Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Michael Ruppert 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Michael Ruppert
As promised, I will now render my analysis of Collapse, point by point.



(5:30) Peak oil rears its head for the first time. The next ten minutes are spent scaremongering about the scarcity of oil. Ruppert argues that Iraqi oil is the real reason for attacking Iraq (e.g. to steal its oil), and he is partially correct. But that's a limited hangout argument, to be sure, like "blowback" is a limited hangout argument to explain the 9/11/2001 attacks. He also argues that Saudi Arabia had already exhausted its profitable reserves (nonprofitable offshore reserves notwithstanding). Not one mention of electrostatic discharge or Tesla energy. At 13:40, he scaremongers about global warming, another manufactured scam intended to garner tax revenue via the carbon tax.

Reality check: http://phys.org/news/2011-01-oil-giant- ... ative.html
Saudi Arabia has 80 years of current production levels still in its profitable reserves. Nowhere near peak oil fearmongering scenarios.

(15:00) The energy crisis of the 70's (which was a manufactured geopolitical crisis) is discussed to further the fearmongering. Again, Tesla is nowhere to be found in this contrived presentation, not even for the simple purpose of dismissing Tesla (assuming that was possible). Surely, if we are facing a genuine peak oil threat, we would be looking at electrostatic discharge energy with more interest than Ruppert is showing here? For the next little while Ruppert discusses every form of energy: ethanol, Canadian tar sands, hydrogen, electrodynamic energy (electricity), clean coal, nuclear, tidal (water) ... and two energy sources with immediate benefit (according to Ruppert): solar, wind. Anything and everything is discussed except the one energy source that actual holds promise for humanity: Tesla energy (e.g. the energy in the ether around us). Mother Nature gives us a free glimpse of this free energy with each lightning bolt and with each experience of an electrostatic shock. Yet Ruppert completely avoids the topic??

The case against Ruppert could end here with a conviction of willful ignorance, or of willful mendacity, and perhaps a bit of both ... but let's get on with the rest of the video.

(29:00) Ruppert's deception wrt CIA and drugs. In November 1996, confrontation with CIA head Deutsch, three months after Gary Webb exposed the same in a series of articles in the San Jose Mercury News (in August of 1996). Ruppert takes credit for the exposition. More likely, Ruppert read Webb's articles in the newspaper and and was briefed by handlers in a psychological operation to take charge of the wild horse and bring it into the stable. Webb was murdered for his authentic reporting. Ruppert was manouevred into position for propaganda purposes. Nothing actually became of the story after Webb was murdered.

(32:20) Ruppert takes credit for exposing the Pat Tillman story. Yet nowhere is Ruppert mentioned in any of the timeline about the Tillman story. Has Ruppert lied so much and distorted so much (in the duty of the Zionist agenda) that he actually believes he is responsible for exposing the Pat Tillman killing and coverup?
http://tillmanstory.com/site/timeline/

(34:00) Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld being singled out when they are both low men on the Zionist agenda totem pole. Can anyone say redirect?

(37:00) Gets into discussion of fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, compound interest ... to establish an air of authority on sundry economic subject matters. Bill Still does an excellent job in The Moneymasters. But thanx for reinventing the wheel that countless others had already invented. Don't interpret my assessment of Ruppert here as a rebuke of his findings, but as confirmation of Ruppert's observation of truths (in order to sell the larger 50/50 mix of facts/fictions).

(43:30) In a feeble attempt to shift blame away from the perpetrators of corruption (the Zionist-led bankster empire), Ruppert slyly shifts the discussion into lesser culpability by suggesting that the people are losing control. No hint that the chaos is being engineered.

(44:30) "Dinosaurs were kings of their paradigm." Social Darwinism. Adapt or die. Ruppert is preparing us to accept overpopulation fearmongering and Agenda 21. Yet another theoretical exponential function accolyte that deems fit to dismiss the natural sigmoidal curve which binds actual population growth. Many factors affect population growth rates: standard of living (higher standard of living corresponds with lower birth rates); the availability of spatial and natural resources (e.g. carnivore numbers decline when the herbivore numbers decline as part of negative feedback); richest 1% of the population owning 46% of the world's wealth (Queen reputed to own 6.6 billion acres of land); etc. ... yet the bankster pyramid refuses to address those critical factors ... or the fact that all the world's population today can fit inside the state of Texas with 1000 sq. feet for every single individual (or a tenth of an acre, 4350 sq. ft. for a family of four). Engineered iniquity should be our primary focus ... but Ruppert would rather sell us goods from the bankster's manufacturing warehouse. Enter Agenda 21. And another pointer to Peak Oil.

(48:00) Ruppert is justifying the Hobbesian dialectic of kill or be killed, with his Titanic allusion. There is none of the "we're all in the same boat and we're all going to sink or survive together" feeling with Ruppert. That sort of empathy is always lacking in those that only care for themselves. Ruppert's long history is one of self-promotion and self-interest, he knows who owns the carrot farms. And the two minutes in the video until the 50:00 mark are a chilling reminder of Ruppert's real commitment, e.g. the bankster empire.

