It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oil is not of fossil origin and is inexhaustible

page: 4
87
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NibiruWarrior

I've read a lot of research and there are theories that OIL is the blood of the Earth, if you consider that the Earth is a living entity, which I and many others do.


Wouldn't that make us vampires of a sort?




posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by polar
 


It was a little amusing to me when the article said that fossils are never found with oil.

My grandfather was a roughneck, and he loved to tell me about the things that used to come out of those wells with the mud. In particular he said, there was this plant with odd joints in its stalk, and according to him, when that stuff starts coming out of the well you're drilling, it's a good sign that you're close to the right depth. He also had a nice little collection of megalodon teeth he had accumulated in the oil fields.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by polar

Originally posted by Solenki

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by freighttrain

Originally posted by sr_robert1
reply to post by Solenki
 




The problem is you get your knwoledge exactly just from the books. How you made your pHD? from the books? from an actual field?

Have you ever really gone to an oil platform and drilled the hell out of a hole and talked with experienced people in that area? Did you talk with some oil extractor expert about what he thinks of it?

Thats the problem in the society we live today, it´s all learned from books and few actually go for the real deal. Do you guys say that for real life experience?
Sincerely i enjoy more reading some posts here about real life story's than some guys just trying to convince everyone by all force because of facts. Those people instead of just denying it because they just know it and i don't, should just read it again and try to get something constructive out of it.
Nowadays we think we reached the top and think we know all.
Guess what 300 hundred years ago they tough they knew too. Stop denying whatever you don't like and be more humble and contructive with new ideas.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by polar]


The problem is you get your knwoledge exactly just from the books. How you made your pHD? from the books?
Yes I did, can't revive dead people to have a chat with them sadly, and you can't always meet everyone working on the same subject as you, specialy when it's international. Books are important, can't do anything without them, then it's up to you if your are intelligent enough to discern what is good to take as possible and true to what is just impossible and a pure fantasy.

From an actual field?
Yes also, spend a hell lot of time on field trip, that's what a geologist do, that's what I still do.

Have you ever really gone to an oil platform and drilled the hell out of a hole ?
Yes I did Sir, didn't dig it myself thanks god, and wasn't in the north sea also, god bless those working there as the conditions are very very harsh.

talked with experienced people in that area? Did you talk with some oil extractor expert about what he thinks of it?
Yes again, during all of my scholarship, and even more after as I was more confident and more experienced, with people form very different horizons, this is not a closed world and this is how you obtain your opinion on things.
I have also talked with sedimentologist, paleontologist, chemist, physicist, biologist, mathematician, well the only one I haven't talked with are psychologist.........

I'll had one : Did you made you self experiences in laboratories and studied it, and discussed it with others, comparing it, searching for mistakes and all, and enhanced your knowledge trough your self experiences ? Did your work and your life depended on it and was your result checked by a community of researcher ?
I did too, I'm doing it, right now, everyday of my life, with my two eyes, my two hands and my brain.
If you can't believe it, it's up to you.

If you believe that all our knowledge comes from the books, then you are miles away form understanding who we are, and a lot more away form understanding scientist in general, sorry pal.
A geologist is formed on the field from is very first year at college, and then he do that all is life, ask aorAki too if you want, I can bet my kidney he/she had the same formation.

This will be my last post for tonight as this one maid me a little upset and i'm kind of tired as it's now 3 in the morning and my last cigarette is calling for a last one.


and for endisnighe good find that's a part of the article I was talking about in www.abovetopsecret.com...
Good night
Bonne nuit tous le monde



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by freighttrain
 

It was the scholars, the educated, who knew that the world is round. It was the illiterate and uneducated who believed it to be flat.

en.wikipedia.org...


By the world you mean Earth, of course.
And the world-Universe is expanding? That's what scholars say now.
But not the Earth. Earth does not expand. For now, at least. These two theories are really contradictory.

Funny thing about theory, any theory. It needs not be true, all it needs is to be operational, useful as a tool.

