posted 03-08-2004 02:56 PM               

The response that Lex got from Billings is this:

From: Billings MT NEXRAD Operator
To: letxa2000
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:07:11 -0600
Subject: Spokes Question

Thanks for your question concerning the WSR-88D imagery from Billings,
MT. We recently sent a team of engineers and technicians from our
organization to Billings to determine the cause and resolution plan.
This pattern is caused by interference from radars transmitting near
the same frequency. We are taking action to change transmit
frequencies in the area in order to avoid reoccurrence of the anomalous
patterns.

Thank you for your interest in WSR-88D data and the quality of the
data. Please contact me if you have additional questions.

Now I have proof that this radar has been doing this for 3 years now. So the operators answer is a bit suspect. This is the only radar, other than North Platte, to do this strange sparks. On top of all this the chances that Billings and North Platte go off within an hour or so of each other is very high. I have an animation showing the 2 sparking back and forth 4 times in a short few hours.

So if there is no connection between the 2, and their is no grid, why is it they spark so often together? Why does it take 3 years and counting to fix this? If you can explain it for one you have to explain it for both. And then you have to explain why do they go off in sequence?

Lex has yet to prove the reasoning for this.

As for the "blast" that show up primarily on my site, Lex once again accepted the standard answer.

quote:

---

"Regarding "blast" or "nuclear explosion" images surrounding a given NEXRAD site: "Nicknamed "nuclear explosions" by some meteorologists, these patterns occur when the radar operator places the WSR88D doppler radar into a test or calibration mode. They are supposed to set the radar status to "offline" (in which case you'll see a message on the image saying so) but sometimes they don't, and you get the resulting circular test pattern sent to the radar distribution network. These are rare, and usually are gone within the hour. Don't worry, the radar operators don't usually conduct these tests during storm activity." (Desktop Doppler
FAQ"

---

I told Lex that those blast came from only 10% of all radars over 3 years. Many were condensed to the 2002 olympics. Which bears the question of why only these 10%? If these are test patterns, why do these not show up on the other 90% in 3 years? These have also been discribed as calibrations and malfuntions by NEXRAD and weather people. I preceded to tell Lex he needed to study the way in which radars are calibrated and also HE NEEDS TO PROVE THAT THESE BLAST ARE NOT ACTUALLY AFFECTING THE AIR. He has to prove that these blast are simple little glitches that are just eye candy for you and I. Most of the blast i caught went off for many hours and I did prove these 2 sample to show that the blast may be causing lows or highs.

One shows a charge coming after a blast and ending at the blast.
I also relay what the deceased astronauts video taped while in space. Red Arcs of Light that NO others have ever witnessed. Another is from the 2002 olympics in which one radar blasted the area of 5 or 6 states, with internal cutout that maintained a very large High dome. The weather that came towards it, went OVER that dome.
The last one is a LOW poping up after a blast.

Lex's response was:

quote:

---

And again I stress that it's not my responsibility to prove that the "blasts" don't affect the air.

---

Well then, your proof has holes in it now doesn't it?

The good thing here is that the blast are few and far between now. Radars put out around 750,000 watts of power. And this is with a filter on them. They are much stronger. It has to also be taken into account the chemtrail aspect of my theory. Obviously Lex, who is a pilot, has no view or ability to study this to make a conclusion on them.

My original post should also be noted, because after telling Lex his study started off with too many assumptions he completely over looked my "layed out" theory for him.

How many of you think this radar at Dyess AFB, Located in the middle of the most volitile air in America, actually acted as a spark here? This radar produced storms from it's center out for well over 12 hours. I only have 4-6 hours documented. This is proof that radar energy can affect the weather. This proof doesn't lie.

posted 03-08-2004 03:16 PM               

This is an introduction into my views and theories of weather modification

PART 1

Weather control is very easy to understand when you keep in mind that we live inside an electrical grid of radars with outside forces helping manipulate certain aspects of the system. Not to mention tons of actual documents and Patents pertaining to weather manipulation. For instance:
Weather as a Force Multiplier:
Owning the Weather in 2025
For clarification, this is located on a military site.

More info on weather modification:
NATIONAL WEATHER MODIFICATION POLICY ACT OF 1976
Battlespace Atmospheric and Cloud Impacts on Military Operations Conference 2000
Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification
Benign Weather Modification (SAAS)
Weather Weapons
Weather Warfare:
WeatherModification.org
Weathermod.com
Mass amounts of facts on Weather modification
History and Problems in Weather Modification
Weather Control Technology: A Chronological Log

There are 4 main points of control:
1. HAARP basically is for the jetstream and also for inducing electricity. Radars can also create pivot points for the Jetstream.
2. LOWS are used to steer a system. Lows are held over the Colorado Ridge many times. This is a major part of the weather control!
3. chemtrails,cold dense air and fog are conductors for the radar electricity
4. the rocky mountain wall is used to add electricity that creates a front that backs up energy or to let it build up.

