Flat Earth Rabbit Hole-Thanks Eddie

[Craig Murray]

Now once you've gotten your feet wet and you are ready for some level 2 material. Go to Google Scholar and search for abiotic petroleum. Like this:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...%2C37&as_sdtp=

Once you do that you can start to find articles like this one:

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

It's abstract says:
"The high-pressure genesis of petroleum hydrocarbons has been demonstrated using only the reagents solid iron oxide, FeO, and marble, CaCO3, 99.9% pure and wet with triple-distilled water."

Notice no dinosaurs were injured in the production of that petroleum.

Now does that prove what I originally said which was something like "most if not all petroleum is abiotic"? No of course not. But it's the next step. You've already learned a great deal about the subject. And now you should continue digging more. More scholarly abstracts, and then search for refutations also published in the journals to the original article.

What's really crazy about this particular subject is that despite it being a "conspiracy theory" it's actually a very active and serious debate in the scientific community. You're going to find articles aplenty on both sides of the debate.

I've read a lot of this stuff, hundreds of hours on this specific subject. I have my opinions about it. And after I learned a ton about the science of it, I sat back and thought "if this is true, would the oil companies try to hide it"? Or less conspiratorial "If this was true, would it harm the profits of oil companies"? The answer to that is an obvious yes, which in my opinion is the reason there is any debate at all over the subject. To me the science is very clear, abotic petroleum.

Enjoy your red pill!

[vdesire]

Here's what conservapedia had to say about it, seems balanced and fair.......

Petroleum is believed by most to be formed only from the remains of buried plant or animal material. Abiotic oil however might be formed from the reaction of carbonates with iron oxide and water in the region called the mantle, deep in the Earth where there is a great amount of heat and pressure. Furthermore, the mantle is such a huge reservoir that the amount of reactants consumed in the reaction hasn't depleted it since the formation of the oil. In short, according to this idea petroleum is not a fossil fuel and has no intrinsic connection with plant or animal remains.[1] Recent finds of liquid hydrocarbons on the moon Titan support the abiotic oil theory, beacuse the oil there was not made from organic material.[2][3] Also, finds in the Atlantic Ocean show that oil is abiotic in nature.[4]

There are two theories of abiotic oil:

- The "weak" abiotic oil theory: oil is abiotically formed, but at rates not higher than those that petroleum geologists assume for oil formation according to the conventional theory.

- The "strong" abiotic theory: oil is formed at a speed sufficient to replace the oil reservoirs as we deplete them, that is, at a rate something like 10,000 times faster than theorized in petroleum geology.

As optimistic as the idea of abiotic oil seems, the reality is that abiotic oil is widely considered to be scientifically unsupported in the West, although the Russian-Ukrainian theory claims to have successfully found many abiotic wells (as evidenced by Russian oil production), and refutes the biotic theory of oil completely.[5] [6]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Abiotic_oil

[Craig Murray]

As far as the moon landings being fake, pretty easy to see if you study some mechanical engineering, physics, and then start looking at rocketry and propulsion. What you'll discover is that the fuel to payload ratios in rockets that need to get to a stable orbit are enormous. A Saturn Rocket is almost completely fuel. Then start to look at what's involved to launch from the moon. Then look at what NASA says about what they did and how they did it. You'll find it doesn't even come close to making sense. The logistics of launching a spacecraft off of the moon, obtaining the more than 800 meters per seconds required for escape velocity, in the years we allegedly did it repeatedly without a single failure, is ridiculous.

At the time we had BARELY managed to get things into Earth's orbit after hundreds of tests where rockets blew up on the launchpad. The rockets were still blowing up on the launchpads when they were strapping humans to them. Thats ON EARTH where they have technicians crawling over every single inch of the rocket with thousands of man-hours of physically preparing the rocket and launch pad and launch infrastructure. You're going to do that on the moon? It's ludicrous.

Launching a rocket off the moon is soooooo much harder to do. It's just silly when you think about it from the actual mechanical and logistical side. The idea that we could do that is laughable. And the only thing more unbelievable is the actual footage itself.

I posted a video of the lunar module blasting off. Notice it's velocity is constant... but according to the physics you are studying a rocket doesnt work that way. V=M*A, remember? The engine's thrust causes A, not V. So like every single rocket ever launched on planet Earth, velocity starts very low and the slowly gets faster. (Study calculus to have a better understanding of how the velocity equation works, it's actually a derivative!). That footage shows an obvious constant velocity from the second those little firecrackers go off and it "blasts off". Now go watch a youtuve video of a Saturn rocket blasting off.

What i find most fascinating is how hard it is for most people to see what to me seems as obvious the noses on their faces. It's like one of those optical illusions that you have to look at the right way to see. If you dont see, it you just dont see it. And once you see it, you can't understand why other people can't see it.

[Craig Murray]

Here's what conservapedia had to say about it, seems balanced and fair.......

How can you tell it's fair and balanced if you have not studied the source material? You can't you are just taking their word for it.

It's not even close to fair and balanced. Just spend some time on google scholar and see for yourself what the scientific community thinks.

It's established science that petroleum can be produced abotically, that has been done MANY times by different teams. Again NASA itself admits it happened on Titan. The question is not CAN it happen. ALL of geology knows it can happen. The question that is being debated in the literature is HOW MUCH of the Earth's petroleum is abotic and how much is not.

The idea that there is debate that it is possible is patently absurd to anyone who understands the science. Wikipedia makes it sound like it's fringe science to even think it possible. That's just straight up untrue and easily identifiable if you read the literature.

So if your goal is to defend the American media's status quo on petroleum production you should argue with me on what the isotope tests show.

If someone wants to argue with me start with an article like this one. Study this, and then read the articles that use various techniques to test the carbon isotopes. This is your best bet for telling me I'm wrong and sounding like you have a clue what you're talking about.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...12821X06000641

The truth is in the journals, it's not in wikipedia. Wikipedia (or whatever conservapedia is) is a good judge of what mainstream culture says. You are not supposed to stop there. You take taht for what it's worth and you start learning more.

The more time you spend in google scholar the more you will understand why i believe what i believe. Eventually it'll become obvious. You just have to put in the time.

[Craig Murray]

one REALLY good way to identify when a conspiracy theory is almost certainly true, it's when what you read in the scientific journals DOES NOT MATCH what's in wikipedia. That's sure fire spin bullshit right there.

Guess what another subject is where the medical journals are COMPLETELY OUT OF SYNC with what's in the media and on wikipedia.... vaccinations.

enjoy your red pill

[vdesire]

Wow calm down, all I meant was it appears to be showing both sides of the argument without rubbishing one completely. I've no dog in this race as I don't really care one way or the other. I thought it was interesting but I didn't realise I was dealing with psychics who know if what I have studied and what I haven't so no point posting as they no doubt already now what I was going to say.

[NelsonLucca]

What software are you using to determine if an image is fake? Why do you think the moon landing were fake? That would mean that the USSR and many other governments a well as independent groups were all in on the hoax.

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

[NelsonLucca]

Gravity
https://youtu.be/NblR01hHK6U

[NelsonLucca]

Flat earth in a curved spacetime???

[NelsonLucca]

Moon landing was def fake. Too many factors but the fact no other country has landed there just doesn't sit well. Not to mention multiple light sources and shadows in different directions.