jmdrake jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Mon Feb 3 10:27:52 EST 2003

Ed Beroset <beroset at mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3E3D7E4D.9070907 at mindspring.com>...
> jmdrake wrote:
> > 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.
> Another NASA site has some information specifically about various 
> effects that appear to be "breakthrough" propulsion ideas but are not 
> and includes explanations as to why they are not: 
> http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/ComnErr.html
> Ed

True.  And I've already read this page.  It actually lends greater 
credibility to the things they're actually looking at.  The statement 
on the page about ion wind is actually incorrect.  So far all of the 
experiments (including the ones cited on that page) have suggested
ion wind was a component, but NOT the only force.  And that's in line 
with what all lifter credible researchers have been saying.  There 
simply is disagreement on how much is ion wind and how much is 
something else.

Also note the following from the same reference:

Note that this "gyroscopic antigravity" section is NOT related to the 
1992 claims, where it was published that objects appeared to weigh
over superconductors that were spinning and being subjected to RF 
radiation.  This unconfirmed phenomenon deals with entirely different 
issues than the simplistic gyro inventions discussed here.  


John M. Drake

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net