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.
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.