(50:30) Back to the Peak Oil scam.

(53:30) Ruppert talks about a transition phase for human civilization. A lot of chaos in this phase. Prepare to survive the chaos, he instructs. Never mind the engineered nature of this chaos. Accept it. Try and survive it. Nothing about laying culpability where it resides. According to Ruppert, the laws of physics are solely responsible for our global crises and shortages ... "No amount of technology and no amount of human ingenuity can possibly overturn the laws of physics." Of course, Ruppert never mentions the engineered plays by Talmudic-led banksters. I mean, I guess he's correct in that no amount of human ingenuity can overturn the fiat decrees of the banksters. Tesla tried. And bankster JP Morgan working for the House of Rothschild turned Tesla into a penniless pauper. So question begs, why isn't Ruppert proposing that we remove the major obstacle to human ingenuity, e.g. the banksters? Why has he chosen instead to steal our collective birthright and great hope called human ingenuity away from us? Free clue: the carrot farm is a virtual paradise for those rabbits given access to it (after agreeing to exercise chase hounds off the bankster scent).

(55:20) A brief mention of the gold scam and some individual survival measures. The bankster empire loves dividing molecules of resistance into individual atoms of self-survival ... which they can easily conquer. Indeed, the push for buying up gold is nothing more than an attempt to break any unity building in the resistance. I still follow Alex Jones from time to time, but the one big issue I have with him is that he also pushes the gold scam. The time to unite against the evil ... is not the time for chasing gold (and never has been). Those who steer people into the 21st century refined gold rush are actually (wittingly and unwittingly) weakening the resistance to the bankster evil.

(56:30) Economic factors inducing failures in cellphone service ... should prompt us to move towards landlines?? What utter gibberish. The power pyramid already has control of said cellphone services and landlines. Ruppert is attempting to create a false sense of security in the usage of landlines. The next few minutes are more attempts at pushing into an individualist perspective and survivalist mentality, e.g. to weaken the group resistance against the bankster evil. Ruppert already exposed his commitment to the Hobbesian dialectic earlier on in the video. IMO, any real solution to the impending totalitarianism must involve collective resistance. Individual resistance is only meant to split us up and conquer us, one screaming idiot at a time. Indeed, critical mass in awareness - which is my strongest argument against the evil empire - is an example of collective resistance.

(57:00) Ruppert starts drumming up "Peak Everything" in the duty of fearmongering. Never once a mention about mismanagement of finite resources and laying culpability where it belongs, e.g. with the bankster pyramid. Indeed, their agenda is to create fear and chaos from which a New World Order can be delivered. Ruppert obliges them at every step.

(58:30) North Korea mentioned to denounce rigid central authority. Cuba mentioned to advance sustainability. I actually agree with Ruppert on the topic of decentralization and localization. My own eddies versus the whirlpool analogy carries the belief that smaller structures are a necessary part of the solution. I guess his 50/50 mix was leaning too far in the incredible direction that Ruppert includes some credible facts to maintain the mix. Of course, we must remember that Ruppert appropriated Webb's investigation into CIA and drugs ... and brought it to a quiet canter towards the stables. Is Ruppert doing the same thing here by pushing sweet things into the ears of the desperate unplacated masses? Not sure. But he's been stooging for the bankster empire to this point, so I'm a little skeptical as to why he would include North Korea as a bad example and Cuba as a good example (of state socialism). Perhaps that's what he's pushing ... state socialism. See, if you look long enough, good folks, the apparent paradoxes disappear.

(1:00:30) The mass movement of peoples .... hmmm ... prelude to accepting Agenda 21? He talks about the government and mainstream media lying through their trucking teeth ... as if we the people didn't know it in spades. Beware of the king's archer sent down to weep with the subjects. The anger phase??

(1:05:30) Back to Ruppert's powers of prognostication. And a misdirect to the strawman of infinite growth.
Infinite growth over finite resources is not the problem. Mismanagement of finite resources is. A very important distinction. The love of money as the root of all evil?? Okay ... so who is pushing the love of money? Ruppert should be devoting his time - even in 2009 - to exposing those evil people pushing us towards the love of money and Sodom and Gomorrah. In a nutshell, the engineered design of things, Ruppert, the design of things.

(1:13:30) And of course, the final straw ... the allusion to Hitler as prepared by the Zionist narrative. FTR, the Third Reich was engineered by the bankster class. Fact. Look it up, good folks..




