The fact that someone has filed a patent doesn't mean that they have a workable idea, only that they can formulate and illustrate said idea and that it doesn't overlap with something that already exists.
The fact that someone has filed a patent doesn't mean that they have a workable idea, only that they can formulate and illustrate said idea and that it doesn't overlap with something that already exists.
Totally agree, a patent by itself doesn't prove something was built or used, just that the idea could be described and cleared prior art.
But are you saying none of those patents are even indirectly related to publicly documented programs like:
We know these tests only became public decades later through hearings and declassification. Given that history, it seems fair to ask how much related research or enabling tech might still be classified. Lack of a clear public link doesn't really prove there wasn't one - it may just mean it hasn't been disclosed yet.All I'm saying is that pointing to patents as evidence isn't convincing in and of itself. Now you've brought up specific programs, which are at the very least evidence of their own existence. I think the hurdle is still massive to accept there is any kind of global-scale geoengeneering project afoot.