Not much about Anomalies in there huh Lex? by the way I mentioned this in my first post

Chemtrails are a main ingredient and are very real. Anyone who sits and watch a clear blue sky get over cast from these high flying planes knows the truth. I have video taped it one to many times and correlated it with NASA's contrail prediction program (also located on my site) and it never lines up. The humidity is low and in many of my videos I tape regular planes that are on the SAME PLAIN and one will have a normal contrail and the other goes from skyline to skyline and fans out. I know what I see and when you type "Chemtrails" into google, 50,000 pages can't just be a conspiracy!
REAL PROOF
Chemtrails in a Democratic election platform
2004_Convention_BookletDraft.doc
House Resolution H.R.2977
Space Preservation Act of 2001 (Introduced in House)

On the note of chemtrails, The 2002 winter Olympics was one of the first MAJOR weather experiments I documented. I suggest you check it out on my web page. Read about how the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Research Program (why the DOE is involved in weather is a mystery) but read how they performed test over Salt Lake by spraying "Perfluorocarbon Tracers" over the area. It was a major experiment! Perfluorocarbon tracers have been put inside the new 20 dollar bills and possibly others to trace large sums of money from satellite. You wanna talk about being marked well here is a starting place to study!
Vapor detection of trafficking of contraband money

Watch the whole series of animations leading up to and past the Olympics. IT WAS THE MOST VOLATILE TIME IN MY STUDIES FOR RADAR BLAST AND BEAMS! This whole time was a HUGE experiment. On the day of the opening Ceremonies, in which Bush is to give an opening speech, 3 radars north of Salt Lake, HELD a weather pattern. I did save a lot of it but what I didn't save only would show more time of what I have. Those 3 radars had this plasma like look to them. All the energy circled the radars for the whole day. Until just before the ceremonies when they let go and all the energy seemed to drip down the US. Now the DOE's experiment over Salt Lake is sound evidence of a weather experiment folks. Those animations I provide show you all you need to see to get a good grasp. I have told you the points that control this. If you are not subscribed to weathertap.com I suggest you do. It will show you the electricity. It is the best there is! It will show you all the blast, beams, sparks, static etc.
Weather Modified for the Olympics Feb.08,2002
VTMX ran by the DOE?

Atmospheric studies in Salt Lake City for Olympics

More Experiments over Salt Lake City

HAARP is basically a Huge magnet. When HAARP starts pulsing at higher MHz, it heats straight up and basically plugs into all the electricity surrounding our planet. In fact HAARP's position is more important than anything else. It is located underneath the "Electrojet." This is where all the Sun's energy coagulates. This is full of energy! In regards to the jetstream, if it is going over alaska and HAARP comes on, it will effectively create a pivot point in which the jetstream will not be able to dip below it but will come down into the US just over the Rockies. At the beginning of this Fall we had a very bad cold spell in the US. It was WAY to early to get that kind of cold but this was the system that brought it in. HAARP was pulsing at the time. HAARP also can Attract the jetstream up from the gulf. Much like a magnet. As for the connection from HAARP to the radars I have stepped back from that view for now. Accept when I see Billings Spark the "Electrical fingers" in HAARPS direction. I see a lot more correlation and connection between the 2 in summer time when the vacuum swells become so huge that, at the peak of the vacuum, the whole US will fire up storms. From top to bottom. I do believe HAARP has a help in drawing the vacuum harder.
Examples of the Vacuum
imagine how that would affect a low sitting on the Colorado ridge
Vacuum 1
Vacuum 2
Vacuum 3

If you ever see a gravity map of the US, you will see that gravity is the greatest over Alaska (where HAARP is) and down the Rocky Mountains. Gravity and magnetism are very closely related. The earth has a north and south pole and a magnetic structure around it. The way you make a magnet is by running a direct current thru something. Anything can be magnetised! Weather included. Especially with Barium and metals thrown in. Electrical lines have a magnetic field. The mountains being so high up and more gravity means that more electricity build up along this ridge. Many Many times you will see a front start on the mountains. Energy gets back up here.

It is my belief that Billings is charging this line when it sparks southward. Which in the last few months I would guestimate that this radar has sparked south on average 3 times a day. Easily! Again, only Billings and North Platte do these kinds of returns on a regular bases. This is fact! I save animations every day! The fact that these 2 radars are the only 2 that are active almost every day in the winter, and tend to spark in unison, tells a tale of an electrical connection. Many times a blast, beam or sharp line echo will coincide with these 2 sparking. There are many other anomalies that take place that I will add to my anomalies folder.

Now for the main control...LOWS. Take some time and watch the Colorado Ridge. When a low gets stuck on this ridge the vacuum will increase its size and power. This last system we had was all controlled from that one low. From that juncture it allows moisture to be pulled up from the gulf and collide with the cold fronts. Often times you will see the "question mark" effect of weather that spreads from Texas all the way north into a loop. 3 times last year we had hurricane size lows go across the US. They all started on the ridge. It was only last year that I noticed this ridge of radars flare up on purpose! From there I believe a low can be steered from radar to radar. Especially in this extremely cold dense air. Cold Dense Air is supper conductive. Many of you will notice the amount of shocks you get during this time. The electrical field is right on top of you. In the document "Owning the weather by 2025," fog was a big part of what they wanted to create. One reason is to be hidden but the main part is because fog is so highly conductive to electricity and EMP's (electrical magnetic pulses). In the fog you have radars, cell towers, GWEN towers and so on adding electricity around you.