Pax

ps: I think Ruppert is a decent enough man. But a fundamentally ordinary man. He never had a chance. Born into the alphabet soup fraternity, his life played out predictably, but only because he was an ordinary man with ordinary decency. Many extraordinary men have visited the Good Earth (past and present). Some were put in circumstances similar to Ruppert's; and they managed to become diamonds under enormous pressure exerted on their carbon being. But those are the exceptions. The rule is coal. Most of us are coal. Most of us want to be diamonds. Gary Webb was a diamond. There is credible evidence to support the argument that Webb was murdered because of his association with Ruppert, an ordinary man with extraordinary ambition. I'm sure Ruppert wanted to be extraordnary, but he was not made of the requisite stuff.

ps2: So Ruppert managed his life accordingly. He survived by working for the bankster empire in all kinds of gatekeeping operations. He distorted the news ... mostly slightly ... but just enough to give the bankster empire adequate cover. The preponderance of his distortions (including stuff not mentioned in this video) is available for discussion, if anyone has taken exception to my post and wants to debate an opposing argument (without the name-calling).

ps3: I think in the end, the burden of Ruppert being an ordinary man with ambitions of something much greater ... turned the worm for the bad when he decided to partake on his very first deception for the bankster empire. Then it escalated out of control until he could no longer bear the deceptions and the moral confusion that that must have generated in his conscientious mind (after all, he appears to be a decent enough man). But such men find full expression of their decency short of extraordinary men. The rule of ordinary men is temptation, weakness, vices, self-preservation, etc.

ps4: His apparent suicide can be explained if we understand that decent enough men return to their internal grants of conscience after all the cosmetic stuff fades away (e.g. external grants of fame and fortune). I guess Ruppert could not solve his moral dilemma of having both a grant of conscience ... and simultaneously protecting the perps as they piled up the victims. May his soul find peace wherever it is and may it find a greater grant of conscience in his next adventure.

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Sun May 04, 2014 12:28 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11218
Reply with quote
Post Re: Michael Ruppert
UncleZook wrote:
As promised, I will now render my analysis of Collapse, point by point.

Oh, please! Can't you just gas us into unconsciousness?

Oh well, I might as well provide an abbreviated debunking of your ridiculous "analysis".

Peak oil is not a scam. It's a well thought out and researched theory. If you think of it in terms of "peak cheap fuel", it is pretty accurate.

Ruppert is not scaremongering with regards to Peak Oil. You are, Zook, by trying to scare people into dismissing a valid predictive model of limited-resource production in the face of soaring demand.

Tesla energy is not electrostatic energy. I don't think you know what you are talking about. You've seen too many pictures of Tesla surrounded by the electrostatic discharge from his Tesla coil. That's not free energy. Tesla overloaded and burned out the city power plant in Colorado Springs pulling enormous power to create those sparks.

Ruppert was surely aware of the CIA drug connection without Gary Webb's information. Law enforcement in California has been aware of it for a long time (see "The Underground Empire" by James Mills).

Your so-called analysis of the Collapse video is just "twist and shout", speculation, and story-telling according to Zook. You should be ashamed of trying to pass your interpretation off as the unvarnished truth, but of course you aren't. I find your analysis deceitful, deceptive, and manipulative. In other words, it matches your psychological profile almost flawlessly.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun May 04, 2014 5:46 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11218
Reply with quote
Post Re: Michael Ruppert
UncleZook wrote:
Saudi Arabia has 80 years of current production levels still in its profitable reserves. Nowhere near peak oil fearmongering scenarios.

What happened to questioning everything, Zook? You're going to swallow that "80 years" figure as fact, no questions asked?

"Current production levels" means maintaining 2010 production levels for that one major oil supplier, Saudi Arabia. World demand for oil is constantly increasing. The price of oil is also increasing. Both are out-pacing the rate of supply production. Peak oil is about the inability to maintain production of supply to meet demand. It's not about how much oil there is in totality. It's about our ability to obtain oil at an acceptable price.

Current world consumption of oil is 91,200,000 barrels per day and rising, if we can believe these figures. Oil currently goes for $109 per barrel. Just to obtain all that oil for global consumption, before it is even shipped, refined, and turned into product, costs nearly $10 billion per day! That's about $3628 billion per year.

Just for comparison, what did it cost to bail out the "too big to fail" banks in 2008? $700 billion (TARP)? Or was it really $7700 billion? Or was it even more than that, and they won't reveal the true numbers? And no product was received for that money. None. Now that's a scam.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun May 04, 2014 6:52 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Michael Ruppert
UncleZook wrote:
As promised, I will now render my analysis of Collapse, point by point.

Oh, please! Can't you just gas us into unconsciousness?


An ad hominem to start the counterargument. Duly noted.

Quote:
Oh well, I might as well provide an abbreviated debunking of your ridiculous "analysis".


It has to be abbreviated. I'm surprised you didn't abbreviate to a singularity, for nothing more than a singularity is all the counterargument contains, as we shall see.

Quote:
Peak oil is not a scam. It's a well thought out and researched theory. If you think of it in terms of "peak cheap fuel", it is pretty accurate.


