3 ms·

> "U.S. Naval Aviation Enterprise", whatever it is, is a den of crackpots Isn't that a bit condescending way to address such organization? Of all the possible

> "U.S. Naval Aviation Enterprise", whatever it is, is a den of crackpots Isn't that a bit condescending way to address such organization? Of all the possible justifications, you point to the weakest one imo: that it is ran by ignorant people who are detached from reality when it comes to these matters, to the point of coming out to publicly state they did/are/aim/want to work on something. It's like the eat anything crazy it's thrown at them. I mean, you could say: "It's just propaganda - they either want to diverge attention so we don't focus on something else (like decrease the warmongering status), or get attention to try to get something (like support/resources)." - Which is believe is the most likely one. It's a odd behavior, but I doubt it's a byproduct of ignorance and belief in pseudo-science.

keldaris 7y ago
> Isn't that a bit condescending way to address such organization? It would be if their CTO hadn't personally endorsed the "scientific" content of this patent in his letter to the patent office. In light of that, it's hard for me to see a different explanation than either "incompetent scientists" or "incompetent propagandists" (because the patent is a blatant joke to anyone with a science education), hence my reaction. I'm open to a different explanation, hence my question to those better versed in the mysteries of the U.S. military-industrial-scientific complex.
- libertine 7y ago
  I understand what you're saying. For sure there's a lot of things wrong with this: - the "scientific" content; - the approval/publishing of the patent based on such content; - the news reporting of such content without further research, just for the sake of being a patent and not questioning it's validity in the light of our current scientific knowledge; - The propagation of such information; If it's deliberate or fruit of a lot of layers of ignorance, we can't know for sure but there's a high probability of both.

keldaris 7y ago

> Isn't that a bit condescending way to address such organization? It would be if their CTO hadn't personally endorsed the "scientific" content of this patent in his letter to the patent office. In light of that, it's hard for me to see a different explanation than either "incompetent scientists" or "incompetent propagandists" (because the patent is a blatant joke to anyone with a science education), hence my reaction. I'm open to a different explanation, hence my question to those better versed in the mysteries of the U.S. military-industrial-scientific complex.

libertine 7y ago
I understand what you're saying. For sure there's a lot of things wrong with this: - the "scientific" content; - the approval/publishing of the patent based on such content; - the news reporting of such content without further research, just for the sake of being a patent and not questioning it's validity in the light of our current scientific knowledge; - The propagation of such information; If it's deliberate or fruit of a lot of layers of ignorance, we can't know for sure but there's a high probability of both.