Department of Defense Weather Program

basically I conclude that Lex wouldn't know his ass from an anomaly if I wasn't in here holding his hand. I have provided a decent amount of facts for people to grasp. Lex will just have to go play with his little screen printer and stick to the anomalies of Billings and North Platte and accept that they just can't seem to fix the problem.

I wash my hand with this ego maniac.

Peace out brothers and sista's!=)

posted 03-08-2004 04:27 PM            

quote:

---

Lex's initial study started off on the wrong track. First and foremost, he did not bother to initialy contact the person in which he was going to study.

---

As I've said before, I wasn't studying you. I was studying a theory I saw published on the Internet. There is no requirement that you be notified when your theory is being investigated. In fact, a neutral investigation is best served by being as free of preconceived notions as possible so that the conclusions may be based on the observations and not on preconceptions of what we're "supposed" to see.

quote:

---

Lex preceded to do a study on the following site with his "homemade" screen print macro.

---

Apparently you haven't read my posts. The only studies I have done (Reno, Billings, and North Platte) were all done manually by looking at each of thousands of images. My NAADP program is still experimental. It hasn't been the basis for any study thusfar.

quote:

---

He also DID NOT want to discuss the Chemtrail/HAARP interaction with this grid I speak of. To not allow that chemtrails may be the primer for these radars to make their energy more useful is a fast way to pigeon whole this debate.

---

As I said, my investigation was limited to radar anomalies. You have not demonstrated that they are anything but radar anomalies. Discussions of chemtrails, bigfoot, Bill Clinton, or anything else as they relate to radar anomalies is completely premature until you've proven that radar anomalies are something suspicious. You simply haven't done that. As soon as you do then I'll be happy to talk about chemtrails or whatever else you think goes along with the anomalies.

quote:

---

Now in order to study Anomalies, one would have to know when there is an anomaly going off in order to study it. Of the many he listed in his initial study, only one was active. So that throws out half of his "scientific" case from the start. If you read his whole first posting, taking into account the misguided approach, see how much is actually valid. Very little

---

There is no logic in what you just said. You can't just monitor sites that are active. You need to monitor sites that aren't active to use as a "control" or a standard. I also monitored neighboring sites so that if an anomaly was present at one site and if it had been real, one would expect to see that anomaly on neighboring sites. That was never the case which lends further support to the conclusion that these are site-specific problems rather than real phenomena in the atmosphere. After all, how does this electricity get from Billings to North Platte without being seen by Cheyenne, Denver, Glasgow, or especially Rapid City SD which is almost right between them?

quote:

---

So of Lex's very long introduction and Conclusion, a very small portion had any merit in a study or to bring on a conclusion so fast.

---

It's called "presenting all the information." If I had just posted a message here saying, "I investigated the radar anomaly theory and found it to be unfounded" I would have been jumped on for not having any evidence to support that case. Now you are criticizing me for publishing the entire study. It's actually in the same spirit as this investigation on chemtrails here. By the same logic you'd have to say that very little of that investigation had any merit either.

quote:

---

It should also be noted that the only way Lex would have known which radars to study would be to a. Watch a national map and catch them
b. ask me which ones to observe at a specific time and date when an anomaly is present.
c. or just stick to the ones mentioned on my site or on this forum

---

That was true when I started investigating and, yes, at the beginning I used option (C). I hadn't developed NAADP at that point and just investigated what you said was important. I found that what you said was important wasn't important and NAADP is currently expanding to monitor more and more sites automatically. That is without looking at a national map, without asking you when to look, and without any consideration as to what your site says. It's called progress. I started my investigation based on your claims and now the investigation is expanding regardless of what sites you say are (or aren't) important.

quote:

---

Lex chose C. Which is my evidence that he is a debunker and not seriously interested in understanding this.

---

The proof that I was interested in this is precisely that I studied the sites that you said were interesting. Otherwise I could have studied Glasgow MT, one of the quietest NEXRAD sites in the country and right next to Billings, and "proven" there was nothing going on. That would have been deceptive. Yet I took the time and made the effort to investigate the sites you said were interesting.

quote:

---

I also held out the option to Lex to send him animations of mine so that he could see some of my own data instead of just stabbing into the dark. He refused. I also relayed that the best way to capture the anomalies, without me telling him were to look, is to get on weathertap. A vastly more superior national radar that shows the anomalies in real time. He refused.

---

Did you just skip my last post? I subscribed to WeatherTap and confirmed that there is nothing there that I can't get for free and without traffic restrictions from the NOAA.

quote:

---

HE STILL CONTINUES TO WHINE THAT I AM NOT PROVIDING HIM MY PROOF EVEN AFTER OFFERING TO SEND HIM MY DATA.

---

I don't need 20MB of animations in my email. Post them somewhere on the Internet where everyone, including me, can access them at our leisure. Or simply explain how a radar can control the weather. You don't need gigabytes of animations to do that just like you don't need gigabytes of animation to explain nuclear physics. Just explain it.

quote:

---

To show my data on this forum required me to find room on my server so I can post it on here. not only that but we are talking 300k animations in which only one or 2 will work per page without slowing the process down a lot! He is very hypocritical.