Peak oil is a pointed scam. No one knows the true extent of global oil reserves. In order to demonstrate that oil production has peaked, one must know the true total barrels of oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

beginExcerpt
Based on data from OPEC at the beginning of 2013 the highest proved oil reserves including non-conventional oil deposits are in Venezuela (20% of global reserves), Saudi Arabia (18% of global reserves), Canada (13% of global reserves), and Iran (9%).[2]

Because the geology of the subsurface cannot be examined directly, indirect techniques must be used to estimate the size and recoverability of the resource. While new technologies have increased the accuracy of these techniques, significant uncertainties still remain. In general, most early estimates of the reserves of an oil field are conservative and tend to grow with time. This phenomenon is called reserves growth.[3]
end


http://www.rense.com/general69/noncrisis.htm

beginExcerpt
The following are small excerpts from chapters in Mr. Willims book 'The Energy Non-Crisis'

CHAPTER 1 - The Great Oil Deception ... There is no true energy crisis. There never has been an energy crisis . . . except as it has been produced by the Federal government for the purpose of controlling the American people. ...

CHAPTER 3 - Shut Down That Pipeline ... My friend answered, "Well, Brother Lindsey, that's one of the major cross-country pipelines carrying crude oil from the West to the East." "Ah," I answered, "That's rather interesting. I've heard there's a possibility of an energy crisis. I'm sure glad those pumps are running full speed ahead." ... That was in 1972. You will remember that 1973 was the first time we were told there was really an energy crisis. The East Coast was used as a test for that energy crisis, and there were long lines of people waiting, burning fuel while they waited in line for gas they couldn't get. ... Well, the man finally recognized that I was getting a little bit indignant and he said, "well, mister, if you really want to know the truth, the truth is the Federal government has ordered us to close this pipeline down." The old Westerner went on and told how he stood up to the boss man, "Why man, I can hardly believe that. After all, we've got an energy crisis." The boss man answered him, "Sir, we're closing it down because we've been ordered to." ...
end


From the same article, we find that Gull Island has a big an oil reserve as Saudi Arabia. The following excerpt points to what's under the North Slope of Alaska:

beginExcerpt
The following is a comparison between the three oil fields on the North Slope of Alaska which have been drilled into with numerous wells, tested, and proven. Prudhoe Bay can produce two (2) million barrels of oil every 24 hours for 20 to 40 years at artesian pressure. Imagine what the production of the Kuparuk and Gull Island fields could be.

Field Pay Zone Oil Area of Field

(Average depth of oil pool)

Prudhoe 600 Ft. of pay zone 100 square miles

Kuparuk 300 Ft. of pay zone Twice the size of Prudhoe

Gull Island 1,200 Ft. of pay zone At least four times the size of Prudhoe . . .

Estimates are that it is the richest oil field on the face of the earth. ...
end


Who do we believe? Lindsey Williams who was sitting in on the various energy discussions (while a chaplain) ... or Ruppert (who has a bankster agenda to peddle) and Chico (who has yet another gatekeeper to bodyguard in Ruppert)?

There's a reason for the terminology reserve growth ... because new technology is always increasing the oil supply. How can we have peak oil if the supply keeps increasing? Peak Oil is a scam for at least two reasons. (1) the oil supply keeps increasing with improved technology; (2) the banksters can manipulate the price at the barrel by inducing scarcity. Lindsey Williams demonstrates the argument of induced scarcity in his allusion to the 1973 energy crisis where the East Coast was used as a testing ground, e.g by the government deliberately shutting off the pipeline from West to East.

Quote:
Ruppert is not scaremongering with regards to Peak Oil. You are, Zook, by trying to scare people into dismissing a valid predictive model of limited-resource production in the face of soaring demand.


Look at the evidence, Chico, not your navel.

Quote:
Tesla energy is not electrostatic energy. I don't think you know what you are talking about. You've seen too many pictures of Tesla surrounded by the electrostatic discharge from his Tesla coil. That's not free energy. Tesla overloaded and burned out the city power plant in Colorado Springs pulling enormous power to create those sparks.


Actually, you don't know what you're talking about and are projecting your lack of capacity to understand physics concepts onto me. You did say you were a Physics major, right? Hmm ... fair enough ... who am I to say that you're not? . :lol:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla ... sla_46.htm

beginExcerpt
Earth’s Renewable Energy

Tesla’s World System activates the Earth’s renewable electrical storage battery, which normally sits dormant except during lightning strikes.
[...]

Regarding simply the electrostatic storage capacity of the ionosphere, Dr Oleg Jefimenko, author of Electrostatic Motors, explains that during one electrical storm, the atmospheric electric field dissipates at least 0.2 terawatts (billion kilowatts), indicating that the entire Earth must have even more total available energy.

Furthermore, the power loss experienced by Tesla’s pulsed electrostatic discharge mode of propagation was less than five percent over 25,000 miles.

Dr Van Voorhies states that “path losses are 0.25 dB/Mm at 10 Hz” - which is so minimal it is difficult to believe for engineers who are used to transverse waves, a resistive medium and line-of-sight propagation modes that can dissipate 10 dB/km at 5 MHz.

