists.
I'm sorry, but the picture here is that you are striving mightily to rationalize the belief that HAARP is doing weather modification, by invoking an equivalence between ideas of doing so and actions of doing so.
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?
I apologize if I came across as rude, and I probably should have been more diplomatic. I do suggest however, that if you believed your argument was sufficient on it's own, you wouldn't have bothered to qualify yourself.
We have been trained to believe in credentials. We have been trained to not use argument for it's own sake. I am exposing the specifics of the institutions that train us to listen to "the experts" to shut down conversations. I haven't gotten quite there yet, but you can read about the system here in this first part of my report.
There is direct evidence of weather manipulation. I wish I could support that with evidence, but I can't find it atm. Specifically I have seen several videos of satellite data showing storm fronts that were perfectly straight. More specifically during the Texas Ice storm of 2021 there was a storm front (line of clouds) in the Pacific that was over a thousand miles long that was exactly a straight line. There have been other such videos of satellite data during extreme events that I have seen with straight lines, or even perfect boxes (three sides perfectly straight and orthogonal). I suggest that is very much evidence of weather manipulation. We'll call that "the murder." Again, I'm not providing that evidence. If I looked real hard I could probably find something. If that is what it will take to convince you to dig deeper and stop presenting arguments that don't address the specifics, then I will take the time to look.
Did I present a model? The patent has more than enough information to dig deeper. They talk specifically about where the energy comes from to create the plasma. They use energy that is already there:
Is that enough to recreate the experiment? Not at all. But it is enough that with the knowledge I have, I could, given enough time, fill in the gaps. Given enough time and money I could recreate the experiment.
You are not addressing the specifics of their patent. You are calling it "hand waving," when what it really is, is well laid out, but insufficient to reproduce the experiment without filling in the gaps. That's pretty standard with patent applications. I assume that is your main protest, and it is reasonable, but it is not in any way evidence that it doesn't work. Addressing the specifics and finding actual flaws would be something at least.
Please don't belittle my statements of what "proof" is compared to "evidence" to make your point. What I said about that was a separate issue to the patent itself. I suggest understanding the difference between the two is essential to us, as a society, moving forward along the path of investigation. It goes against what we have been trained, but I suggest that training was created specifically to keep us from communicating and seeing the truth of things.
That is... patently absurd.
A patent is possibly independent, but not necessarily. Making such a blanket statement is not reasonable (the definition of absurd).
You are doing it again. Idgaf how many patents you have. If you can't support your argument with the argument itself it is meaningless.
This is a strawman, completely irrelevant to the specific patent in question.
I'm just establishing that I am not merely expressing the usual internet "opinion" that has no educational foundation. It does not affect the argument. It affects my credibility. I'm not trying to shut you down; I am trying to educate you.
Uh, the whole idea of a "front" is that it is a substantially straight interface between two masses of air. Fronts have been around and observed since well before HAARP. Combinations of straight lines are interesting mysteries, but you have no explanation for them. Thus, they are evidence of nothing. If there were such a think as weather manipulation, I would be expecting to see some statistical variation in the effects. Ever seen the perfectly flat bottom of a lenticular cloud capping a mountain top? Completely natural effect.
Energy. The first paragraph pertains to energy resources to power the apparatus. Which are not being employed (HAARP runs on about 5 Diesel-electric locomotive power units; the projected power is about 3.6 megawatts). It amounts to the discussion of an impertinent subject, as the question of power sources to run an invention is not central to the invention. The rest is mumbo-jumbo. Ionic streams would plunge into the stratosphere and fizzle out. Drill a hole in the glass envelope of a television cathode ray tube and see how it totally kills the electron beam. It's not for nothing that it was called "vacuum tube" technology. Can't happen without a vacuum.
Sorry, but you don't know how to re/create the invention. If you are not aware of what you are up against, you are not going to solve the problems. The patent has no "specifics" in this particular area. I was careful to scan for discussion that answered the "so what?" question. ("Yeah, yeah, yeah...plasma this, ions that...so what?") None. No discussion of how the plasma beams were supposed to pass through the lower layers of the atmosphere, where the density causes ionization suppression. It is not for nothing that air is a marvelous insulator.
Evidence is physical or documentary. If you had a document that was a facsimile or an original of operational paperwork, detailing actions, times, dates, persons of responsibility, and plan of performance, that would be documentary evidence. A patent is a wish-fulfillment fantasy. Maybe one based on solid scientific principles and capable of being implemented in a straightforward manner. But that would be it. Nothing that establishes that anything is happening beyond reading the patent.
A patent is independent of the implementation of the invention. It is just a simple fact. I can have a patent without an implementation. Or I can have an implementation. Having a patent is not dependent on having an implementation. I supported this point with my personal case, which is evidence. It may be that someone could not write the patent without an implementation, but the implementation would have to be revealed within the patent. Nothing like that here. If there was a secret implementation, it would have no evidentiary value because you can't know it exists.
I'm sorry, but the picture here is that you are striving mightily to rationalize the belief that HAARP is doing weather modification, by invoking an equivalence between ideas of doing so and actions of doing so.