Flat Earth Rabbit Hole-Thanks Eddie

Michael, if you look at that footage I posted of the lunar lander "blasting off" and you don't think that's fake as fuck, then you believe what you want to believe rather than what should be obvious to the naked eye.

I'm def no scientist but everything just seemed to convenient. The cold war and the space race... it's like America needed hope and a hero. Why not fake it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Steinmetz

It takes a brave individual to live in Oklahoma with all those tornadoes jumping around..

---

Chances of getting hurt in a tornado here are one in several hundred thousand. You are MUCH more likely to die driving to work. But the media tries to scare you, so you have to learn to avoid that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NelsonLucca

Only the USA has "put" men on the moon. No other country has or claims to have put people on the moon... interesting.

---

What is interesting about that to you? To me, the intersting part is that other nations could observe and prove if we didnt go to the moon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig Murray

I have degrees in Computer Science, Mathematics, and Geology. Wikipedia is extremely conservative. And journals do not cost much money; when you are an engineering professional you can afford that kind of thing. It's also common to have access to them when you are a student. It's also common for corporations to subscribe to journals and grant access to their employees. Also many journals will give you the abstracts for free and allow you to purchase papers on a per-paper basis. This way you do not have to have full subscriptions to every journal. You can subscribe to the primary ones and then supplement with articles from other journals on a per-subject basis. Finally while my degress are limited to to Geo, CS, and Math, I have spent considerable time studying other sciences. In fact I was considering a degree in Geophysics instead of Geology. I have studied Chemistry as well since it plays a large role in understanding geology. At my school a significant number of chem classes are required for a degree in geology.

---

Wikipedia is extremely liberal. I also have a degree in the sciences and am one semester away from finishing my second degree. I do have access to journals, I was asking how you access them. I have taken geology and three chemistry courses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig Murray

"The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically discredited and are obsolete"

That's incorrect for a number of reasons, but it's nice to see you've at least taken enough initiative to read a wikipedia page. Now keep digging. The truth is there but it does not yield it's bounty easily.

---

It is easy enough to claim that something is incorrect, harder to demonstrate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig Murray

A couple more clues to help in your travels:
1. It's common for oil companies to return to wells that have been completely drained to find significant amounts of petroleum in them. Sometimes they can return multiple times to retrieve more.

---

I suppose we can have different ideas about what “common” and “significant” mean. It absolutely does not mean that more petroleum was abotically produced, and you know this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig Murray

2. Many oil companies are now drilling wells far deeper than any organic depositional material is found. Petroleum is often found as an inclusion in granitic deposits far below the level of organic deposition.

---

Can you give an example? I know that there are some rare strata that have migrated upward or downward. It seem you are defining where organic deposits are found, according to the notion that they cannot migrate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig Murray

3. There are many prominent figures in the field of Geology that have abiotic theories, despite what wikipedia tells you. If you search for them and read their work, it will help you understand both sides of the debate.

---

That does not seem to be the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig Murray

Let me try to be as simple and clear as I can about how it works: All that is required is produce petroleum is calcium carbonate, carbon, and pressure. All 3 of those things are available in abundance in the magma of the Earth. Interestingly once you've studied the subject enough, the idea that petroleum is NOT a mantle product is pretty absurd. It's the calcium carbonate that was what lead geologists astray in the first place. A great deal of it is produced on the surface of the Earth as the result of life. However we have since learned that it is a Mantle product and that is not at all controversial science. To prove the potential Russian scientists have created petroleum using nothing but those things I mentioned. While wikipedia may overlook that kind of work, it is not lost on most open-minded professional geologists working in the oil and gas industry, I can assure you.

---

You have oversimplified the issue to the point of dishonesty. You can assure me but the fact is that oil companies operate under the idea that petroleum is biologically produced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig Murray

In fact NASA itself will confirm abotic methane. Read about Saturn's moon called Titan. NASA will tell you it has oceans of liquid methane. Yet according to a biotic-only production of hydrocarbons that is impossible, unless there was massive amounts of life on Titan. So where did all that methane come from? I'll tell you, it came from the abotic production of hydrocarbons.

---

Are we talking about the process that produce the overwhelming majority of petroleum hydrocarbons in earths mantel, on thermodynamic grounds, or are we talking about methane on other planets. You must know the differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig Murray

Finally for a glimpse into the history of the subject, start here:

http://principia-scientific.org/russ...k-co2-science/

---

I do appreciate you bringing this hilarious website to my attention.

Finally for a glimpse into the history of the subject, start here:

http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf

Here is an NPR discussion of the subject. Must be a pretty fringe theory to get airtime on NPR.

http://web.archive.org/web/201110251...Kenney-NPR.mp3

Interesting the guest is a guy who owns a company in the US that tells oil companies where to drill. So much for your theory about how US oil companies work.

There's no reason for you to make that incorrect assumtion. I read abstracts on both sides but it is difficult to find anything current supporting your view. You seem to be the one claiming to know everything on the topic. I dont have a point to make here, Im simply offering an opportunity for you to support your assertion.

I dont claim to know the answer to this definitively, as you do. Skepticism should be applied to both sides of any issue. I think this paper is interesting and Im digesting it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full

Enjoy your red pill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Steinmetz

Have you ever actually launched any rockets? Many of them take-off like a bat out of hell

---

Cause they are so light they reach max V almost immediately. If you use slowmotion camera you'll see the velocity curve. When you compare that to the lunar lander it's not the same. It's obviously being lifted by a crane or hoist of some kind. A real launch would not read max V instantly as the lander in the footage does....

As far as the "proof" being "verified", no credible scientific institution would even try to verify it. That would be a very expensive way to end your career. It is simply assumed to be true, go on with business as usual. Your comments make it sound you like expect a bunch of professional engineers and scientists to risk their career to prove something that makes no difference one way or another. That tax money was for ICBM technology and satellite technology, who cares if they lied to get the American people to accept the taxes to produce it.... who cares.

This is in contrast to A&E for 911 truth... THAT is considered to be a very serious piece of information and that's why scientists and engineers would come out about it. They killed 3000+ people and started multiple wars that are still ongoing 15 years late. That's not the same as raising taxes to produce a satellite program.


"Id be surprised how approachable many of the world's leading scientists are" ... you realize that answering my questions about a government conspiracy to lie to the American public (and congress) about a fake moon landing program would be the same as talking about it publicly right? Why would they discuss that with me in an email? Why would they discuss that with me at all? They wouldn't, obviously.

There are 100,000 things that show me it's fake. It's obvious.