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 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, isn't admissible as evidence itself.

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. 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, isn't admissible as evidence itself.

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.

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. 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, isn't admissible as evidence itself.

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.

Your supposition that the stratosphere would eliminate 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. 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, isn't admissible as evidence itself.

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.

Your supposition that the stratosphere would eliminate 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. 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.

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.

Your supposition that the stratosphere would eliminate 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. What it isn't is proof, or at least for me the patent alone doesn't mean 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.

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.

Your supposition that the stratosphere would eliminate 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. What it isn't is proof, or at least for me the patent alone doesn't mean 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.

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.

Your supposition that the stratosphere would eliminate 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.