---

Any particular reason you can't get a decent hosting provider? There are many out there and they are cheap. Your suggestion that you don't have server room is just nonsense. If you don't have it, go get it. Don't use it as an excuse for not making your case.

quote:

---

This was of course down played because Lex was under the assumption, once again from his correspondance with NOAA, that the 2 readouts are identical. I proved him wrong on this point by showing that the NWS national was a LOW RESOLUTION animation. It should also be noted that you cannot save the pictures or animations on the NWS. A vast limitation! Unless you waste time doing screen prints.

---

It should be noted that:

1. I don't use the national animation anywhere. So what you can or can't do with the national animation is unimportant.

2. You can download individual images from the NWS and build your own animations that span minutes, hours, or days. With WeatherTap you are limited to the animations they provide which are about 2 hours for individual NEXRAD sites and about 4-5 hours for the national animation. I find that a much larger limitation.

3. I'm sure that Mojoman is wasting more time monitoring WeatherTap's national radar than I am since my server is spending time downloading imagery from NEXRAD sites, not me.

quote:

---

Lex kept harping on the fact that all radar sites are getting the same data from NEXRAD. Which is obvious but the side by side comparison and common sense shows that we are dealing with the info thru different computers, websites and the providers ability to render at a higher resolution. Weathertap is unmatched in this field.

---

There is no evidence of this whatsoever. Mojoman first said that WeatherTap's information was somehow different or novel than what is available for free. It seems that he has accepted the fact that that's not true. But now he is suggesting that just because it goes through different computers, websites, or providers that WeatherTap is somehow capable of "rendering" it at a higher resolution. That's silly. They both use use 16 levels of radar reflectivity. The side by side comparison I provided of the North Platte anomaly at both NOAA and WeatherTap shows that the two are basically the same and, if anything, NOAA is more precise than WeatherTap.

In short, mojoman once again provides absolutely no evidence to support a claim. There is no evidence that there is any benefit whatsoever in using WeatherTap. It seems that he is just used to using it and doesn't want to change. Which is fine--but he shouldn't suggest something as absurd as WeatherTap is somehow doing magic with NOAA imagery and making it better. It's the same data and you're not going to get anything at WeatherTap that NOAA didn't give WeatherTap and the public already.

quote:

---

Lex will continue to affirm that his narrow screen prints of sites I SAY are showing an anomaly is all he needs. So without me he is a useless tool.

---

quote:

---

In fact on his SELF NAMED screen printer that is on his site right now he is not even in the same ball park. I have no clue as to what he is doing to be honest. All the things he is showing as anomalies...are not.

---

As I showed earlier in this thread there was a faint anomaly at Billings which mojoman said was not an anomaly but rather just interference (he is right, of course, it's all just interference of some sort). But the interesting this is that that anomaly occurred at the exact same angles as a full-fledged Billings anomaly. It is extremely probable that whatever caused the weak anomaly is also causing the severe anomalies--yet he considers the weak anomalies to be "not anomalies" and not important. This is a major error in his investigative criteria and really calls into question the value of his 2.3GB of data.

I will not make the same error. NAADP will monitor all anomalies big and small. Over a few months we'll accumulate a huge amount of data about all types of anomalies and will then be able to determine whether mojoman is right about the weak anomalies being insignificant or whether they are just weaker versions of what mojoman seems to care about. I don't suggest I can show that in 2 weeks, but after leaving NAADP running for, say, 3-6 months I'm sure we'll have plenty of data to draw a valid conclusion. Since NAADP saves the images but also records data about the anomaly in a database it will be possible to quickly determine trends and charactertistics over time. This will validate (or reject) mojo's assertion, for example, that Billings spokes more in one direction in the winter and more in the other direction during the summer.

quote:

---

The anomalies of any relavance in which Lex studied is Billings and North Platte. Of which, I would have told him from the get go that those were the only 2 that were busy at the time he took off on his study. However, the anomalies are not just subject to one or 2 radars, these radars can work in unison. Which is why the Billings/North Platte sparks were a vital ingredient in proving there was an electrical grid.

---

As already mentioned in this thread and on my site, Billings and North Platte are spoking in unison at a frequency that is completely consistent with two completely random events.

If you toss two coins again and again you will expect them to both come up heads at the same time once every 4 attempts. If you watch the coin tosses and see two heads once every four attempts it is then foolish to say, "Look, something is going on! They keep coming up heads in unison." Of course they do. Statistics demand that they do. It'd be suspicious if they didn't!

In the case of Billings and North Platte, they were spoking at the same time at a frequency that, like the coin tosses above, was completely anticipated and expected by statistics. There was nothing suspicious about it.

quote:

---

Now I have proof that this radar has been doing this for 3 years now. So the operators answer is a bit suspect. This is the only radar, other than North Platte, to do this strange sparks.

---

You're wrong. Quite a few others do, too. The spokes just aren't as pronounced so you probably aren't seeing them on WeatherTap's national radar. Now you've said that the faint ones aren't important but the only reason I see for not caring about them is the fact that you can't see them on WeatherTap's national radar. It seems that the criteria you use for determining whether an anomaly is important is simply whether or not it is visible on WeatherTap's national radar. That is a very arbitrary and foolish definition.

quote:

---

I have an animation showing the 2 sparking back and forth 4 times in a short few hours. So if there is no connection between the 2, and their is no grid, why is it they spark so often together?

