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."

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.

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."

The patent of HAARP tech, stated to modify the weather, 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.

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. 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 of HAARP tech, stated to modify the weather, 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.

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. 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 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.

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 and states uses for it. 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 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.