At one time, flat Earth was a useful theory. Then, it was round Earth. And now it is the network-Earth. (Globalization is actually un-sphere-ing planet Earth and turning it into a network).

Even worse, it's a digital Earth, a holographic Earth, a matrix Earth, whatever and whoever needs it be. A kaleidoscopic Earth.

There is water on the Moon. And on Mars. Soon enough, there will be vodka on the Moon and canals on Mars. I have no doubt about that. This is how things come to be, how they are revealed.

Suddenly, it's not this, it is that. A new consensus is reached.

Some say naphtha is needed as lubricant for those continental plates to glide smoothly instead of creating havoc... Interesting theory, makes sense...

Oil utilized by living beings has this function as a lubricant too, and other functions. Nothing is too simple.

If educated persons become victims of their own vision, are they still to be considered educated, or short circuited?



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by nydsdan
The ignorance in this thread is epic.

Folks, there is a BIG difference between scientific research and being taught.



My god, at least put some sort of verifiable scientific research into what you are saying. Scientists and researchers don't just sit around in university libraries learning what somebody else wrote - they do research on their own theories. Yes, they will sit in the library for long hours performing step 2 of the aforementioned scientific method, this is true. But the entire process from idea to hypothesis to experiment is how progress is made.


Sure, it is possible for abiogenic oil to form, but no theory has been verifiable. We do know that organic matter when subject to the right conditions can produce oil.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by nydsdan]


Okay, now that you have a couple of good points made in your post, I will forget about the condescension in your post. Take a look at my previous post and tell me if THESE scientists are just regurgitating talking points?



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by polar

The problem is you get your knwoledge exactly just from the books. How you made your pHD? from the books? from an actual field?

Have you ever really gone to an oil platform and drilled the hell out of a hole and talked with experienced people in that area? Did you talk with some oil extractor expert about what he thinks of it?



The majority of higher degrees in geology involve at least a component of field work, which means getting out and observing and interpreting....but oh noes that interpretation was gained by reading a book so it must be flawed.

Get over it and get over yourself. You have, obviously, not much understanding of what occurs in the field of Geology if that is your attitude....



Originally posted by Solenki
A geologist is formed on the field from is very first year at college, and then he do that all is life, ask aorAki too if you want, I can bet my kidney he/she had the same formation.


That is true. Field work is a large component of the undergraduate degree here and it is expected that that will continue into Postgraduate Research.....it is essential for gaining an understanding of Earth Systems Processes and is complimentary to 'book' learning which is important as well...if you actually read the books and visit the areas outlined and discussed within them you start to get an overall picture which fits together like a jigsaw, How good you are at the 'jigsaw' is what is important. Some people can't do them very well and others are brilliant. Me, I'm sufficient (which is why I'm 'just' a lowly technician
) but I certainly wouldn't entertain the thought of undertaking a course in Geology without a component of fieldwork. It is essential.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by aorAki]

[edit on 16-11-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by polar
 


Abiotic would be very nice if real. Just like conspiracy theory in general,

the 'powers that be' would never allow disclosure of the truth, and the

oil companies would never drill a replenishable site if it existed. The classic

catch 22 of conspiracy.

I like the theory, as hydrocarbons exist on the lifeless gas giants, so why not here...

sadly the physics doesn't work.

Read this:

www.energybulletin.net...



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

I am going to ask again, look at THIS




Originally posted by endisnighe
Oh, here is one of the articles I came across. It is from this Little known place called the Carnegie Institute. Are they a good enough source, or am I going to get more flack for my research?

And if you like it, how about an apology to everyone here.

Hydrocarbons in Deep Earth

And here is the video presentation.

Video confirming the production of heavy hydrocarbons under abiotic conditions!!!!



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Laugh my arse off -
is this thread a joke.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


finally, a story with some real 'field experience.'

nicely added.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

I am going to ask again, look at THIS




Originally posted by endisnighe
Oh, here is one of the articles I came across. It is from this Little known place called the Carnegie Institute. Are they a good enough source, or am I going to get more flack for my research?

And if you like it, how about an apology to everyone here.

Hydrocarbons in Deep Earth

And here is the video presentation.