---

Statistically, that will happen eventually. Just like, eventually, you will succeed at tossing a coin and getting heads 10 times in a row. It won't happen every day, but it will happen.

quote:

---

As for the "blast" that show up primarily on my site, Lex once again accepted the standard answer.

---

You have provided absolutely no evidence to convince a rational person to believe otherwise.

quote:

---

I told Lex that those blast came from only 10% of all radars over 3 years. Many were condensed to the 2002 olympics. Which bears the question of why only these 10%? If these are test patterns, why do these not show up on the other 90% in 3 years?

---

I've already explained this. Asking the question again does not change the answer. But I'll happily repeat myself.

When a radar is calibrated, the radar operator is supposed to take the radar offline. When they do this you will see a "No Radar Image Available" graphic on the NOAA site. At WeatherTap you will see the "Radar Status" in red showing that the radar is down. If they don't take the radar offline then you can and will see the "blasts." Why did the blasts only occur at 10% of the radars? Most likely because 90% of the radar operators conducted their maintenance properly by taking the radars offline.

Just the other day mojoman announced: "5 California radars are currently unavailable". Had these operators not taken their radars offline then mojoman would have seen blasts rather than "offline" messages. It's that simple.

quote:

---

I preceded to tell Lex he needed to study the way in which radars are calibrated and also HE NEEDS TO PROVE THAT THESE BLAST ARE NOT ACTUALLY AFFECTING THE AIR. He has to prove that these blast are simple little glitches that are just eye candy for you and I. Most of the blast i caught went off for many hours and I did prove these 2 sample to show that the blast may be causing lows or highs.

---

You have yet to provide proof that a "blast" caused a high or a low. Simply seeing a blast and seeing a high or low on a weather map is not proof. It's a correlation. That does not constitute proof in any sense of the word. Now, if you have proof I think we'd all be very interested in seeing it.

quote:

---

Letxa2000: And again I stress that it's not my responsibility to prove that the "blasts" don't affect the air.

Mojoman: Well then, your proof has holes in it now doesn't it?

---

Not at all. Suppose I say that I was attacked by green monsters last night. You then say that I am wrong and provide a lot of evidence that green monsters don't exist. Then I tell you, "Yeah, well you have to prove that I didn't get attacked by green monsters and the world should assume I'm right until you prove that I'm wrong." It doesn't work that way. I'd be making an outlandish claim that everyone should assume is false until it is proven to be true. You haven't proven your claims to be true so asking everyone to believe you until I prove that you are wrong is like me expecting the world to believe I was attacked by green monsters until you prove I wasn't. That's silly.

That said, I brought up the possibility of sending someone to Billings and conducting electrical measurements over time. You responded that it was a disinformant tactic. How do you even expect me to prove you wrong if the ultimate proof (electrical evidence or lack of electrical evidence) that I could conceiveably provide you've prejudged and discarded? Basically, you condemn for not disproving your claim and prejudge and reject the only absolute proof I (or anyone) could provide. How convenient.

quote:

---

How many of you think this radar at Dyess AFB, Located in the middle of the most volitile air in America, actually acted as a spark here? This radar produced storms from it's center out for well over 12 hours. I only have 4-6 hours documented. This is proof that radar energy can affect the weather. This proof doesn't lie.

---

posted 03-08-2004 06:11 PM            

Letxa: Are you trying to tell us that YOU can write a radar program in your new found field that is WORTHY of everyone’s attention, but someone such as Thomas E. Bearden is not capable of producing something worthy in his field? Do you think that because Bearden is researching free energy and the health effects of electromagnetic energy that he’s a quack? Unbelievable! You should be thanking him!

Here are Thomas E. Bearden’s credentials.

- Lieutenant Colonel U.S. Army (Retired).
- President and Chief Executive Officer, CTEC, Inc.
- MS Nuclear Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.
- BS Mathematics, Northeast Louisiana University.
- Graduate of Command & General Staff College, U.S. Army.
- Graduate of Guided Missile Staff Officer's Course, U.S. Army (equivalent to MS in Aerospace Engineering).
- Numerous electronic warfare and counter-countermeasures courses.

What are YOUR credentials?

Whacky patents are issued world-wide! Just perform a search on “whacky patents” to get a sampling. This DOES NOT in any way belittle the patent process nor does it belittle the importance of acquiring a patent on any NEW invention/discovery. A utility patent can be filed on any new and useful PROCESS, MACHINE, ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE, or COMPOSITION OF MATTERS, or improvements thereof. In order for a patent application to grant, an invention must be proven to be (1) novel and (2) non-obvious. Novelty requires that you be the first to invent the subject matter that you want to patent. Nonobviousness requires that the invention not be "obvious" to a person having ordinary skill in the particular field in which the invention lies. OMG! Does this sound like it is easy to obtain a patent? Go to work with me ONE DAY, and I’ll show you how easy it is!

I asked my anti-gravitics friend to comment re: your Bearden statements since free energy is his field of invention. Here is his reply (including the links at the end):

Letxa: I wholeheartedly agree with you. Bearden is proposing theories that are not based in the closed mind-set of conventional science and thus are rejected categorically by the scientific community. How many books, patent applications, and/or working prototypes does it take to convince skeptical detractors, such as yourself, that conventional science does not hold all the answers?

