jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Mon Jan 27 10:07:58 EST 2003
gdpusch at NO.xnet.SPAM.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message news:<gin0lrrfrw.fsf at pusch.xnet.com>...
> jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com (jmdrake) writes:
> > argument. In fact NASA's pattent of the device (yes they do have a
> > patent) says nothing about UFOs or anything else. I'm suprised that
> > someone as "logical" as yourself would fall into such a crackpot trap.
> > Here's the link to NASA's patent.
> > http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,317,310.WKU.&OS=PN/6,317,310&RS=PN/6,317,310
> On the contrary: Patents say =NOTHING= about the validity or functionality
> of what is allegedly patented; patents only prove who filed first. Contrary
> to popular belief, the USPTO does =NOT= require a "working model," nor does it
> test =ANY= of the claims in the patent. The patent examiner simply attempts
> to verify that none of the alleged claims have been made by someone else in
> the past, nor are "obvious to one skilled in the art" --- and quite frankly,
> they are not especially competent at even that.
Nice straw man argument. Actually it's a very weak and pathetic straw man.
My point was not that this is "proof" of a working model (although there is
plenty of proof of working models including video tape from NASA.) The
argument is that scientists who don't believe in UFOs are working this.
> A large fraction of US patents
> are quite frankly not worth they paper they are printed on. Caveat Emptor.
> -- Gordon D. Pusch
I'm not buying anything. But for a measly few bucks you can buy the
material from Radio Shack and test it out yourself.
John M. Drake
More information about the Neur-sci