The capacitive dome of the Wardenclyffe Tower, like the conductive balloon of Tesla’s patent #645,576, is a key to understanding the longitudinal waves.

Dr Rauscher quotes Tesla:
“Later he compared it to a Van de Graaff generator.

He also explained the purpose of Wardenclyffe:

‘…one does not need to be an expert to understand that a device of this kind is not a producer of electricity like a dynamo, but merely a receiver or collector with amplifying qualities'.”

Only a few great physicists, like Dr Elizabeth Rauscher, Dr James Corum and Dr Konstantin Meyl, have realized that Tesla was very practical when he proposed the resonant generation and wireless transmission of useful electrical power.

Tesla’s knowledge of atmospheric electricity transduction was so extensive and reliable that, said Jim Corum (who has been funded to continue Tesla’s work):

“You just have to do exactly what Tesla did and you will consistently get the same results he did.”

After returning from his experiments in Colorado Springs in 1900, Nikola Tesla stated:

“If we use fuel to get our power, we are living on our capital and exhausting it rapidly. This method is barbarous and wantonly wasteful and will have to be stopped in the interests of coming generations.”

In view of our present fossil fuel-caused [or increased] global warming, Tesla seems very prophetic from his vantage point of a century ago.
end


You either have no clue whatsoever about electrostatic discharge ... or you do know but are willing to deceive those who don't know, e.g. the general masses. My guess is that the masses already know through the visual experience of lightning and the occasional shock of doorknobs ... they just don't know the physics of it.

Quote:
Quote:
Ruppert was surely aware of the CIA drug connection without Gary Webb's information. Law enforcement in California has been aware of it for a long time (see "The Underground Empire" by James Mills).

Your so-called analysis of the Collapse video is just "twist and shout", speculation, and story-telling according to Zook. You should be ashamed of trying to pass your interpretation off as the unvarnished truth, but of course you aren't.


http://www.rense.com/general62/ignore.htm

beginExcerpt
Back to Ruppert's association to Gary Webb. Neat job of positioning on that meeting, which was assembled due to Gary's diligent journalistic efforts. Mike got the sound bite. Stole the show. Very impressive, and useful too. As Mike Ruppert eulogized Gary Webb's recent demise, all the while asserting it was a suicide and calling anyone who dared challenge that verdict as "Internet trailer park trash", I was reminded of a politician eulogizing an important figure more to grandstand than express true loss and regret.

As Mike waxed on with his "tribute" to Webb, he constantly inserted himself as someone who was a virtual buddy and prodigy of Gary in real life, urging us to be Webb like and not make hasty conclusions about Gary Webb being assassinated. Here's what Gary Webb himself said about Mike Ruppert, from a Boston Globe article on Ruppert a while back:

** Gary Webb, whose explosive 1996 ''Dark Alliance'' series in the San Jose Mercury News alleged CIA complicity in the Los Angeles crack epidemic, says, ''Mike is a real conundrum. I think he's a sincere guy, concerned about the right things, and he was quite supportive of my efforts to expose the interplay between the CIA and drug traffickers. But he's also written stories expounding a theory about the genesis of my Mercury News series that were, quite frankly, ridiculous.'' ** _
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/

[...]

Mike Ruppert's asserting Gary's death as a suicide, which he considered journalistic, were based on his discussions with an ex-wife and family, noting an error with "Freeway" Ricky Ross's testimony to an Alex Jones interviewer about the outside of Gary's house, and claiming that a .38 revolver is a "relatively weak" firearm, and as an ex-cop he has witnessed several double shot (in the head!?) suicides. By the way, the .38 revolver was used by the LAPD and virtually every police force in this nation for decades. I guess those bullets just bounced off bandits.

The .38 revolver has been replaced by automatic 9 mm pistols, more for efficiency and ease of rapid fire and reloading than power. What is an ex-cop doing when he implies that a .38 revolver is sufficiently weak to enable a suicide victim to squeeze off a second shot, not easy with a revolver, to the head at point blank because the first shot missed his brain and merely blew off half of his jaw? I say he is lying about something. There is more, but I must move on, as Mike would say.

Again, instead of expressing an opinion about Webb's death, albeit a stupid one, he proclaimed his suicide announcement as absolute, irrefutable truth, attacked earnest investigators Alex Jones and John Hankey, and drew a line in the sand, calling everyone who suspected foul play in Gary Webb's death "Internet trailer park trash". Sorta reminds me of "you are either with us or against us". Hmmm, let's splinter up the Internet news, eh Mike? For what reason? Your glory as king of the alt press, your ability to profiteer more as the opinion leader, or gate keeping for . . . .?
end


'Nuff said.

Quote:
I find your analysis deceitful, deceptive, and manipulative. In other words, it matches your psychological profile almost flawlessly.