The Wright Brothers were called hoaxters too. Major university professors of their time claimed that heavier than air flight was utterly impossible (despite the fact that bird and insect flight is heavier than air). Nonetheless, they invented the modern airplane.

If you have ever conceived of an innovation and tried to patent it, then you know first hand what inventive people go through to get their ideas across to other people that have no idea of what the inventor is even talking about, until they see the device in action or build one for themselves. This holds true for every single inventor and his/her invention since the patent office first opened.

Famous Quotes:

Don't go where the path leads. Rather go where there is no path and leave a trail - Ralph Waldo Emerson.

There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old system and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new one - Machiavelli.

We are but cogwheels in the medium of the universe, and it is...an unavoidable consequence of the laws governing that the pioneer who is far in advance of his age is not understood and must suffer pain and disappointment and be content with the higher reward which is accorded to him by posterity - Nikola Tesla.

This page contains famous quotes from people that made bold statements about what was impossible: http://www.ucsofa.com/famousquotes.htm

posted 03-08-2004 07:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
I am backtracking a little to the misguided and uninformed BEARDEN and PATENT comments. I am tired of listening to the belittling of progressive movers and thinkers.

---

posted 03-09-2004 08:21 AM               

quote:

---

As I've said before, I wasn't studying you. I was studying a theory I saw published on the Internet. There is no requirement that you be notified when your theory is being investigated. In fact, a neutral investigation is best served by being as free of preconceived notions as possible so that the conclusions may be based on the observations and not on preconceptions of what we're "supposed" to see.

---

posted 03-09-2004 08:31 AM               

quote:

---

Apparently you haven't read my posts. The only studies I have done (Reno, Billings, and North Platte) were all done manually by looking at each of thousands of images. My NAADP program is still experimental. It hasn't been the basis for any study thusfar.

---

Are you mental? Read your first post, you studied many that were not active at the time. Showing once again that your study started off misguided. The only way you knew where to focus your attention?

Class? Anyone?

ME and my little words. Which gets me back to why you should have contacted me first. You went and made a lot of assumptions from the get go. A basic blunder on your part. In fact I told you in my first posting that the anomalies are not part of weather control. The anomalies that I show on my site mostly happened in a year and a half span. I believe they were an experiment. You can think what you want. I stem a lot of my views from the 2002 olympics because of the vast amount of blast in a condensed time as well the DOE experiments in Salt Lake.......Not to mention my own viewing of controlled weather on the opening day.

RADARS CAN HOLD WEATHER PATTERNS, CREATE PIVOT POINTS FOR THE JETSTREAM AND SOME CAN HOLD LOWS!

posted 03-09-2004 08:35 AM               

quote:

---

As I said, my investigation was limited to radar anomalies. You have not demonstrated that they are anything but radar anomalies. Discussions of chemtrails, bigfoot, Bill Clinton, or anything else as they relate to radar anomalies is completely premature until you've proven that radar anomalies are something suspicious. You simply haven't done that. As soon as you do then I'll be happy to talk about chemtrails or whatever else you think goes along with the anomalies.

---

posted 03-09-2004 08:42 AM               

quote:

---

There is no logic in what you just said. You can't just monitor sites that are active. You need to monitor sites that aren't active to use as a "control" or a standard. I also monitored neighboring sites so that if an anomaly was present at one site and if it had been real, one would expect to see that anomaly on neighboring sites. That was never the case which lends further support to the conclusion that these are site-specific problems rather than real phenomena in the atmosphere. After all, how does this electricity get from Billings to North Platte without being seen by Cheyenne, Denver, Glasgow, or especially Rapid City SD which is almost right between them?

---

Are you mental? Again?
Most of those I posted on my site came from a distinct period and time. You assumed it was on going and you cannot deny that. It was misguided. Once again, you would have never have known which to study without me even bringing some forward. Which is why I was respectfully tried to get you to a nation map that you could monitor. Which was a basic logic that you fought tooth and nail. You still haven't shown any clues as to catching real time anomalies. Of which, most are zonal and not independent. I mean you tell me what your current read of what the radars are up to over night. I watch every day and every night for 3 years.....why are the western half radars flaring up so hard for? It is not normal!

If you think they are all just happy little screen fuzz then why are you having such a hard time just saying that flat out and letting your web page stand. Declare your theory victorious and move on.

posted 03-09-2004 08:50 AM               

quote:

---

That was true when I started investigating and, yes, at the beginning I used option (C). I hadn't developed NAADP at that point and just investigated what you said was important. I found that what you said was important wasn't important and NAADP is currently expanding to monitor more and more sites automatically. That is without looking at a national map, without asking you when to look, and without any consideration as to what your site says. It's called progress. I started my investigation based on your claims and now the investigation is expanding regardless of what sites you say are (or aren't) important.

---

I'm sorry man but I just see your NAADPTGIF as a joke. Just as I see your approach as misguided I see your so called "scientific" screen printer macro as misguided. Maybe in the right hands it could be a useful tool but man, I'm no super wiz kid but I could write a macro to convert all my 2.3 gigs of animations into single frames in no time flat. But there is no need because the animations are exactly that...a series of stills.

