> 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.
- 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.
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.