I'm sure you do ... but the evidence is one-sided and in my corner, so what does that say? That's correct, you are projecting your behaviors onto me. Let's leave it at that.


Pax

ps: Btw, Tesla discovered the extraction of energy from the atmosphere ... so when you allege that "Tesla overloaded and burned out the city power plant in Colorado Springs pulling enormous power to create those sparks." ... are you implying that that negates Tesla's discovery? C'mon, backup up your implied slander of
Tesla. I say implied slander because if the power plant maximum load is N, and say Tesla used 110%(N) and overloaded the system ... but produced say 120%(N) as energy output ... then that is consistent with both free energy and a power plant overload.

FWIW, Here's a reference to the Colorado Springs power plant:
http://www.unmuseum.org/tesla.htm

So I ask once again, physics major and authority on all things physics ... are you refuting Tesla's discovery?

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Sun May 04, 2014 1:11 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11218
Reply with quote
Post Re: Michael Ruppert
UncleZook wrote:
Peak oil is a pointed scam. No one knows the true extent of global oil reserves. In order to demonstrate that oil production has peaked, one must know the true total barrels of oil.

It's not about how much oil there is. It's about human pursuit of that oil, which depends on a myriad of factors, including financial viability of extraction and use. I think you are confused in the following manner:

Quote:
Peak oil is often confused with oil depletion; peak oil is the point of maximum production, while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply. -- source


UncleZook wrote:
Who do we believe? Lindsey Williams who was sitting in on the various energy discussions (while a chaplain) ... or Ruppert (who has a bankster agenda to peddle) and Chico (who has yet another gatekeeper to bodyguard in Ruppert)?

That's exactly where you implode, Zook. All can hold pieces of the puzzle. All can possess some part of the truth. All can be wrong to some extent. This is where your certainty cripples you. You are certain that we need to believe UncleZook, that only he carries the truth, because only he possesses infallible discernment. This is the problem.

UncleZook wrote:
Peak Oil is a scam for at least two reasons. (1) the oil supply keeps increasing with improved technology;

For the moment, this is true, but there is no doubt that the oil supply, especially low-cost oil, is limited. But Peak Oil is about modeling the dynamics of the pursuit and extraction of oil. It's not a deliberate scam, but a model of human resource gathering that's applicable to any limited resource that has an increasing demand profile. You can apply it to firewood gathering, and this actually occurred in human history (see "Internal Combustion" by Edwin Black). Is the Peak Oil theory used inappropriately for propaganda purposes by interested parties? Absolutely. That doesn't make the theory a scam, just because scammers twist it to serve their agendas.

UncleZook wrote:
(2) the banksters can manipulate the price at the barrel by inducing scarcity. Lindsey Williams demonstrates the argument of induced scarcity in his allusion to the 1973 energy crisis where the East Coast was used as a testing ground, e.g by the government deliberately shutting off the pipeline from West to East.

Induced scarcity exists and is another complicating factor. Scammers, meaning sociopaths, deceive and manipulate our industries and even our entire society. They are the problem, and they are deceiving and manipulating us, and they do use Peak Oil and science and the media and everything else at their disposal to steer humanity in the direction they choose. You attempt to do the exact same thing at the microcosm level of this forum by insisting that we must reject everything about Michael Ruppert and accept everything about Gary Webb. It's the way sociopaths operate.

UncleZook wrote:
You either have no clue whatsoever about electrostatic discharge ... or you do know but are willing to deceive those who don't know, e.g. the general masses.

Naturally, you turn it into an oversimplified, binary choice. Your sociopathy cripples your reasoning, Zook.

Electrostatic discharge is energy, and it can be free, but it is only a miniscule subset of the free energy that is available. T. Henry Moray pulled useful power out of the air without any electrostatic discharge involved. I suspect he took advantage of the moving magnetic field of the Earth to produce his electricity, but I am just speculating. I suspect Tesla often took advantage of the LC circuit that is inherent in the Earth (the capacitance of the atmosphere and the moving magnetic field of the planet) as his source of "free energy". And there are other free energies all around us.

UncleZook wrote:
Again, instead of expressing an opinion about Webb's death, albeit a stupid one, he proclaimed his suicide announcement as absolute, irrefutable truth, attacked earnest investigators Alex Jones and John Hankey, and drew a line in the sand, calling everyone who suspected foul play in Gary Webb's death "Internet trailer park trash". Sorta reminds me of "you are either with us or against us".

Sorta reminds me of you, Zook.

I agree we should question Ruppert's certainty here. Genuine truth-seekers appear to have an incidence of suicide and suspicious death far above the general population.

UncleZook wrote:
So I ask once again, physics major and authority on all things physics ... are you refuting Tesla's discovery?

Are you taking lessons from Andy in the art of asking loaded, illegitimate questions?