I prefer to see energy in motion and you wanna stay static. You may be some kind of idiot savant but you're still in the stone ages with your logic. Tesla would smack you upside your head going into a study on radar, electricty and energy based off of static screen print.

Heck it only took us 10 whole pages on this forum to get you on weathertap.

posted 03-09-2004 08:54 AM               

Lex:
Did you just skip my last post? I subscribed to WeatherTap and confirmed that there is nothing there that I can't get for free and without traffic restrictions from the NOAA.

See this is what I mean. You just showed the ability to completely over look reality. I firmly made the point about SENDING you my data. Which any self respecting investigator on my site would want, and you completely act like I never made that point or suggested it to you. Instead, you jump on your NOAA weathertap cloud which is a losing arguement.

posted 03-09-2004 08:58 AM               

quote:

---

I don't need 20MB of animations in my email. Post them somewhere on the Internet where everyone, including me, can access them at our leisure. Or simply explain how a radar can control the weather. You don't need gigabytes of animations to do that just like you don't need gigabytes of animation to explain nuclear physics. Just explain it.

---

Now that is a bit of over-stating and stretching of reality. I was not going to send 20 mb all at once. An animation here and an animation there...Oh my! Are you scared of my MBs? I mean your killing MB by the hour with your little screen printer.

Lex:
"Or simply explain how a radar can control the weather"

OH, SO NOW YOU WANNA OPEN THE DEBATE UP PAST ANOMALIES, WELL MAKE UP YOUR LITTLE MIND THERE LEX.

posted 03-09-2004 09:00 AM               

quote:

---

Any particular reason you can't get a decent hosting provider? There are many out there and they are cheap. Your suggestion that you don't have server room is just nonsense. If you don't have it, go get it. Don't use it as an excuse for not making your case.

---

I do web design my friend and my space is taken up. And then again, it is just you and your ego that needs to be filled here, not my server.

posted 03-09-2004 09:08 AM               

quote:

---

1. I don't use the national animation anywhere. So what you can or can't do with the national animation is unimportant.

---

I guess you'll just have to continue waiting on my words to tell you which radar is up to something. And then again I have repeatidly stated that most are regional or zonal. So good luck with all that. Energy is in motion!

quote:

---

2. You can download individual images from the NWS and build your own animations that span minutes, hours, or days. With WeatherTap you are limited to the animations they provide which are about 2 hours for individual NEXRAD sites and about 4-5 hours for the national animation. I find that a much larger limitation.

---

Loser!!!!! I can save exactly 3 animations in one day that will encompass the whole day and then just disect it in 2 seconds into individual frames.

You exaggerate everything and once again show no logic. You might as well be living out in the barn.

quote:

---

3. I'm sure that Mojoman is wasting more time monitoring WeatherTap's national radar than I am since my server is spending time downloading imagery from NEXRAD sites, not me.

---

posted 03-09-2004 09:15 AM               

quote:

---

There is no evidence of this whatsoever. Mojoman first said that WeatherTap's information was somehow different or novel than what is available for free. It seems that he has accepted the fact that that's not true. But now he is suggesting that just because it goes through different computers, websites, or providers that WeatherTap is somehow capable of "rendering" it at a higher resolution. That's silly. They both use use 16 levels of radar reflectivity. The side by side comparison I provided of the North Platte anomaly at both NOAA and WeatherTap shows that the two are basically the same and, if anything, NOAA is more precise than WeatherTap.

In short, mojoman once again provides absolutely no evidence to support a claim. There is no evidence that there is any benefit whatsoever in using WeatherTap. It seems that he is just used to using it and doesn't want to change. Which is fine--but he shouldn't suggest something as absurd as WeatherTap is somehow doing magic with NOAA imagery and making it better. It's the same data and you're not going to get anything at WeatherTap that NOAA didn't give WeatherTap and the public already.

---

I did prove this. The NOAA's own site says that their national map is low resolution. If you wanna argue about the stills be my guest. Obviously they are more clearer than the NWS national because it is closer.

You see you act like you never understood my point about you needing to watch the whole US and not just wait for me to hold your hand.
Your whole arguement is based on static images. How the hell do you study energy from a static image.

posted 03-09-2004 09:22 AM               

quote:

---

See above. That was true when I started. But NAADP operates completely independent of you. I'm slowly turning on all NEXRAD sites. I'm currently at 20+ and this will continue to grow as I become more and more confident in the program. If you are familiar with computers you will be familiar with the concept of a phased implementation. I'm not going to turn on all 140 at once but rather slowly build up to it. Granted, if I see you mention an interesting site I'll probably turn that radar on under NAADP sooner rather than later.

---

Wow, imagine all that data of static energy only to be deciphered by your mind. After all your misguided approaches and over exaggerations.

All this for little ole me?

Lex, whether you accept this or not, I do what I do as a government watchdog. With all the experiments and energy being introduced into the air, I felt the need to monitor what is going on.

