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 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). 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 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 (following longitude). 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). 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 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 (following longitude). 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). I suggest that is very much evidence of weather manipulation. We'll call that "evidence of 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.