Video confirming the production of heavy hydrocarbons under abiotic conditions!!!!


Any response?



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


that's exactly why the theory is controversial - the russians are its

main proponents, and yes they work at an institue of higher learning

with an excellent engineering school.


Reminds me of habdullo abdumassatov's rankling feathers at international

geophysics meetings with his theory of solar oscillation accounting for

future global cooling...not warming (www.gao.spb.ru...)


the common problem encountered with abiologic/ abiotic oil seems to be

what transformation takes place of the hydrocarbons at great pressure at depth,

and in what form do they migrate into the outer crust....



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


If that link had been used to start of this thread it would have saved a lot of hassle. Now the question is how much exactly is produced and how long does it take to travel to reach a surface we can drill too.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by drphilxr
 


I know it is controversial, I just hate it when people cannot even look at the theories and experiments that are reproducible.

If I had the inclination, I would scan through my Chem books again and see if their are experiments that show simple hydrocarbons such as methane being produced in normal conditions.

Hydrocarbons are only made up of carbon and hydrogen, very simple chains.

That is why bio-diesels are actually easy to create, if they are easy to create from organic materials(I never had organic chemistry) I would think creating a hydrocarbon out of carbon and hydrogen would be easy.

Anyway, it justs aggravates me, that the majority of posters here, just wanted to laugh off the evidence, or not even ask for any.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
edit double post

[edit on 11/16/2009 by endisnighe]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by polar
 


Neither of those two are geologists, chemists, or biologists.

If I remember correctly, all of our beloved christian presidents were from northern "elite" colleges. They know # about science.



If the Russian guy is talking about "fuel" in general, then I agree, fuel can exist abiotically.

But petroleum in specific? Don't think so.




However, it would be interesting if petroleum can be produced under "natural conditions" in a lab.

That would be a conspiracy against the oil companies who might have advertised all of this "peak oil" to gain profit.

[edit on 11/16/2009 by die_another_day]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solenki



Reservoirs don't fill up by themselves, we help them...




Mao Tse tung..........................77,000,000
WWI (1914-1918)....................15,000,000
WWII ( 1937-45).....................55,000,000
Russian Civil War (1917-22).......9,000,000
SU (Stalin--1924-53)................20,000,000
Mussolini (1922-43)......................224,250

....and many more you never heard or thought of...users.erols.com...

Soylent green......the new dinosaur.





[edit on 16-11-2009 by Alethea]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Petroleum is simply too toxic to have fossil origin



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   


I'm really gonna mess things up on this thread!!!!

READY?

IMANUAEL VELIKOVSKY!!!!

I did a quick scan and didnt see his name. Forgive me if I missed it.


This guy has been proven correct too many times with some crazy concepts that have repeatedly proved true.

This is from the fish wrap, i mean, bird cage liner,er compost starter the

New York Times.

Oil is EXTRATERRESTRIAL!

www.nytimes.com...

quote:
The conventional view of most scientists is that natural gas and petroleum originated from fossil remains of living organisms. However, the extraterrestrial source of hydrocarbons was suggested much earlier by Immanuel Velikovsky in 1950 in his book ''Worlds in Collision.'' Velikovsky argued that the earth's petroleum deposits came from comets. The idea that petroleum came from space was ridiculed at the time. Now it is put forward by others in perfect seriousness.

A related article, ''A New Light in the Sky'' (New York Times Magazine, March 29), described ''a tarlike chemical, mainly molecules of carbon and hydrogen, that was discovered in Comet Halley last year.'' The article continued: ''There are strong suspicions that the dark substance contributes to the blast crust that was found to cover Halley's. Such dark surfaces are also seen on some of the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn, leading scientists to wonder if there are connections between the planetary satellites and comets.''

Perhaps Velikovsky was right! Clearly, his ideas are intriguing and have attracted many supporters. Recent discoveries in space and in the earth's crust have demonstrated, at the least, that his cataclysmic concept of the world's history must be taken seriously.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethea
 


you forgot the japanese, they would be above WWI.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join