At some point I was planning on taking my site down just for my own peace and to get on with my life. However, if I do Lex....I am going to put the blame squarely on you! I will make you the legend you've always wanted to be in your little debunking crowd! If at some point my site is down I will put a nice little front page explaining that it was all your fault. Then, you just better pray that nothing bad goes down!

posted 03-09-2004 09:28 AM               

quote:

---

As I showed earlier in this thread there was a faint anomaly at Billings which mojoman said was not an anomaly but rather just interference (he is right, of course, it's all just interference of some sort). But the interesting this is that that anomaly occurred at the exact same angles as a full-fledged Billings anomaly. It is extremely probable that whatever caused the weak anomaly is also causing the severe anomalies--yet he considers the weak anomalies to be "not anomalies" and not important. This is a major error in his investigative criteria and really calls into question the value of his 2.3GB of data.

---

What you did was a very under handed tactic. Which is put a static image in front of my face without the animation. Which no one would be able to tell. Yes, you caught the beginning, or ending, of a Billing's spark.

Maybe in another 3 years they will get that fixed=)

posted 03-09-2004 09:31 AM               

quote:

---

As already mentioned in this thread and on my site, Billings and North Platte are spoking in unison at a frequency that is completely consistent with two completely random events.

If you toss two coins again and again you will expect them to both come up heads at the same time once every 4 attempts. If you watch the coin tosses and see two heads once every four attempts it is then foolish to say, "Look, something is going on! They keep coming up heads in unison." Of course they do. Statistics demand that they do. It'd be suspicious if they didn't!

In the case of Billings and North Platte, they were spoking at the same time at a frequency that, like the coin tosses above, was completely anticipated and expected by statistics. There was nothing suspicious about it.

---

That is quite possible the most foolish thing you have said to date. Only 2 radars in the US produce these sparks, which incidentally spark southward in the winter, and go off at an AMAZING amount of time together.

WOW, talk about pulling something out of your ass!

posted 03-09-2004 09:37 AM               

quote:

---

You have provided absolutely no evidence to convince a rational person to believe otherwise.

---

Neither have you. You've shown many times over, from the way your study was misguided to just now getting on weathertap to watching energy in a single-static form that you have no rational.

No person who goes off behind someones back and does a misguided 2 week conclusion filled study and then goes off and creates a "program" *wink* and compiles gigabytes of static images on a theory he does not believe can be defined as rational.

posted 03-09-2004 09:40 AM               

quote:

---

I've already explained this. Asking the question again does not change the answer. But I'll happily repeat myself.

---

Just because YOU, Mr. Mighty Lex, explained it, does not make it fact.

EGO EGO EGO EGO. Me pound chest...make bold statement....all should listen to me and my words. Not to be questioned!

posted 03-09-2004 09:42 AM               

quote:

---

Just the other day mojoman announced: "5 California radars are currently unavailable". Had these operators not taken their radars offline then mojoman would have seen blasts rather than "offline" messages. It's that simple.

---

man, your pulling so much crap out of your ass right now it is laughable. You just made that outa thin air.

posted 03-09-2004 09:46 AM               

quote:

---

You have yet to provide proof that a "blast" caused a high or a low. Simply seeing a blast and seeing a high or low on a weather map is not proof. It's a correlation. That does not constitute proof in any sense of the word. Now, if you have proof I think we'd all be very interested in seeing it.

---

posted 03-09-2004 09:54 AM               

quote:

---

Not at all. Suppose I say that I was attacked by green monsters last night. You then say that I am wrong and provide a lot of evidence that green monsters don't exist. Then I tell you, "Yeah, well you have to prove that I didn't get attacked by green monsters and the world should assume I'm right until you prove that I'm wrong." It doesn't work that way. I'd be making an outlandish claim that everyone should assume is false until it is proven to be true. You haven't proven your claims to be true so asking everyone to believe you until I prove that you are wrong is like me expecting the world to believe I was attacked by green monsters until you prove I wasn't. That's silly.

That said, I brought up the possibility of sending someone to Billings and conducting electrical measurements over time. You responded that it was a disinformant tactic. How do you even expect me to prove you wrong if the ultimate proof (electrical evidence or lack of electrical evidence) that I could conceiveably provide you've prejudged and discarded? Basically, you condemn for not disproving your claim and prejudge and reject the only absolute proof I (or anyone) could provide. How convenient.

---

You never mentioned which radar and I defy you to show me where you said a specific one. Another of your huge exaggerations. And I do believe I told YOU to do it. Remember? huh? Was that a idea shot down by me? Noooooo. I would like to go test at Billings. How it is you have all this time and "people" resources to send to Billings on a theory you don't believe is also VERY suspicious. I know your true colors.

Sorry but I still don't follow "green monster" analogies. Better luck next time.

Did you just call me a disinformant......WOW.

Shovel Please!

You can waste all the time and resources you want Lex. If you had gained my respect I would welcome all you could do to prove me wrong. but your misguided, out of touch with your process, you're a hypocrite, and EGO maniac, devoid of logic and common sense....and to be honest...we really are not even discussing my web site or my theory.

posted 03-09-2004 09:55 AM               

quote:

---

Heheh, you still haven't explained to us why you think it was the radar rather than the volatile air that caused the storms.

---

Um, maybe because the energy started from the center out and not AROUND THE RADAR.

moron!

WOW!