I do not claim to be an "authority" on anything. I do not refute anything Tesla did or discovered. By contrast, I point out that you appear to consider yourself an authority on Peak Oil, and that you refute the work of all the researchers that contributed to that theory, which is applicable not only to oil, but to all limited resources that face an exponential demand curve.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun May 04, 2014 5:15 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Michael Ruppert
UncleZook wrote:
Peak oil is a pointed scam. No one knows the true extent of global oil reserves. In order to demonstrate that oil production has peaked, one must know the true total barrels of oil.

It's not about how much oil there is. It's about human pursuit of that oil, which depends on a myriad of factors, including financial viability of extraction and use. I think you are confused in the following manner:
Quote:
Peak oil is often confused with oil depletion; peak oil is the point of maximum production, while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply. -- source



beginExcerpt
Peak oil, an event based on M. King Hubbert's theory, is the point in time when the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production is expected to enter terminal decline.[1] Peak oil theory is based on the observed rise, peak, (sometimes rapid) fall, and depletion of aggregate production rate in oil fields over time. Mostly due to the development of new production techniques and the exploitation of unconventional supplies, Hubbert's original predictions for world production proved premature.[2] Peak oil is often confused with oil depletion; peak oil is the point of maximum production, while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply.
end


In either scenario, whether we are talking about total reserves ... or maximum extraction rate of reserves ... the "peak" state necessarily implies foreknowledge about the final state. A key component of the peak oil scam is feigned knowledge of the final state. No one really knows how much oil there is today ... or how much can be extracted tomorrow. Or how many tomorrows we have before we run out of fossil energy ... 50 years? 100? 200? 500? Grab a ticket and take a guess at the number of jelly beans in the jar, Cupid.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Who do we believe? Lindsey Williams who was sitting in on the various energy discussions (while a chaplain) ... or Ruppert (who has a bankster agenda to peddle) and Chico (who has yet another gatekeeper to bodyguard in Ruppert)?

That's exactly where you implode, Zook. All can hold pieces of the puzzle. All can possess some part of the truth. All can be wrong to some extent. This is where your certainty cripples you. You are certain that we need to believe UncleZook, that only he carries the truth, because only he possesses infallible discernment. This is the problem.


My discernment is quite fallible, but not terminally fallible that it misses warranted conclusions. We see that once again, you have pushed the debate into the extremes of fallibility and infallibility ... in a futile attempt to rescue your bankrupt argument. Quite binary.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Peak Oil is a scam for at least two reasons. (1) the oil supply keeps increasing with improved technology;

For the moment, this is true, but there is no doubt that the oil supply, especially low-cost oil, is limited. But Peak Oil is about modeling the dynamics of the pursuit and extraction of oil. It's not a deliberate scam, but a model of human resource gathering that's applicable to any limited resource that has an increasing demand profile.


It's a deliberate scam if one feigns foreknowledge of the final state. Of course, many a Chicken Little has also warned about the sky tumbling down all around us ... but in the end, when the sky holds, Chicken Littles are relegated to the bin with the boy and his songbook about a wolf.

That said, when we apply Peak Oil to Ruppert's specific carriage of it, that then invokes the preponderance of other scams he is associated with (e.g. "Israel had nothing to do with 9/11."; "Gary Webb definitely committed suicide."; Ruppert's narrative of Islamic fundamentalism which is identical to the bankster empire's narrative; Ruppert's narrative on human overpopulation which is identical to the narrative of Agenda 21; etc.) ... and that lessens any anxiety we may have about Peak Oil possibly not being a scam.

To wit, we know that oil will eventually run out. But we don't know when oil will run out. And those who promote the Peak Oil Hypothesis are nothing short of scammers, the lot of them, because they feign foreknowledge of something they don't know.

Quote:
You can apply it to firewood gathering, and this actually occurred in human history (see "Internal Combustion" by Edwin Black). Is the Peak Oil theory used inappropriately for propaganda purposes by interested parties? Absolutely. That doesn't make the theory a scam, just because scammers twist it to serve their agendas.


This is a thread about Ruppert. His carriage of Peak Oil is indeed a scam ... twice the subterfuge, to be accurate. Once, to promote an increase in oil prices (for the elites) via induced scarcity ... and again, to promote human population culling (by the elites) via the argument of too many energy consumers. The preponderance against Ruppert has no room for any other conclusion.

Quote:

UncleZook wrote:
(2) the banksters can manipulate the price at the barrel by inducing scarcity. Lindsey Williams demonstrates the argument of induced scarcity in his allusion to the 1973 energy crisis where the East Coast was used as a testing ground, e.g by the government deliberately shutting off the pipeline from West to East.

Induced scarcity exists and is another complicating factor. Scammers, meaning sociopaths, deceive and manipulate our industries and even our entire society. They are the problem, and they are deceiving and manipulating us, and they do use Peak Oil and science and the media and everything else at their disposal to steer humanity in the direction they choose. You attempt to do the exact same thing at the microcosm level of this forum by insisting that we must reject everything about Michael Ruppert and accept everything about Gary Webb. It's the way sociopaths operate.


Not able to legitimately contest the culpability of the scammers, Chico resorts to ignoring the preponderance against Ruppert and, simultaneously, initiating a preponderance against Webb. He's already carried an imaginary preponderance (e.g. 100% innuendo) this far against Zook (a garden-variety empath) ... so the very notion that he would initiate innuendo against Webb (the gold standard of empaths) - which would be unseemly for the majority of us - is not all that surprising.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
You either have no clue whatsoever about electrostatic discharge ... or you do know but are willing to deceive those who don't know, e.g. the general masses.

Naturally, you turn it into an oversimplified, binary choice. Your sociopathy cripples your reasoning, Zook.

Electrostatic discharge is energy, and it can be free, but it is only a miniscule subset of the free energy that is available. T. Henry Moray pulled useful power out of the air without any electrostatic discharge involved. I suspect he took advantage of the moving magnetic field of the Earth to produce his electricity, but I am just speculating. I suspect Tesla often took advantage of the LC circuit that is inherent in the Earth (the capacitance of the atmosphere and the moving magnetic field of the planet) as his source of "free energy". And there are other free energies all around us.


Please, Chico ... don't try to speculate about physics to us. You already tried speculating in an area of the soft science of psychology, e.g. sociopathy ... and had swallowed your foot up to the hip area. Let's keep one foot around so we can still hop from carrot to carrot, shall we? :lol:

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Again, instead of expressing an opinion about Webb's death, albeit a stupid one, he proclaimed his suicide announcement as absolute, irrefutable truth, attacked earnest investigators Alex Jones and John Hankey, and drew a line in the sand, calling everyone who suspected foul play in Gary Webb's death "Internet trailer park trash". Sorta reminds me of "you are either with us or against us".

Sorta reminds me of you, Zook.


Let the arrows of character assassination for the sake of character assassination, rain! :lol:

Quote:
I agree we should question Ruppert's certainty here. Genuine truth-seekers appear to have an incidence of suicide and suspicious death far above the general population.

UncleZook wrote:
So I ask once again, physics major and authority on all things physics ... are you refuting Tesla's discovery?

Are you taking lessons from Andy in the art of asking loaded, illegitimate questions?

I do not claim to be an "authority" on anything. I do not refute anything Tesla did or discovered. By contrast, I point out that you appear to consider yourself an authority on Peak Oil, and that you refute the work of all the researchers that contributed to that theory, which is applicable not only to oil, but to all limited resources that face an exponential demand curve.


Well, the simple fact that you're admitting that you're not an authority on anything ... is good enough to fit reality. And that's good enough for me. Contrary to the mumblings of the character assassins (characssins??) I'm not that kind of truthseeker that needs to go further and expose total ineptness in others ... in one, few, or many things.

So I will let you keep your eeps ... so that one day you can look back and say that you have kept your epts, ineptness notwithstanding.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Tue May 06, 2014 3:45 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11218
Reply with quote
Post Re: Michael Ruppert
UncleZook wrote:
A key component of the peak oil scam is feigned knowledge of the final state.

That's why it's a theory, Einstein. That doesn't necessarily make it a scam. You are implying that all theories are scams because they feign knowledge of some final state. You are so ridiculous, Zook.

UncleZook wrote:
My discernment is quite fallible, but not terminally fallible that it misses warranted conclusions.

You just demonstrated again the fallibility of your discernment. Your discernment produces prodigious amounts of unwarranted conclusions.

UncleZook wrote:
Not able to legitimately contest the culpability of the scammers, Chico resorts to ignoring the preponderance against Ruppert and, simultaneously, initiating a preponderance against Webb. He's already carried an imaginary preponderance (e.g. 100% innuendo) this far against Zook (a garden-variety empath) ... so the very notion that he would initiate innuendo against Webb (the gold standard of empaths) - which would be unseemly for the majority of us - is not all that surprising.

Good demonstration of both "twist and shout" and arriving at unwarranted conclusions. You continue to expose your sociopathy, Zook.

UncleZook wrote:
Please, Chico ... don't try to speculate about physics to us. You already tried speculating in an area of the soft science of psychology, e.g. sociopathy ...

You dismiss all the information I deliver on sociopathy as speculation (and we know why, since you are a sociopath), when the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing and broadly supported. You argue that everyone has known about sociopathy for millennia, then you argue it's a soft science and speculation. What a hypocrite you are. Or perhaps I should say what a manipulative sociopath you are.

UncleZook wrote:
Let the arrows of character assassination for the sake of character assassination, rain! :lol:

No, no, no. You were just inadvertently observing and condemning in others the very behavior you manifest. That's not character assassination. That's hypocrisy.

UncleZook wrote:
I'm not that kind of truthseeker that needs to go further and expose total ineptness in others ...

True enough, because you aren't any kind of truth-seeker at all. You're a sociopath, and sociopaths hide the truth.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Tue May 06, 2014 6:31 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.