>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: